Christian OU student flunked after calling gender ideology 'demonic'

[Michie]

A Christian pre-med student has gone viral in recent days for filing a religious discrimination complaint with the University of Oklahoma after a trans-identified teaching assistant allegedly flunked her for an essay stating that gender ideology is "demonic."

Samantha Fulnecky, a junior at the University of Oklahoma who is majoring in psychology, received a zero out of 25 for a 650-word opinion essay she was told to write in her "Lifespan Development" class in response to an article about social gender expectations, according to The Oklahoman.

According to a copy of her essay published by the local outlet, Fulnecky asserted that God created two distinct genders with different roles, and that the idea of changing one's gender is a satanic assault against that design.

Continued below.

Christian OU student flunked after calling gender ideology 'demonic'

A Christian pre-med student has gone viral in recent days after filing a religious discrimination complaint that claims a trans-identified teaching assistant flunked her for an essay stating that

www.christianpost.com

 

[RileyG]

Ridiculous. That professor who failed her should be fired.

 

[Delvianna]

Good for her! I hope she wins against the school.

 

[RileyG]

Good for her! I hope she wins against the school.

Amen!

 

[PloverWing]

I am not convinced that flunking students and firing teaching assistants is a constructive way to engage in dialogue about controversial topics.

 

[RileyG]

I am not convinced that flunking students and firing teaching assistants is a constructive way to engage in dialogue about controversial topics.

That’s fair. I think when it comes to controversy, both sides of the issue must be presented in an unbiased, non-emotional manner. If I’m making any sense.

 

[jacks]

Some instructors aren't interested in teaching.
They just want their opinions parroted back to them.

 

[RileyG]

Some instructors aren't interested in teaching.
They just want their opinions parroted back to them.

In this case, the instructor was transgender, so he was very biased against this student. sigh

 

[PloverWing]

In this case, the instructor was transgender, so he was very biased against this student. sigh

And the "demonic" part would have been especially hurtful to the transgender/non-binary instructor reading the essay.

That’s fair. I think when it comes to controversy, both sides of the issue must be presented in an unbiased, non-emotional manner. If I’m making any sense.

If an instructor is going to give students an assignment to read and write about a controversial topic, then, yes, the focus needs to be on how to construct an argument and clearly lay it out in writing. If the topic is so emotionally charged that students and instructors aren't going to be able to set aside their emotions long enough to construct and evaluate arguments, then maybe pick a different topic for the assignment.

 

[RileyG]

And the "demonic" part would have been especially hurtful to the transgender/non-binary instructor reading the essay.



If an instructor is going to give students an assignment to read and write about a controversial topic, then, yes, the focus needs to be on how to construct an argument and clearly lay it out in writing. If the topic is so emotionally charged that students and instructors aren't going to be able to set aside their emotions long enough to construct and evaluate arguments, then maybe pick a different topic for the assignment.

Yes, it can be hurtful, I understand, but I can understand why the student may have felt that way. It’s not nice to call people “demonic,” but people should be free to express their opinion in a kinder, milder way? I don’t know if I am making sense?

 

[camille70]

How college assignment became latest battle in the culture wars

“She reacted to an imagined version of the article, not the research in front of her," Josh Olds says of Samantha Fulnecky.

baptistnews.com

...Nowhere in their research do Jewell and Brown discuss transgender identity, nonbinary identity, gender transition, pronouns or anything adjacent to contemporary culture-war debates. Rather, their focus is gender typicality — how closely a child’s visible behavior matches peer expectations...

...Fulnecky’s reflection misreads the article by assuming it is about transgender or nonbinary ideology, when in fact the article does not address those topics at all. Terms like “gender atypicality” refer to children liking non-stereotypical activities — boys who enjoy art, girls who prefer sports (and this is where we should note that Fulnecky is a member of OU’s women’s tennis team) — not to children questioning their gender. The reflection attributes views to the article the authors never express....

...Another misunderstanding arises when the reflection frames the article as advocating for “eliminating gender.” The study does not argue this. Its only claim is that children fare better when they are not punished for liking activities outside traditional stereotypes. Affirming that a boy can enjoy reading instead of football or that a girl can prefer science to dance is not a call to abolish gender. It is a call to stop harming children for being themselves....

...Fulnecky also denies the article’s central finding that gender-based teasing harms children, writing that teasing “is not necessarily a problem” and suggesting men and women are not pressured to conform. This contradicts the research directly, which links teasing to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, negative body image and school avoidance. Dismissing these data because they conflict with personal ideology is not an academic critique — it is a refusal to understand or engage the material.

In short, Fulnecky’s reflection on Jewell and Brown’s article is not actually a reflection or reaction to the article. She does not meaningfully engage the article’s variables, data or methodology. She misunderstands its central premise and contradicts without rationale its central conclusion.
Instead of analyzing the study, Fulnecky critiques an ideological position unrelated to the article’s content. She reacted to an imagined version of the article, not the research in front of her. And that is the larger issue....

...Fulnecky’s response does not merely misunderstand Jewell and Brown’s findings; it reinforces the very harm the researchers documented. And this is not an isolated misreading but a textbook example of a broader pattern within contemporary conservative ideology, where empirical questions are routinely reframed as theological battles or moral panics.

Instead of engaging the study’s clear evidence that shame and teasing damage children, Fulnecky substitutes an entirely different issue: Gender panic and culture-war rhetoric.

By shifting the conversation away from the well-being of children and toward a manufactured ideological threat, she protects the systems of ridicule and social pressure the article identifies as harmful. In the end, Fulnecky’s reaction doesn’t just miss the point, it becomes part of the problem by perpetuating the very patterns of bullying and coercion she insists are acceptable for others while demanding validation for herself....