Recibido / Received: 29/05/2021

Aceptado / Accepted: 15/09/2021

Para enlazar con este artículo / To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2022.14.05
Para citar este artículo / To cite this article:
Demirhan, Handegül. (2022) “Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case
study.” En: Valero Cuadra, Pino; Gisela Marcelo Wirnitzer & Nuria Pérez Vicente (eds.) 2022. Traducción
e intermedialidad en literatura infantil y juvenil (LIJ): orígenes, evolución y nuevas tendencias / Translation
and intermediality in children’s and young adults’ literature: origins, development and new trends. MonTI 14,
pp. 149-179.

TRANSLATING GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN

CHILDREN’S LITERATURE: TURKEY AS A CASE
STUDY1
Handegül Demirhan
[email protected]
University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia
& İstanbul Gedik University

Abstract
Drawing on the translations of sexuality in five Turkish translations of children’s
literature, this paper starts with introducing the origins, developments, and trends
of gender as well as the dilemma between gender pedagogy and taboo issues closely
related to the sexuality and body politics in children’s literature and its translation
in different contexts.2 Particularly focusing on the context of Turkey where sexuality
and body politics have always been controversial issues, the paper intends to shed
some light on the matter. Thus, the examination of Turkish translations of children’s
literature can yield eye-opening outcomes in terms of the understanding of sexuality
and the travel of sexual and body-political content from one context to another.
Keywords: Gender and translation. Children’s literature. Translating sexuality in
children’s literature. Sexuality in Turkish translations.

1. Special thanks to Dra. Mireia Canals Botines and Dra. Pilar Godayol Nogué for their
invaluable support and advice for this paper.
2. ‘Translation’ is used as an umbrella term for translation versions such as subversions,
adaptations and retellings.

Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

150 Demirhan, Handegül

Resumen
A partir de cinco traducciones al turco de obras de literatura infantil, sobre sexualidad,
este artículo presenta los orígenes, desarrollos y tendencias del género sexual, así
como el dilema entre la pedagogía de género y los temas tabú estrechamente relacio-
nados con la sexualidad y la política corporal en la literatura infantil y su traducción
en diferentes contextos. Particularmente centrado en el contexto de Turquía, donde
la sexualidad y la política corporal siempre han sido temas controvertidos, este texto
pretende arrojar alguna luz sobre el asunto. En resumen, el estudio de las traducciones
al turco de literatura infantil puede presentar resultados reveladores en términos de
la comprensión de la sexualidad y el viaje del contenido sexual y político-corporal
de un contexto a otro.
Palabras clave: Género y traducción. Literatura infantil. Traducir la sexualidad en la
literatura infantil. Sexualidad en traducciones al turco.

There is no doubt that gender and translation have become one of the most
remarkably studied areas in recent decades. Dating back to the 1980s, the
bulk of studies, discussions and debates in translation studies has evolved
and become even more passionate with the inclusion of gender studies. From
the 1990s onwards, a great interest in gender and translation has paved
the way for interdisciplinary studies on sexuality and translation. Taking
a closer look into the studies carried out in areas of gender, sexuality, and
translation, it is visible that most of the studies, articles, dissertations, and
chapters have focused on the translation of adult literature, either prose or
poems, along with gender and feminist theoretical perspectives. Children’s
literature, by default, is considered a minor area, just as the areas of trans-
lation and women which were also regarded as secondary in the past. In
Simone de Beauvoir’s (1949) terms, these areas are regarded as “Other” and
pushed to the borders. Nevertheless, the derivative and secondary status of
translation in the presence of the source text and of women in the presence
of men have changed. Indeed, many things are constantly changing in the
are(n)a on the way to more inclusive, multifold and non-hierarchical studies
of translation, gender, and sexuality. From a change-making perspective, the
point of origin of this paper is to make children’s literature more visible in
literary studies along with its role in gender, sexuality, and translation.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 151

This paper introduces a historical overview and the state of the art of
children’s literature and its translation by reflecting on the developments
and trends of gender as well as gender pedagogy and taboo issues regarding
sexuality. Following the historical discussion, the study particularly con-
textualises Turkey, where sexuality and body politics are taboo issues, and
children are considered innocent beings that “need to be protected from
other cultures’ authorities, propagandas and culture-specific values that are
contrary to local sentiments” (Neydim 2006b, my translation 3). The paper
then analyses the translation of sexuality in the Turkish translations of chil-
dren’s literature, providing a discussion under three subcategories related
to sexuality: sexual parts; sexual intercourse; and sexualities, practices and
sexual orientations.

1. Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature

Before a discussion of translating sexuality in the selected Turkish trans-
lations of children’s literature, it will be relevant to reflect on the history
and the current state of gender and sexuality in the translation of children’s
literature. The historical process intends to comprise different cultures and
contexts including Turkey, trying not to abide by the authority but opening
a space for an inclusive and pluralist multilogue on the subject.

1.1. Origins, developments and trends

Gender is defined as a “learned […] fact of social life” developed along
with “conditioning and reinforcement in […] childhood” (Eisenstein 1985:
xvi). Discussing the concept in relation to literature, Iqra Jabeen and Asad
Mehmood (2014: 240) indicate that children’s literature is effective in “shap-
ing […] gender identities”. Several studies (Tsao 2008; Epstein 2013) have
promoted this argument as well. Gender is regarded as a social and cultural
phenomenon that is mostly learned and indigenised in childhood when
children’s literature comes into play in adopting cultural codes or linguistic
representations related to gender and sexuality. As Grenby and Reynolds
(2011: 153) propose, children’s literature is “culturally coded”.

3. All translations from Turkish into English are by the author unless otherwise specified.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

152 Demirhan, Handegül

The codes of gender trace back to the very first epitome of children’s book
in England, A Little Pretty Pocket-Book (1744), which is mostly noted as the
British prototype of children’s literature by a majority. The book introduces
two letters and each is addressed to different sexes: to girls with ‘Pretty Miss
Polly’ and to boys with ‘Little Master Tommy’. Besides the gendered char-
acteristics, many examples of children’s books are aimed at differentiating
sexes according to the themes of the books, offering adventure stories for
boys while offering domestic and family stories for girls.
Children’s literature in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, especially fairy
tales such as Cinderella (1697), Snow White (1812) and Sleeping Beauty (1917),
displayed gender stereotypes. Many scholars from different cultural contexts
(Dworkin 1974; Brugeilles et al. 2002; Sezer 2010; Lieberman 2012; Rowe
2012; Zipes 2012a) have emphasised that children’s literature is imbued with
conventional feminine and masculine roles. Other scholars (Kortenhaus &
Demarest 1993; Clark & Fink 2004; Muhlen et al. 2012; Jabeen & Mehmood
2014) have further contributed to the field by demonstrating ready-made
gender clichés in picture books. In the simplest terms, these stereotypical
gender roles or gender clichés are entangled in every niche of children’s
literature, both textually and visually. John Stephens (1996: 18-19) brings
these socially acceptable gender roles to light with a schema in which the
characteristics of being strong, active, protective, unemotional, aggressive
and rational are associated with masculinity while being beautiful, passive,
vulnerable, emotional, submissive and intuitive is attributed to femininity.
Besides gender roles and characteristics, some concepts are also stereotypi-
cally classified; for instance, affiliating motherhood, marriage and domestic
issues with women whereas linking autonomy and outdoor activities with
men. Jack Zipes (2012a: 7, original emphasis) states that there were many
“dainty and prudish Cinderellas [including Grimm’s version] en masse in the
nineteenth century”. Not only Cinderella but also Snow White and Sleeping
Beauty were portrayed as “passive, submissive and helpless” female figures
(Lieberman 2012: 191-192). Some scholars (Lieberman 2012: 185; Rowe 2012:
209) argue that these fairy tales contribute to patriarchy and “acculturate
women” by “making female subordination”.
Gender stereotypes that are widely common in 18th and 19th-century chil-
dren’s classics and their translation have become the target of feminist and

