In April of this year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) called for an investigation into the TV ratings system to assess whether or not “content related to gender identity” was being “adequately flagged for parents.”

Though that phrasing could be interpreted broadly, the full statement makes clear that the government agency is not worried about Father Knows Best reruns getting labeled “TV-G,” but rather is questioning “shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming” that are being rated “appropriate for children.” Supporters of the effort have cited programs like Disney Jr.’s Firebuds, a cartoon where talking cars exist alongside a human character who is nonbinary, as cause for concern. The implication of this public inquiry is that such programs are potentially inappropriate.

The FCC, led by Brendan Carr, is not-so-subtly extending the Trump administration’s years-long targeting of gender-expansive communities, which has included fearmongering around trans people in bathrooms and limiting access to gender-affirming care. In its announcement about this effort, the agency vaguely asks if “gender identity themes” should be explicitly named on TV in the future and if any mention might inherently warrant a stricter rating. (Programs with crude language, violence, and sexual situations currently receive additional scrutiny and warning labels.)

Yet research suggests that while it might be useful to call out the inclusion of transgender and nonbinary characters for parents, it is largely for the opposite reasons. Rather than this being universally problematic, studies have found a myriad of benefits to consuming media sensitive to the lives of gender-expansive people.

The benefits of expanded gender representation

Layered representations on TV that expose kids to people and experiences they may not see or have access to otherwise are an opportunity for transformative education and community building. Meanwhile, there are real risks to continuing to use a narrow, binary framework to limit how children learn about gender, sex, and sexuality.

In a 2019 article published in the journal of Communication, Culture & Critique, researchers looking at the impact of gender-diverse representation concluded that, at the very least, “media is one discourse that reflects and creates reality.” So for children who are just starting to define their own identities, seeing a variety of experiences on screen could be crucial to discovering and affirming who they are.

This is why programs like Steven Universe, one of the shows flagged by supporters of the FCC inquiry for intentionally “targeting” kids with its “LGBT characters,” have actually been used to teach social and emotional skills in classrooms. The cartoon follows a boy named Steven and his adventures with intergalactic beings known as the Crystal Gems. Researchers have highlighted its disruption of gender norms, discussion of Mental health, and expansive representation of queer relationships in order to argue that Steven Universe can improve skills like decision making and building relationships.

This view of the show has been affirmed by kids themselves, with one teenager reflecting to Teen Vogue that “seeing characters you look up to be flawed individuals and love each other despite that is refreshing, and as a young viewer—I started in middle school—those lessons stick with you.”

Meanwhile, when depictions of trans, queer, or nonbinary people are lacking, or stereotypical, researchers find it can give “license to hegemonically inclined parents to stamp out gender-deviant behaviors in their children.” (Hegemony is defined by the researchers as “the willing submission” to the behavioral rules determined by the “dominant group”). And queer children who are not supported by their parents are more likely to be depressed and experience “higher levels of parental abuse.” Based on interviews and surveys, the 2019 study of gender-diverse representation found that narrow depictions on TV are limiting “understandings of what it means to identify as TGD [transgender and gender-diverse] in the world.” Narratives that focus exclusively on gender-binary, white, upper-middle class, and “post-operative heterosexual” characters may even be exacerbating well-documented health risks for queer kids, which include 1 in 3 “TGD” people experiencing assault during primary school.

In addition to changing how we view ourselves, media can be used to increase positive attitudes toward others. A direct, realistic story is among the most effective means of teaching children (and adults) about the existence of transgender identities and challenging “gender essentialism” (or the idea that biology determines gender).

For example, in a 2021 study, participants improved how they viewed transgender people and those living beyond the binary after watching a single 1992 episode of Star Trek: Next Generation, titled “The Outcast,” which features a main character, Riker, starting a romantic relationship with J’naii, a character from a society without gender. The researchers selected the episode because they felt it represented “an atmosphere where a gender diverse individual is not discriminated against or seen as an abnormality” (though it is perhaps more complicated than that, since it turns out J’naii actually wants to identify with a binary gender and is subsequently persecuted by their own community in the show). By increasing familiarity and empathy, they concluded, media interventions like this might contribute to decreased discrimination and violence against trans people.

