Last week, the online media blew up with the Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy. In a psychology class at the University of Oklahoma, a junior (Samantha Fulnecky) received a grade of zero for her essay in response to the research article by Jewell and Brown (2014). Inexplicitly, Samantha filed a formal complaint to the university, which ultimately cumulated into an entire saga where the poor graduate teaching assistant was placed on administrative leave and Samantha herself achieved national fame.

You can read her essay here. It is hilariously, atrociously bad work for a college junior; how did she even thought she had a chance for a good grade for this piece of work? Things got even worse when she actually managed to get away with it by getting Turning Point USA on her side to get the instructor fired.

There’s plenty of resources online criticizing just how bad the essay was already, so I don’t have anything original to add to that. Part of the reason why her essay gained notoriety is her inclusion of “biblical” material into her writing to supplement her stance that 1) gender stereotypes are natural and should be enforced because “God made men and women differently with different roles” (she never mentions what those roles are); and 2) calling the idea of multiple genders “demonic”.

Obviously, those are disgusting takes for anyone for anyone with a shred of empathy, but that’s not the point of the assignment. If one actually read the article by Jewell and Brown, it was a proper study on how atypical gender expression among early teens drives gender-based teasing among their peers, leading to negative health outcomes. Nowhere in the article did the authors give their opinion on whether atypical gender expression was good or bad – the point was how it linked to teens’ social interactions and mental health. Somehow this spurred Samantha to fight her own imaginary gender crusade.

But could someone who held similar conservative views like Samantha write an essay that was (somewhat) decent, while mentioning her stance on gender? Could one get away with citing Scripture as part of academic writing? Not that I approve of her views, but being able to engage with controversial perspectives is a feature of academic study, including the ability to come up with arguments for the other side.

Here’s my attempt at it!

A discussion of Jewell and Brown (2014) on gender norms and expression

The study by Jewell and Brown (2014) provides valuable insights into how gender expression relates to mental health outcomes in early teens and raises important questions on the types of intervention required to overcome gender-based teasing. My essay will primarily focus on the latter, especially in the current political and social landscape where gender identity and expression are increasingly seen as polarizing issues.

One of the key findings by the authors is how atypical gender expression has social repercussions for adolescents, resulting in negative mental health outcomes such as depressive symptoms. While it may not be surprising news that gender-based bullying can deteriorate adolescents’ mental health, it does highlight that preventing such bullying from taking place can effectively mitigate these negative mental health outcomes. What is less clear is the best way to achieve this. Should institutions focus strictly on enforcing rules to punish bullies directly? Or should institutions teach adolescents to communicate respectfully across gender differences without casting judgement or condemnation onto their peers? Or perhaps institutions may choose to focus on normalizing atypical gender expressions? While pursuing all three may sound ideal, religious and cultural norms may inhibit the pursuit of the latter two for fear of normalizing atypical gender expressions (Tranby and Zulkowski, 2012).

Having been raised in the Christian tradition, myself, as do many others, broadly believe that men and women are created differently to fulfil distinct, but complementary roles (MacArthur Jr, 2010). This is often supported using the Creation account in Genesis 2:18 (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition Bible, 2021), which states that Eve, the woman, was created to be a helper to Adam, the man. Hence, within the Christian-dominated landscape of the US, many believers feel gender norms should be upheld to reflect the distinct identities of men and women (Pew Research Centre, 2024). This is likely to translate into reluctance to normalize atypical gender expressions, which suggests a more legislative approach to prevent or penalize bullying should be prioritized instead.