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 153

gender critics in the late 20th century. It was when feminist thought became
effective in children’s literature along with the dissemination of feminist
writings such as Le Deuxième Sexe by Simone de Beauvoir (1949) and Sexual
Politics by Kate Millett (1970). For instance, Millett’s iconic work tackles
over-sexualised women in literature and conveys a passionate discussion on
gender and body politics. In some of children’s books, such as The Paper Bag
Princess (1980), the issue is discussed through a traditional princess story by
touching on the concepts of beauty and body image through the main female
character who chooses to dress in an unfancy paper bag rather than as a
traditional and elegant princess. Patriarchal ideologies reflected in texts and
images in children’s literature remained on the agenda of consciousness-rais-
ing groups for a time until echoed in action: adapting children’s literature and
its translation by subverting and rewriting conventional stories and creating
new, feminist and gender-friendly versions in which the supreme goal is to
subvert feminine and masculine roles. Female characters have become the
main protagonists, having power and authority over the course of events.
The passive, obedient and vulnerable female representation has been trans-
formed into an active, strong and rational portrayal of women. In brief, the
masculine gender roles mainly assigned to male characters have become
the main qualifications of female characters. The task of subverting gen-
der-stereotyped stories has been visible in various contexts during the late
20th century. Indeed, these consciousness-raising acts and gender-friendly
adaptations have been the object of academic writings.
Focusing on feminist fairy tales, Zipes (2012a) examines contemporary
versions that reverse traditional gender roles and highlights noteworthy
examples in the British and American context: Sleeping Ugly by Jane Yolen
(1981) and Transformations (1971) by Anne Sexton. On the other hand,
drawing attention to genders, identities and sexual orientations, Elizabeth
Marshall (2004: 260) states that feminist versions of Little Red Riding Hood
reflect “white, Western, middle class, heterosexual” paradigms of gender.
In terms of feminist folk tales, it will be fair to mention some: The Maid
of the North: Feminist Folk Tales from Around the World by Ethel Phelps
(1981) and an Anatolian folk tale named “Müskürümü Sultan” in which the
main female characters have more power than their partners, fathers, and
husbands, basically more power than patriarchy (Sezer 2010). For recent

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

154 Demirhan, Handegül

feminist adaptations of fairy tales, the following books are worth studying:
The Adventurous Princess and Other Feminist Fairy Tales (2019) and Cinderella
and the Glass Ceiling: And Other Feminist Fairy Tales (2020).
Some feminist and gender trends have also come to light in children’s
literature and its translation in close relation to studies (compiled in Godayol
2013) revolving around gender and translation from the 1980s onwards.
One of the trends has been to make women authors and écriture (d’enfant)
féminine visible; Maria Edgeworth and Louisa May Alcott are considered
two remarkable authors of the 19th century. Searching for women’s writing,
feminist texts, and translating the works of feminists, women writers and
scholars has been another trend in the area. However, source texts are not
gender-friendly all the time. When translating patriarchal and androcentric
children’s literature, by revising and adapting the source texts from a gender
positive lens, translators’ interventions in gendered and anti-feminist ideas
has become apparent. These interventions aim to develop “a new language
for women” (Flotow 1997: 14-15) to act against conventional and institu-
tionalised language by means of creating wordplay, gender-friendly puns
and neologisms. Experimental translation strategies in translating gender,
sexuality, body politics, puns and grammatical gendered pronouns in adult
literature, discussed by Flotow (1997: 17-23), have also been adapted to the
translation of children’s literature. However, some strategies such as sup-
plementing source texts with prefaces and footnotes (Godard 1988) have
not been preferred as much as others due to the readability issues, bearing
in mind that the target readers are children, with a limited reading rate
compared to adults.
Following the trends and developments in the late 20th century, post-
modern feminist and gender thought began to influence the field in the
21st century. This period signifies another era in which subversions and
adaptations of gendered children’s literature have also been criticised. Many
scholars (Stephens 1996; Trites 1997; Paul 2005; Kuykendal & Sturm 2007;
Mallan 2009) argue that these feminist versions maintain the gender binary
status quo by assigning masculine roles to female characters, replicating and
reproducing binary notions of gender by restraining female characters into
masculinity as if they have no other options beyond femininity and mascu-
linity. At this point, androgynous and tomboyish characters have come to the

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 155

fore as another form of genderism. For instance, Paul (2005) emphasises that
switching gender roles does not change the essence of the act and contributes
to gender binarism by maintaining a hierarchy between female and male.
Attributing masculine roles to female characters, or introducing androgy-
nous characters, still hinges on stigmatised masculine essence. Similarly,
Mallan (2009) considers this binarism as a dilemma and all replications
and reproductions as a failed performance. The development of subversions
and adaptations in the field is considered as a retroaction in which texts and
female protagonists could not escape from the clutches of gender dichotomy.
Nevertheless, some research in the African context illustrates the situation
differently. Emily Zinn (2000) shows that feminist fairy tales and tomboy-
ish female characters are better received in the post-apartheid era than the
pre-apartheid era in South Africa. Writing in the same context but particu-
larly focusing on the feminist fairy tale of Ndabaga, Pierre Ruterana (2012)
states that children from all genders give a positive response to untraditional,
androgynous female characters.
Criticisms towards gender binarism have also paved the way for think-
ing outside the box and creating something new: gender-friendly language,
subjectivity, voice, and agency. Roberta Seelinger Trites (1997) interrelates
the power of language and narrative strategies with the autonomy of the
feminist character. A relevant example would be the feminist children’s
Künstlerroman, in which a female protagonist gains her subjectivity through
her writing; therefore, individuality and writing become interrelated con-
cepts. Martha Quest (1952) and Harriet the Spy (1964) can be considered as
primordial examples of this genre. In search of a breath of fresh air in chil-
dren’s literature, “thinking gender” and producing a new feminist protagonist
(Crowley & Pennington 2010: 311) “that stands on its own feet” (Demirhan
2020: 532) have gained prominence. The feminist protagonist celebrating
their individuality and nonconformity (Trites 1997) is promoted in the field.
Starting from the late 20th century, gender-liberated characters have
sprouted from all corners of the world, steadily increased in number and cul-
minated in the 21st century. Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress (2014),
Annie’s Plaid Shirt (2015) and Reaching the Stars: Poems about Extraordinary
Women & Girls (2017) can be considered as remarkable children’s stories and
poems on gender, identity, and body-positive image. In terms of feminisms,