Going deeper than representation

It’s worth noting, though, that in that same Star Trek study, the researchers did not find that changed attitudes guaranteed changed behavior, nor that a decrease in transphobia necessarily indicated a willingness to support civil rights for trans and gender-nonconforming people. This actually tracks with “The Outcast,” which does not end with Riker and his coworkers necessarily overhauling how the gender binary operates onboard their ship, despite any lessons they’ve learned from J’naii.

It’s clear that representation alone does not move the needle and can—if the portrayals are not varied, expansive, and accurate—even increase harm. Another study found that “the rise of visibility in the media of trans people has coincided with more public scrutiny” and in some cases made life harder for those navigating a society that was already structured to discriminate against them. This is echoed by the research on the impact of stereotypical media representations of Black children, which can distort self-perception and be a factor in racially motivated bullying. Depictions in children’s media are particularly notorious for the “adultification” of Black girls, which can also contribute to less care, greater surveillance, discipline at school, and more sexual violence.

In fact, racist and sexist representations have been part of children’s TV for a long time, and these depictions have not always been incorporated into parental ratings. A 2021 New York Times editorial criticized Looney Tunes for perpetuating “rape culture” via its Pepe Le Pew character, after which Warner Brothers announced that they would no longer produce new episodes featuring the lecherous skunk, who is often seen stalking and giving non-consensual kisses to Penelope Pussycat. Yet older episodes with the character, which clearly include overt messaging on “gender identity,” are widely available and are still deemed appropriate for kids today.

Other characters from Looney Tunes like Bugs Bunny also have clear roots in white supremacist minstrel shows, but this fact is not flagged for parents in the current ratings system either (which gives some episodes a TV-Y7 rating, meaning it’s suitable for children ages seven and older). Even the aforementioned Steven Universe, created by Rebecca Sugar, has faced criticism over its depiction of Black-coded characters that may lean too far into stereotypes.

On the flip side, shows created by and for the people they represent are more likely to lead to authentic content that resonates with those communities. For example, a 2024 study found that series “with at least one Native writer, director, and/or executive producer” were rated more favorably by audiences than those without. Similarly, Disney and Marvel’s Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur—whose protagonist is a Black girl named Lunella Lafayette—had a writer’s room and directing team featuring many women of color and has been subsequently praised for its treatment of Black queer girls. (Even so, an episode from season two of the show, centered on a Black transgender girl named Brooklyn who wants to join a volleyball team, was pulled in 2024 before it ever aired due to a stated desire to be “respectful of the role parents play in making choices for their children”).

Regardless of how you look at it, it’s hard to find any evidence that kids who are exposed to holistic, layered representations of gender diversity are harmed by the encounter. As the studies discussed suggest, even if a TV show like Star Trek might challenge how a viewer thinks about gender, it doesn’t mean that it will change anything about how they behave.

Instead, such media have the capacity for opening up conversations that are otherwise not happening at home. A 2025 study found that parents are still more likely to use gender-neutral language like “kid” to describe children and characters in books whom they see as “boys” or “men,” as compared to those whom they see as “girls” or “women,” implying that the “default” person is still largely thought to be a man. This socialization is enforced by a children’s TV landscape where, according to the Geena Davis Media Institute, “male characters” outnumber “female” characters by 22.6% and are “significantly more likely” to be white. Leaving things this biased should be more concerning than a few characters on Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur talking about being trans.

A majority of parents agree that social identity impacts their children’s success in life, yet more than 60% of them are not discussing race, ethnicity, or social class with their kids. Repeated studies find that children’s media can reduce prejudice and increase self-confidence if what’s being shown is inclusive and thoughtfully engaged with. That last part—whether or not parents take the opportunity to intentionally engage the media being consumed and want to imagine possibilities with their kids—is not something a TV show can determine.

But it seems clear that parents and educators materially benefit, regardless of how they approach children’s learning, from more, not less, expansive representations of gender, sex, sexuality, race, ability, and class in media made for kids. Though the FCC’s call for comments on TV ratings does not mention all these other aspects of identity, there is significant overlap between how these factors are, or are not, represented on screen. Given that the industry is still largely controlled by wealthy white cisgender men, the restrictions or isolation of shows that challenge the dominant order in one way can easily have a cascading, silencing effect on efforts to challenge the dominant order in other ways.

The few shows being questioned by the FCC today are no more prescriptive around gender than the binary messaging of Father Knows Best and Looney Tunes. Promoting even more multifaceted representation of and by gender-diverse people of color on TV can provide a necessary counterbalance to the historical and sustained ubiquity of stories that normalize white patriarchal rule.