I acknowledge that there are many gender stereotypes that probably should be eliminated, such as whether girls cannot be good at physics, or boys should always be masculine and athletic. Yet, this alone does not necessitate an egalitarian approach to gender roles, and there could be other social benefits in preserving inherited gender norms. For example, gender norms form a subset of social norms and enforcing them could aid in stamping out behaviors undesired by society (Cislaghi and Heise, 2020). From the article, Jewell and Brown noted that gender-based teasing cannot fully explain why gender atypicality leads to increased anxiety rates and declining self-esteem, suggesting traditional gender identities may be something more intrinsic to people that is essential for well-being. Recognizing biological differences between males and females, gender norms could be one way to usher the right sex to fulfil certain gender expectations and societal roles, such as getting more women to be caretakers and men into roles that require considerable physical strength such as those in the military (Diekman and Goodfriend, 2006). In the Christian tradition, women are expected to submit to their husbands in marriage (New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition Bible, 2021, Ephesians 5:22; Reid, 2013), suggesting adherence to gender expectations may be essential to conform to religious demands for in-group harmony. In such circumstances, gender norms may be preferentially enforced instead, even at the cost of increased gender-based teasing. This is a stark contrast to global efforts to promote gender equality (United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 5, 2025) and potentially hinders how society deals with issues such as gender-based teasing or freedom of gender expression, for any intervening measures may be construed as a threat to these norms.

One major uncertainty that I feel has been inadequately covered in this study is the nature of said bullying and atypical gender expression. While the article mentioned several dimensions of gender normality such as athleticism in boys and thinness in girls, it is unclear from the article which violations of gender typicality invite the most judgement from one’s peers. This is an important context-dependent knowledge gap that limits the generality of this study’s findings. As a speculation, boys that deviate from gender expectations of athleticism may face greater social penalties in a school that emphasizes sports, whereas obese girls may not face increased levels of bullying in schools that deemphasize dances and prom nights. Such knowledge will be immensely beneficial for further study to inform educators on how they can adjust teaching programs and methods of communication catered to their own student bodies to overcome unhealthy gender stereotypes they face.

To conclude, I feel this article is an important piece of work that shines a light on critical issues regarding gender expression and mental health. Yet, I foresee great challenges in translating these findings into actual policy to mitigate negative health outcomes among adolescents, given how intertwined gender perceptions are with religious and social norms. Unfortunately, given the rising levels of polarization in the US, such research will likely be even more necessary than ever before, while also becoming even harder to pursue in the near future for fear of backlash from those who maintain conservative views on gender norms.

Cislaghi, B., & Heise, L. (2020). Gender norms and social norms: differences, similarities and why they matter in prevention science. Sociology of health & illness, 42(2), 407-422.

Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006). Rolling with the changes: A role congruity perspective on gender norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 369-383.

Jewell, J. A., & Brown, C. S. (2014). Relations among gender typicality, peer relations, and mental health during early adolescence. Social Development, 23(1), 137-156.

MacArthur Jr, J. (2010). Divine design: God’s complementary roles for men and women. David C. Cook.

New Revised Standard Version Revised Edition Bible. (2021). National Council of the Churches of Christ.

Pew Research Center. (2024). Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election.

Reid, M. (2013). Unjust signifying practices: Submission and subordination among Christian fundamentalists. Journal of feminist studies in religion, 29(2), 154-161.

Tranby, E., & Zulkowski, S. E. (2012). Religion as cultural power: The role of religion in influencing Americans’ symbolic boundaries around gender and sexuality. Sociology Compass, 6(11), 870-882.

United Nations. (2025). The sustainable development goals report 2025.

Closing thoughts

Perhaps a huge disclaimer is needed here: I do not think my essay is good, nor do I truly uphold the views espoused in the essay. Furthermore, I have taken a grand total of ONE psychology course in my entire academic journey, and I am probably woefully underinformed on the prevailing theories in the field.

Regardless, this was an interesting self-exercise to 1) construct an argument for an opposing conservative view, and 2) cite Scripture in a formal academic essay that is reasonable and adheres to academic standards. Both can be done. But it requires careful writing to ensure that one does not assume his/her interpretation of Scripture is held universally (which almost never is).

Do let me know how I did in the comments!