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

156 Demirhan, Handegül

including postcolonial, women of colour, lesbian, trans and queer, Little

Leaders: Bold Women in Black History (2018) and Zenobia July (2019) are note-
worthy examples of the genre. Furthermore, the portrayal of non-nuclear,
LGBTQ+ families and histories has appeared in children’s books, with My
Two Moms and Me (2019) and Pride: The Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow
Flag (2018) among the significant works. Nevertheless, the representation
of LGBTQ+ themed children’s books have also been criticised for including
only white and middle-class characters, and not including enough bisexual,
trans, and queer individuals (Epstein 2012, 2013).
When it comes to sexuality and gender-based violence, children’s liter-
ature has become more open-minded and non-rigid. Focusing on sexuality,
the following books are important: Sex is a Funny Word: A Book about Bodies,
Feelings, and YOU (2015) and Asking About Sex & Growing Up: A Question-
and-Answer Book for Kids (2009). Gender-based violence and sexual abuse
are also discussed in children’s books. For instance, Nein! Hayır! (2018) is
a bilingual book in German and Turkish that teaches children to say no to
undesirable situations or proposals directly related to personal space and
sexual abuse, while The Day My Daddy Lost His Temper (2010) focuses on
gender-based violence at home and tries to empower children that have
witnessed or experienced domestic violence.
Some recent research is particularly important in the matter of gender,
sexuality and identity. Mireia Canals Botines and Chiara Lepri (2018) draw
attention to an early picture book, Little Blue and Little Yellow (2009), first
published in 1959, and illustrate how verbal and iconic language can work
together to offer a gender-neutral book. In the context of China, Mingming
Yuan (2016) examines gender and translation strategies in the first Chinese
translation of Peter Pan (1929) and concludes that Peter Pan and other char-
acters are transformed into gender-neutral characters in Chinese translation
due to the understanding of childhood and the perspectives on gender in
that period. In terms of sexuality and identity, Kerry Mallan (2009) refers to
a gender positive genre named Bildungsroman, which specifically centres on
sexual desire and identity, while Laura Mattoon D’Amore (2017) examines
the versions of the American fairy tales that speak of vigilante feminists who
are responsible for protecting themselves and other women against physical
and sexual violence.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 157

Regarding the transformation of gender and sexuality in children’s liter-

ature and its translation throughout history, gender- and sexually liberated
children’s literature not only contributes to the understanding of gender in
children in the local context but also opens a new door into the world of
children in other contexts through translations of these books.

1.2. Gender pedagogy and taboo issues

While translation makes feminist and gender-friendly children’s literature
available in other languages and cultures, there are some drawbacks specific
to children’s literature. Some scholars (Lathey 2015; Kwok 2016; Neydim
2020) shed light on the normative and prescriptive nature of children’s liter-
ature, which is also seen in translations. In the prescribed frame of the genre,
critical questions are asked by authorities or powerholders including teachers,
translators, publishers and parents, who can be gathered under the umbrella
term ‘gatekeepers’ since they keep the gates of the area by deciding what to
let in or out. The most common questions asked concern the suitability of
the material for children: Is this book appropriate for children? Is it good for
children? Is there any unfavourable content in the book? However, what is
deemed appropriate for children depends on the understanding of childhood
in that context. Zohar Shavit (1981: 172) remarks that translators may break
the routine and “adjust the text in order to make it appropriate and useful
to the child, in accordance to guiding principles with what society thinks
is ‘good for the child’”. These adjustments also rely on the understanding of
childhood held by the gatekeepers, informed by their background, ideology
and cultural values and shaped by the wider principles of their social context.
In terms of the principles of society, the didactic and moral task of chil-
dren’s literature and its translation has resulted in gatekeepers’ abstention
from overt representations of sexuality and gender-based violence on the
grounds that the genre is built upon the dogma that children are inno-
cent and naive beings who should be protected from the inappropriate and
explicit representations of sexuality and violence. It would be interesting
to speak of some research focusing on how these forbidden areas are han-
dled covertly. In The Trials and Tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood, Zipes
(1994) examines 30 look-alike versions of Red Riding Hood and concludes

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

158 Demirhan, Handegül

that sexuality and gender-based violence are implicitly conveyed in these

stories. On the other hand, in The Case of Peter Pan or The Impossibility of
Children’s Fiction, Jacqueline Rose (1984) sheds light on adults’ personal
and ethical standards and judgements about innocence and sexuality, and
most importantly, their authority over children’s literature. It seems that
the good and suitable for child readers may be tackled in many aspects, and
gender pedagogy can be part of this debate, especially when discussing
gender awareness education concerning taboo issues such as sexuality and
gender-based violence. Narratives discussing these taboo issues can also be
pedagogical and offer guidance for children while raising awareness on gen-
der-based violence and sexual politics. However, such pedagogical concerns
often fall into the clutches of the so-called understanding of innocence and
fade away. The dilemma between either holding on to gender pedagogy or
taboo issues has become a grey area in the field. Moreover, besides common
concerns about patriarchy, particular cultural values and practices about
gender and sexuality, issues such as class, religion and female genital mutila-
tion in some contexts make the situation even more complex. Translation of
children’s literature “provides a glimpse into the experiences and way of life
of children from different parts of the world” (Zaghini 2005: 22). Children’s
literature reflects culture-specific perspectives on childhood, with diverse
concerns and taboos, that emerge from obscurity by means of translation.

