THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Spring 2004 Sexual Identities and Schooling

also been considered as a criteria for pedophilic relationships. However, this presumes a parallel relationship between physical and emotional ma-turity that is, to say the least, not axiomatic. When self-defined, the Paedophile Information Exchange in Great Britain suggested “sexual love directed toward children,” with children operationalized as “both in prepuberty and early adolescence” (Gay Left Collective, 1992, p. 432).

For the current discussion, the repression and ambiguity surrounding the construct of childhood sexuality is sufficient that it is mistakenly taken up as a semantic feature when “primary male” or “homosexual” is constructed in a discussion. Yet with an unclear definition of actual pedophilic re-lationships, the often unspoken connotative discus-sion continues to occur. In countless discussions, after an unsatisfactory interrogation of these dif-ferent constructs, we throw up our hands, and ar-gue (for the sake of the children) “Better to be safe than sorry.” Such reasoning, and the lack of critical examination from which it stems, will likely continue to exclude men, and especially gay men, from working with young children. More emphati-cally, such uncritical resignation perpetuates chil-dren’s availability as potential victims for the hidden perpetrators (Silin, 1995).

Conclusion

As teachers and prospective teachers, gay men have made a very bad bargain. We have tacitly agreed that we would not promote homosexuality and do so by keeping ourselves in the closet. By not “act-ing gay” we would not be visible as practicing ho-mosexuals and therefore children would not imprint on our “deviant sexualities.” This bargain has set up countless occasions for paranoia, monitoring one’s teaching behavior, and policing oneself for evidence of homosexuality, lest a colleague, parent, or princi-pal deduce our sexual persona for us. We must begin to think differently about this conundrum, which was based on an outdated identity politic. According to Haggerty (1995):

As a community, we seem in a certain sense to have accepted the terms that the hegemonic culture, which labels [negatively] any discussion of homosexuality that is not homophobic, has set for this discussion. [In contrast,] we must find ways to teach our stu-dents to be gay and lesbian, to show them that it is possible to flourish as lesbians and gay men in a cul-ture that does everything it can to silence and oppress us. If we do not promote homosexuality in the class-room, we are surely promoting heterosexuality. And in our culture that is merely redundant. (p. 12)

From Haggerty’s thinking, the bargain of closeted silence made by gay teachers life outside of school sets its own limits, and then opens the discursive playing field for others’ end runs against our own self-interest. Others are surely using this vacated talk space as occasion to construct gay teachers as the waiting pedophilic monsters. As disruptive al-ternatives, a gay teacher may model a possible life for young children who will later be gay and lesbi-an adults. As part of teaching practice, a gay teacher may provide narratives (and/or counter narratives) in response to the media portrayals and in response to the home-based interpretive texts spun from me-dia texts about “morally dangerous” homosexual lives.

At this time, families are straining to accom-modate the related demands of two-career families and single-parent households. Socially, we cele-brate women’s increased options that allow all of us to claim our rights to professional and work lives. But the stresses that result from actualizing these rights have had palpable effects on child rear-ing. Classrooms that are imbued with caring teach-ers are a likely support for troubled families. In fact, men have much to contribute to a caring gap in children’s development. And gay males, with feet on both sides of the chasm of gender politics, may provide nurturing and caring in ways that are especially productive for young children. Gender is a construction for gay males. Building and un-building one’s gender as a performance (Simpson, 1994) allows a deep understanding of how gender is implicated in learning contexts and our interpre-tations of those contexts. If we want teaching that is based on caring for our young children, and we want male role models for them as well, then it makes sense to keep our options for healthy per-sity open. Yet, bullying and excluding gay males based on homophobic bigotry is clearly inappro-priate, especially in contexts that intend to be caring.