2. Contextualising the Turkish translations of children’s literature from

a gender and sexuality perspective
In the context of Turkey, most of the works translated for children have been
Western children’s classics (Tuncer 1995: 269; Alpöge 2002: 29; Çıkla 2005:
97-98). For decades, translations of Grimms’ Fairy Tales (1825), Andersen’s Fairy
Tales (1835), and Perrault’s folk and fairy tales have demonstrated gender ste-
reotypes. Although these children’s classics were first translated in the 1870s
(Neydim 2006a), these versions have been reprinted and read for 150 years.
Speaking of various gendered versions in the publishing market, translated chil-
dren’s classics have also been the object of manipulation. Namely, these classics
were exposed to political and ideological transformations during a translation
project, “100 Temel Eser” [100 Essential Readings], supported by the Ministry

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 159

of National Education in 2004 (Neydim 2020: 857). These versions of children’s

classics have appeared on the lists of over 30 publishers (Neydim 2006b), as
well as in the curricula of primary and secondary schools for a long time.
The 21st century marks a period when a translational phenomenon
occurred in Turkey: the development of translated feminist and gen-
der-friendly children’s literature. Considering the dominant position of the
conventional, gendered children’s books and translations in the publishing
market, the development of this genre is considered remarkable. The anal-
ysis of this development in the context is reflected in the MSc thesis by
Handegül Demirhan (2017), which traces the development of this literature
and focuses on its sociocultural, ideological and gender-related aspects to
understand why this phenomenon happened at a particular time and with
which particular objectives. It not only analyses the Turkish translations
carried out from different languages and cultures, but also the agents and
the sociocultural context behind the phenomenon. The study shows that
the activist and feminist ideologies of the publishers led them to look for
alternative, gender-liberated sources of children’s literature and ended up
translating from other cultures, which resulted in creating a change in the
fossilised market full of stereotyped children’s books. The motive of the
agents was to raise consciousness on gender in children and meet the need
for gender-positive children’s literature.
The timing was on point since the matters of gender and body politics
upsurged in Turkish society during this period. Demirhan’s (2017) study
also displayed that the gender themes addressed in the selected books for
translation are closely related to the ongoing gender politics in 21st century
Turkey. Questioning gender roles, patriarchal oppression, and the elimina-
tion of gender-based violence are among the most well-known issues that are
tackled, along with a little emphasis on sexuality and body politics. Not Just
Another Princess Story by Sheri Radford (2014), Colección Antiprincesas: Frida
Kahlo: para chicas y chicos by Nadia Fink (2016) and The Trouble with Women
by Jacky Fleming (2016) are among translated books. Despite some discrepan-
cies in the translations, such as softening the parts on sexuality and body, the
phenomenon was groundbreaking and contributed to the emergence of local
gender-friendly children’s literature (Demirhan 2017), as publishers started to
release children’s books portraying extraordinary women in Turkish history.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

160 Demirhan, Handegül

More recently, Turkey has seen an upsurge of interest in books focusing

on sexuality, body politics and sex education, although sexuality in transla-
tion, especially in the translation of children’s literature, is still somewhat a
taboo issue in the context with little chance of being translated and published
without being softened or censored (Demirhan 2017). Given the cultural and
pedagogical sensibilities concerning the taboo issue, in general, there is a
tendency of softening, censoring or masculinising literature in Turkey when
it comes to sexuality (see Cengiz 2017). The issue of sexuality for children in
Turkey is only touched on in biology classes, mainly focusing on the repro-
duction, with no reference to sexual health, sexual abuse or protection (Budak
et al. 2016: 7, my translation). With parents being reluctant to talk about the
subject and the Ministry of National Education curriculum not giving any
space to sex education (except some private schools), the limited mention of
sexuality both in the family and the school, results in insufficient knowledge
of sexuality in children (Budak et al. 2016: 5-7, my translation). Although the
context has seen a recent change in the rise of sex-positive children’s books,
diverse sexualities, body politics, and sexual imageries are still considered as
bold issues in the context, especially when children are at stake.

3. Selected Turkish translations of children’s literature

The article performs a comparative analysis between five children’s books
and their translations. Each Turkish translation is also followed by its back
translation. The books were selected based on several criteria: targeting the
same age group (seven to ten years old), being published in the 21st century
(between 2005 and 2019), and translated from English source texts so as to
not have any doubts concerning intermediate language translation.

Author Title of the Publishing Transla- Relevant Re-

source text and house tor paratexts editions
translation
Nicholas Where Willy Kuraldışı Nil Gün No No
Allan went… (2004) Yayıncılık
(ST1)
Veli Nereye
Gitti… (2015)
(TR1)

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 161

Peter Where did I come Agora Osman No No

Mayle from? (2000) Kitaplığı Akınhay
(ST2)
Ben Nereden
Geldim? (2015)
(TR2)
Jayneen My body! What I Beyaz Nurten No No
Sanders say goes! (2016) Balina Hatırnaz
(ST3) Yayınları
Bu Vücut Benim!
Ben Ne Dersem
O Olur! (2019)
(TR3)
Meg Boys, girls & Kuraldışı Nil Gün No No
Hickling body science: a Yayıncılık
first book about
facts of life
(2002) (ST4)
Kızlar, Oğlanlar
ve Beden Bilimi:
Cinsellikle ilgili
İlk Sorulara
Yanıtlar (2016)
(TR4)
Joanna Asking about Sistem Emel No Revised edition
Cole sex & growing Yayıncılık Aksay published
up: a question- in 2009 by
and-answer book HarperCollins.
for kids (1988) No change in
(ST5) the title.
Cinsellikle
İlgili Merak
Ettikleriniz:
Sorular ve
Yanıtlar (2005)
(TR5)

Table 1. Selected Turkish translations

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

162 Demirhan, Handegül

3.1. Understanding of sexuality and the Turkish translations

In this section, the selected source texts and translations are analysed,
and the discussion is compiled under specific themes and issues related to
sexuality.

3.1.1. Sexual parts

In most of the children’s books about sexuality, with some exceptions, there
is a section that introduces fe/male sexual parts either explicitly or implicitly.
The illustrations of these so-called private parts are more or less the same in
different books; however, the textual content varies. For example,
(1) ST1: Willy was a little sperm. He lived inside Mr Browne. […] The
egg was inside Mrs Browne… (1;2;8)
TR1: Veli minik bir spermdi. Alper Bey’in içinde yaşıyordu. […]
Yumurta Nihal Hanım’ın içindeydi… (5;6;12)
[Veli was a little sperm. He lived inside Mr Alper. […] The egg was
inside Mrs Nihal.]
In ST1, the word ‘inside’ depicts the place where eggs and sperm reside,
in other words that the book abstains to tell, these places are ‘ovaries’ in
female and ‘testicles’ in male, respectively. The word remains the same in
the translation, instead of using scientific terms for both female and male
parts. Apart from the ST1 and TR1, other sources reflect these sexual parts
by name. For instance,
(2) ST2: But the right name for it is penis. Although it’s spelled penis,
you say pee-nus. (16)
TR2: Ama doğru adı, penistir. Ona bazıları da pipi der. (18)
[But the right name is penis. Some say pee-pee.]
(3) ST3: People sometimes call our private parts […] like pee pee. But
we should always use the correct names for our private parts. Boys
have a penis, testicles, and a bottom. (24)

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 163

 R3: İnsanlar bazen özel bölgelerimize […] isimler takarlar. Ama

T
biz özel bölgelerimiz için her zaman doğru isimleri kullanmalıyız.
Erkeklerin penisi, testisleri ve poposu vardır. (24)
[People sometimes give […] names to our private parts. But we
should always use the correct names for our private parts. Men have
a penis, testicles, and a bottom.]
(4) ST4: “My granddad calls it your pee-pee,”
[…]
“Does anyone know the scientific name for a boy’s pee-pee?”
“Penis!” (13)
TR4: “Pipide. Dedem, ona pipi diyor.”
[…]
“Oğlanların pipisinin bilimsel ismini bileniniz var mı?”
“Penis!” (10)
[“On pee-pee. My granddad says it pee-pee.”
[…]
“Does anyone know the scientific name for a boy’s pee-pee?”
“Penis!”]
(5) ST5: A boy has a penis and two testicles. (25)
TR5: Erkeğin bir penisi ve […] iki testisi vardır. (25)
[Man has a penis and […] two testicles.]
In the second source text (ST2), the scientific name for the male sexual
part, ‘penis’, is given to the child readers. In addition, the spelling and the
pronunciation of the part, ‘pee-nus’, is explained. The translation abides by
the source text and keeps the term; however, there is a translation strategy
in the second sentence that should be analysed more closely. The word ‘pee-
nus’ is translated as ‘pipi’. In terms of pronunciation, ‘pee-nus’ does not make
sense to the target reader since the utterance of the ‘penis’ is the same in
Turkish. Instead of repeating the term, the translator chooses to omit the
English pronunciation and adds a child’s word for the term, which is ‘pipi’.
The term articulates as ‘pee-pee’ which is also used as a child’s word for the
part. Referring to the child’s language in the translation by consulting on
interlingual similarities and the strategy of adaptation is understandable

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

164 Demirhan, Handegül

since many Turkish children are familiar with this expression. From a peda-
gogical perspective, informing children about both scientific and daily terms
can be illuminating in the sense that they can be aware of the scientific
meanings and cultural connotations of both terms. The fourth sample (ST4)
is a good example of this, offering both terms to the reader and emphasising
that ‘pee-pee’ was used in the olden days, in the grandparents’ time, and
‘penis’ is a scientific term. The translator keeps both terms and there is no
omission. Indeed, the word ‘pipi’ is emphasised by rendering it twice in the
translation. On the other hand, in the third source text (ST3), the scientific
terms are given for male sexual parts along with a daily expression of ‘pee-
pee’. However, although these scientific names are translated into Turkish
literally, the translation of ‘pee-pee’ is omitted. Turkish children come across
this term in their daily lives and are thus familiar with the term and its
connotations. Although there is no negative sense or foreign meaning for
the target reader, the translation decision of the translator seems to cut the
term. In the target culture, an open discussion of sexuality with children
is still a taboo issue and conversations about male sexual parts continue
with the term ‘pipi’ instead, rather than scientific terms such as ‘penis’. The
scientific term is considered suitable for adults, whereas the daily term is
appropriate for children. From this perspective, it would be more expected
for the translator to keep the daily term along with scientific terms. In terms
of understanding male private parts, both the source text and translation
consider ‘bottom’ as private. On the other hand, the last source text (ST5)
only indicates ‘penis’ and ‘testicles’ as private parts and the translator conveys
the exact source meaning and wording. Lastly, ST5 and TR5 touch on how,
in most cultural contexts, the size of the penis becomes a matter of debate
in terms of function and importance. Both the source text and translation
emphasise that the size of the male sexual part is not important and the
determinant factor, instead, “personality and self-confidence” is more impor-
tant than “the size of his penis or any other part of his body” (Cole 2009:
28). Growing up in a patriarchal society that gives importance to size, this
can be a wise and appropriate answer for children to make them question
cultural norms and stereotypes.
When it comes to female sexual parts, the textual content and transla-
tions are more complex and there are several issues. For example,

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 165

(6) ST2: She has a little opening called vagina. […] What the mother
has to do is push the baby out through the opening between her
legs. (18;42)
TR2: Orada, vajina denilen küçük bir aralık görürsünüz. […]
Annenin yapması gereken, bacakları arasındaki yarıktan bebeği
dışarı itmektir. (20;44)
[There, you see a space called vagina. […] What the mother has to
do is push the baby out through the slit between her legs.]
(7) ST3: Girls have a vulva on the outside and a vagina on the inside.
[…] These are the correct names for our private parts. (25, emphasis
in the original)
TR3: Kızların vajinası, memeleri ve poposu vardır. […] Bunlar özel
bölgelerimizin doğru isimleridir. (25, emphasis in the translation)
[Girls have vagina, nipples, and a bottom. […] These are the correct
names for our private parts.]
(8) ST4: Girls’ genital area is covered by folds of skin called the vulva.
Between the folds at the front of the vulva there is the clitoris, about
as big as the end of your little finger. It doesn’t have an opening, and
it feels tickly if you touch it when you are bathing. (16)
 R4: Kızların genital alanı vulva denilen deri kıvrımlarıyla kaplıdır.
T
Vulvanın ön kısmının kıvrımları arasında küçük parmağın ucu
büyüklüğünde klitoris vardır. Banyo yaparken klitorise dokunu-
lursa gıdıklanma gibi his yaratır. (14)
[Girls’ genital area is covered by folds of skin called the vulva.
Between the folds at the front of the vulva there is the clitoris, as
big as the end of your little finger. It feels tickly if you touch it when
you are bathing.]
(9) ST5: Just inside the vagina is the hymen – a thin web of skin that
partly blocks the opening. (11)
 R5: Vajinanın hemen ağzında yolu kapatan bir zar (kızlık zarı)
T
bulunur. (13)

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

166 Demirhan, Handegül

[ There is a membrane (virginal membrane) just in the mouth of the

vagina that blocks the way.]
Here, the discussion may start with the term ‘vagina’ which refers to the
inner part of the female sexual organ. In all source texts and translations,
except ST1 and TR1, the scientific term for female sexual part ‘vagina’ and
its literal translation ‘vajina’ are used, rather than daily or offensive terms
such as pussy, cunt or ‘dölyolu’ [sperm path] in Turkish. This can be con-
sidered as a positive approach in terms of teaching children body science
instead of negative daily language. When it comes to the term ‘vulva’ which
refers to the outer part of the female sexual organ, it is only mentioned in
ST3, ST4 and TR4. Considering that the term is not even commonly used in
adult literature, observing the traces of its references in children’s literature
is progressive. The term is mainly considered secondary when compared to
‘vagina’, and in some cases, it stands for the term ‘vagina’ interchangeably.
It is promising that ST3 and ST4 reflect the difference and make a room for
this term. The translator of ST4 renders all repetitions regarding the ‘vulva’
and transliterates another significant term for female sexuality, ‘clitoris’, as
in the source text. However, the translator of the ST3 only retains the term
‘vagina’ and omits the term ‘vulva’ in the translation. As pointed out before,
an understanding of sexuality and a misunderstanding about the referral of
these two terms to the same part may result in this kind of decision-making.
Or, it may be an intentional omission in which the translator does not regard
this term as crucial for child readers.
Concerning the ‘vagina’, the term ‘opening’ refers to the scientific term
‘vaginal opening’ which is at the posterior end of the vulva. Only ST2, ST4
and ST5 speak of this term. When it comes to the translations, TR2 translates
it in two different ways: ‘aralık’ [space] and ‘yarık’ [slit]; TR5 conveys it as
‘yol’ [way]; and TR4 omits the term completely without offering any transla-
tion. The literal scientific Turkish translation for ‘opening’ would be ‘açıklık’
[opening], since it refers to the scientific term ‘vaginal opening’ which can
also be literally translated as ‘vajinal açıklık’ in Turkish. The scientific term
is not used in any of the source texts and translations. Indeed, the transla-
tions convey the meaning ambiguously. In TR2, the wrong word choices,
arising from several definitions in the dictionary, make the translation

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 167

incomprehensible and even connotated negatively. The term ‘aralık’ [space]

is ambiguous in the Turkish context since it is a general term referring to
an area between two things; therefore, the details of that area related to
sexuality stay unclear in the visualisation of the child readers. Moreover,
the term ‘yarık’ [slit] misleads the readers since it has a negative connotation
in the context. It refers to a ‘straight, narrow cut or opening’ in something
caused by a negative action, sometimes by force. Mistranslating the female
sexual part with ambiguity and negativity may result in retaining social bias
towards sexuality. When children learning about sexuality and sexual parts
in a context in which these are considered taboo issues is confronted with
these negative connotations, translations may trigger a retrograde, rather
than pedagogical progress. Although TR4 cuts the term, the translator of
ST5 conveys the term as ‘yol’ [way]. Since the term is related to the vagina,
which is also a ‘muscular canal’, the translation offers a connection between
‘canal’ and ‘way’ but does not convey the same meaning and impression for
target readers.
When it comes to the translation of the scientific term ‘hymen’, this can
be regarded as a touchy subject in the Turkish context since it is also asso-
ciated with virginity. Even in most of the translations of adult literature, the
scientific term is not used, and it is translated as ‘kızlık zarı’ [virginal mem-
brane] or ‘bekâret zarı’ [chastity membrane], directly used to refer virginity.
The translation of Virgin: The Untouched History by Emek Ergun (2008) is
one of the significant examples of a feminist translation that deliberately pre-
fers to translate the term as ‘himen’ [hymen] without any cultural reference
to virginity. The translator must be aware that the subject and its cultural
connotations become a burden for women in the context. In ST5, ‘hymen’
is depicted as a ‘thin web of skin’ rather than a ‘membrane’ and without any
reference to virginity. However, in the translation (TR5), the scientific term
is not preferred, and it is rendered as a ‘zar’ [membrane] with an explication
as ‘kızlık zarı’ [virginal membrane] in parentheses. The word ‘membrane’
can be acceptable as an alternative term since it somewhat fits the anatomical
definition of the texture of the skin; however, the extra information given
in the parentheses becomes problematic. In matriarchal societies, virginity
is not something looked for or demanded from women. In these cultural
communities, girls are given the same sexual freedom as boys. However,

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

168 Demirhan, Handegül

patriarchal societies like Turkey have some demands from the female body,
with virginity as one of the patriarchal trappings of the context, closely
associated with marriage and religion. Virginity has a moral, religious, and
cultural connotation and this understanding is still valid in most regions
of Turkey. Women are thus exposed to control mechanisms of patriarchy:
their sexuality is suppressed and their bodies are regarded as a property of
flesh under the man-made concept of virginity. This brutal understanding of
virginity and associating a person’s first sexual intercourse with the socially
invented idea of marriage and religious thought marks a choice between
feeling possessed or freeing herself of virginity. The patriarchal context
becomes a sexual destiny that women have to overcome to accomplish their
sexual freedom. This problematic issue can be somewhat resolved by using
the scientific term in the translation, ‘himen’, which is a literal translation
from English and does not evoke something related to virginity or other
relevant cultural connotations.

3.1.2. Sexual intercourse

Although all sources narrate the sexual act from a heterosexual perspective,
the source texts and translations (ST3 and TR3 do not touch on the issue)
reflect clear differences in the understanding of heterosexual intercourse.
For instance,
(10) ST1: That very night Mr and Mrs Browne joined together. (13)
TR1: O akşam Alper Bey ve Nihal Hanım bir araya geldi. (17)
[That night, Mr Alper and Mrs Nihal came together.]
(11) ST2: By this time, the man wants to get as close to the woman as he
can, because he’s feeling very loving to her. And to get really close
the best thing he can do is lie on top of her and put his penis inside
her, into her vagina. (21)
TR2: O zaman erkek, kadına karşı büyük bir sevgi hissettiği için,
olabildiğince daha yakın olmak ister. Yakınlaşmanın en iyi yolu da
erkeğin kadının üstüne çıkması ve penisin kadının içine, vajinasına
girmesidir. (23)

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 169

[ At that time, the man wants to get as close as possible to the woman
since he feels very loving to her. The best way to get close is him get-
ting on top of her and put the penis inside woman, into her vagina.]
(12) ST4: When two adults want to make a baby, […] the father must
use his penis to put them in the mother’s vagina. […] That’s called
‘having sex’. (21)
 R4: İki yetişkin insan, bebek yapmak istediklerinde, […] Baba, bu
T
hücreleri annenin vajinasına bırakabilmek için penisini kullanmak
zorundadır. Buna ‘seks yapmak’ deniyor. (18)
[When two adult people want to have a baby, […] the father must
use his penis to release these cells into the mother’s vagina. That’s
called ‘having sex’.]
(13) ST5: Having intercourse is also called making love because a man
and a woman usually feel so loving toward each other when they do
it. They hug, kiss, and stroke each other’s bodies. (48)
 R5: Cinsel ilişkiye aynı zamanda “sevişmek” de denir, çünkü bunu
T
yaparken kadın ve erkek birbirlerine karşı derin bir sevgi duyarlar.
Kucaklaşırlar, öpüşürler, birbirlerini okşarlar. (44)
[Sexual intercourse is also called “making love” because while doing
this, women and men have a deep love for each other. They hug,
kiss, caress each other.]
The act of sexual intercourse is depicted in many forms. In ST1, it is por-
trayed as an activity where a wife and a husband are ‘joined together’. The
book illustrates a bed, and an imaginary wife and husband moving under
the blanket since human bodies are not illustrated openly. The expression
‘joined together’ does not evoke something directly related to sexual inter-
course in the minds of children since it is also used for ‘gathering’ and
‘coming together’. In the translation, the expression is rendered as ‘bir araya
gelmek’ [coming together] which also makes no sense to the target reader
regarding sexual intercourse. A husband and wife may join or come together
for coffee, dinner or sex. The act of sexual intercourse here could be detailed
and clarified for child readers. Also, related to sexuality, the ‘egg’ is portrayed
as a beautiful, lovely and soft ‘treasure’ or ‘prize’ that a sperm should win.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

170 Demirhan, Handegül

The function of the egg is depicted and translated as a passive cell whereas
the sperm is portrayed as an active cell. In ST2, the story of ‘getting close’
is told from a male perspective: ‘the man wants’, ‘he’s feeling very loving’. In
such a male gaze, ‘the best thing he can do’ is to ‘lie on top of her’. Here, the
source text establishes a hierarchy between the partners and the ‘things’ that
partners can do. The translator conveys this act as ‘kadının üstüne çıkmak’
[getting on top of her] which evokes a negative imagination in children
that the man intentionally makes his weight felt on the woman, and mis-
leads the reader about the pressure and force due to the wrong word choice.
Also, ST2 defines making love as the penises rubbing up and down into the
vagina and how penetration feels good. This understanding of making love
degrades the act into penetration by assigning a more mechanical func-
tion and the male perspective on it. On the other hand, ST5 uses the term
‘having intercourse’ and ‘making love’ when discussing the sexual act. The
author’s perspective can be considered as feminist and gender-friendly since
the feeling and actions are attributed to both partners without hierarchy.
Moreover, ST5 emphasises that the act is also called ‘making love’ since
it involves the feeling of love, and ‘hug’, ‘kiss’ and ‘stroke’ are used, rather
than a mechanical penetration. The translation renders the act as ‘cinsel
ilişki’ [sexual intercourse] and ‘sevişmek’ [making love], which makes sense
in the Turkish context. The translator also intensifies the feeling of love
by using the adjective ‘derin’ [deep]. When it comes to the other activities
during sexual intercourse such as hugging, kissing, and touching, although
the source text prefers to use ‘stroke’, the translator translates the word
as ‘okşamak’ [caressing]. The term ‘stroke’ has several meanings including
‘touching gently’ and ‘hitting by force’. To give the same positive feeling and
meaning, the translator’s choice is understandable since ‘okşamak’ directly
refers to ‘touching someone’s body gently’ in close relation with expressing
love. Finally, ST4 introduces the term ‘having sex’ apart from making love.
The translator literally translates this term as ‘seks yapmak’ [having sex]
instead of ‘sevişmek’ [making love]. In the Turkish context, these two expres-
sions may have similar connotations; however, the root of the latter stems
from the word ‘sev’ [love], which exactly catches the feeling of making love.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 171

3.1.3. Sexualities, practices, and sexual orientations

When the patterns related to sexuality and its practices are observed, it is
noticed that the discussion about sexual parts and sexual intercourse is
only carried out from a heterosexual perspective. Rather than talking about
sexualities or different practices and sexual orientations, most of the source
texts and translations focuses on heterosexuality.
In the selected translations, only ST5 and TR5 open the issue for dis-
cussion. The source text allocates a chapter not only to masturbation as a
sexual practice (Cole 1988) but also to diverse sexualities mainly focusing
on homosexuality. In the Turkish context, it is interesting that these chap-
ters are not censored. Keeping an explicit chapter on homosexuality in the
translation of a children’s book can be considered a progressive act. Although
the context may see some LGBTQ+ characters in children’s books, translat-
ing homosexuality openly as a part of sexuality is something that should be
applauded. In the source text, the chapter named “What Is Homosexuality?”
not only gives definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality
but also discusses the main questions surrounding homosexuality such as:
Is it a sickness? Can homosexuals choose not to be homosexuals? Can you
tell if someone is homosexual just by looking? The chapter posing questions
and answers is translated into Turkish without omission, providing a positive
attitude towards sexualities in that all these questions are answered with
“no” in the source text and the translation.

4. Final remarks
At the macro level, the historical discussion and the state of the art in the
academic literature revolve around gender stereotypes, feminist and gen-
der-friendly translations, feminist and gender trends, criticisms of heter-
osexual paradigms and gender binarism, and the need for a new language
that breaks taboo issues, focuses on gender pedagogy and embraces diverse
genders and sexualities. At the micro level, in the particular case study of the
paper, 21st-century Turkish translations focusing on sexuality are examined
considering the cultural context of Turkey.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

172 Demirhan, Handegül

This article analysed five children’s books and their translations under
three subcategories related to sexuality: sexual parts; sexual intercourse;
and sexualities, practices and sexual orientations. The differences in the
understanding of sexuality are not only reverberated in source texts but
also in translators’ translation strategies. In all these differences, cultural
context plays an important role. There is no consistency in the understand-
ing of sexual parts and sexual acts, neither in the source texts nor in the
translations. Misunderstanding and mistranslating concepts, omission,
and sometimes problematic explications appear in the translations. Unlike
older translations about sexuality in the context which are mostly softened
or censored (Demirhan 2017), more recent translations have less tendency
towards censorship. Nevertheless, mistranslations also occur due to the
misunderstandings concerning sexuality or not taking enough notice of
cultural connotations. In some cases, the male-perspective and patriarchal
language in the source text become stronger in the translation due to the
translator’s choice of words or expressions. On the other hand, some well-
suited preferences in the translations are noticeable. As an overall tendency,
translators stay close to the source text and its meanings, rather than con-
sidering cultural connotations and touchy issues in the Turkish context.
Since the translated children’s books on sexuality are limited in the
context, the study may break the ice for further research. A more in-depth
analysis of translating sexuality in the Turkish translations of children’s
literature requires asking further questions such as:

– Which authors/texts were selected for translation?

– Which authors/texts were not selected for translation?
– Who selected the source texts and who published the translations?
– When were these texts translated and for what purpose?
– What were the losses and gains in the translations?
The questions mentioned above can be more illuminating for understanding
sexuality and childhood in the local context as well as attitudes towards
sexuality closely related to the notion of childhood. Tracing the unique
characteristics of these texts and the content they bring to the local context
in line with its target audience – child readers, in this case – can offer an

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 173

insightful perspective on a particular culture as well as its translational

dynamics with other cultures. Ultimately, different cultural contexts reflect
different understandings of sexuality and childhood, and these perspectives
can come to the surface through translation. Translation reveals and com-
municates various perspectives on gender, sexuality and childhood, and
the translation of children’s literature is a significant part of this dialogue.

References
Allan, Nicholas. (2004) Where Willy went… New York: Knopf.
Allan, Nicholas. (2015) Veli Nereye Gitti… Translated by Nil Gün. İstanbul:
Kuraldışı Yayıncılık.
Alpöge, Gülçin. (2002) “New trends in children’s literature in Turkey today.”
Bookbird 40:1, pp. 27-30.
Barrie, James Matthew. (1929) Pan Bide. Translated by Liang Shiqiu. Shanghai:
Crescent Moon Publishing.
Barrow, Erin-Claire. (2019) The adventurous princess and other feminist fairy
tales. Fyshwick: Odyssey Books.
Beauvoir, Simone de. (1949) Le Deuxième Sexe. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Blank, Hanne. (2008) Virgin: The untouched history. Translated by Emek Ergün.
İstanbul: İletişim Yayııncılık.
Brugeilles, Carole; Isabelle Cromer & Sylvie Cromer. (2002) “Male and female
characters in illustrated children’s books or how children’s literature con-
tributes to the construction of gender.” Population 57:2, pp. 237-267.
Budak, Meltem Üstündağ et al. (2016) “Cinsel Eğitimin Tanımı- Önemi-
Türkiye’de ve Dünya’da Cinsel Eğitim Uygulamaları.” In: Güder, Sevcan
Yağan (ed.) 2016. Cinsel Eğitim ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet. Ankara: Eğiten Kitap
Yayıncılık, pp. 1- 15.
Bunker, Lisa. (2019) Zenobia July. New York: Viking Books.
Cengiz, Ayşenaz Postalcıoğlu. (2017) “Simone de Beauvoir’s Le deuxième sexe
in Turkish.” In: Santaemilia Ruiz, José (ed.) 2017. Traducir para la igual-
dad sexual. Translating for Sexual Equality. Granada: Editorial Comares, pp.
75- 86.
Çikla, Selçuk. (2005) “Tanzimattan Günümüze Çocuk Edebiyatı ve Bazı
Öneriler.” Hece 104-105, pp. 89-107.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

174 Demirhan, Handegül

Clark, Roger & Heather Fink. (2004) “A multicultural feminist analysis of

picture books for children.” Youth and Society 36:1, pp. 102-125.
Cole, Joanna. (1988) Asking about sex & growing up: a question-and-answer book
for kids. Washington: Turtleback Books.
Cole, Joanna. (2005) Cinsellikle İlgili Merak Ettikleriniz: Sorular ve Yanıtlar.
Translated by Emel Aksay. İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
Cole, Joanna. (2009) Asking about sex & growing up: a question-and-answer book
for kids. Revised edition. New York: HarperCollins.
Crowley, Karlyn & John Pennington. (2010) “Feminist frauds on the fairies?
Didacticism and liberation in recent retellings of Cinderella.” Marvels and
Tales 24:2, pp. 297-313. Electronic version: <www.jstor.org/stable/41388957>
D’amore, Laura Mattoon. (2017) “Vigilante feminism: revising trauma, abduc-
tion, and assault in American fairy-tale revisions.” Marvels and Tales 31:2,
pp. 386-405.
Demirhan, Handegül. (2017) A game of genders: the development of translated
feminist children’s literature in 21st century Turkey. Edinburgh: The University
of Edinburgh. Unpublished MSc thesis.
Demirhan, Handegül. (2020) “Children’s literature, feminism, adaptation,
and translation*.” In: Flotow, Luise von & Hala Kamal (eds.) 2020. The
Routledge handbook of translation, feminism and gender. London & New York:
Routledge, pp. 528-539.
Dursun, Tamer. (2018) Nein! Hayır! Ankara: Peron Kitap.
Dworkin, Andrea. (1974) Woman hating. Boston: Edward Payson Dutton.
Eisenstein, Hester. (1985) “Introduction.” In: Eisenstein, Hester & Alice Jardine
(eds.) 1985. The future of difference. New Brunswick & London: Rutgers
University Press.
Epstein, B. J. (2012) “The nuclear gay family: same sex marriage in children’s
books.” Gay and Lesbian Issues in Psychology Review 8:3, pp.142-152.
Epstein, B. J. (2013) Are the kids all right? Representations of lgbtq characters in
children’s and young adult literature. Bristol: Hammeron Press.
Fink, Nadia. (2016) Colección antiprincesas. Frida Kahlo: para chicas y chicos.
Zaragoza: Editorial Chirimbote.
Fitzhugh, Louise. (1964) Harriet the spy. San Francisco: Harper & Row Books.
Fleming, Jacky. (2016) The trouble with women. London: Square Peg.
Flotow, Luise von. (1997) Translation and gender: Translating in the ‘era of fem-
inism’. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 175

Godard, Barbara. (1988) “Preface.” In: Brossard, Nicole (ed.) 1988. Lovhers.
Translated by Barbara Godard. Montreal: Guernica Press.
Godayol, Pilar. (2013) “Gender and translation.” In: Millán, Carmen &
Francesca Bartrina (eds.) 2013. The Routledge handbook of translation stud-
ies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 173-185.
Grenby, Matthew & Kimberley Reynolds. (eds.) (2011) Children’s literature stud-
ies: a research handbook. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
H arrison, Vashti. (2018) Little leaders: bold women in black history. London:
Puffin.
Hickling, Meg. (2002) Boys, girls & body science: a first book about facts of life.
B.C.: Harbour Publishing.
Hickling, Meg. (2016) Kızlar, Oğlanlar ve Beden Bilimi: Cinsellikle ilgili İlk
Sorulara Yanıtlar. Translated by Nil Gün. İstanbul: Kuraldışı Yayıncılık.
Jabeen, Iqra & Asad Mehmood. (2014) “Children literature: shaping gender
identities.” Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 2:1, pp: 240-242.
Electronic version: <http://www.apjmr.com/apjmr-vol-2-no-1>
Joosten, Michael. (2019) My two moms and me. New York: Doubleday Books.
Kortenhaus, Carole & Jack Demarest. (1993) “Gender role stereotyping in
children’s literature: an update.” Sex Roles 28:3/4, pp. 219-232. Electronic
version: <https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00299282>
Kuykendal, Leslee & Brian Sturm. (2007) “We said feminist Fairy tales, not
fractured fairy tales! The construction of the feminist fairy tale: female
agency over role reversal.” Children and Libraries 5:3, pp. 38-41.
Kwok, Virginia. (2016) “Faithfulness in translation of children’s literature:
the adventures of Huckleberry Finn in Chinese.” Babel 62:2, pp. 278-299.
Electronic version: <https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.2.06kwo>
L ane, Laura & Ellen Haun. (eds.) (2020) Cinderella and the glass ceiling: and
other feminist fairy tales. Berkeley: Seal Press.
L athey, Gillian. (2015) Translating children’s literature. Hoboken: Taylor &
Francis.
Lepri, Chiara & Mireia Canals Botines. (2018) “Lionni’s Little Blue and Little
Yellow: the joy of the encounter.” Revista Internacional de Culturas y
Literaturas June, pp. 164-173.
Lessing, Doris. (1952) Martha Quest. London: Michael Joseph.
Lieberman, Marcia. (2012) “Some day my prince will come: female acculturation
through the fairy tale.” In: Zipes, Jack (ed.) 2012. Don’t bet on the prince:

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

176 Demirhan, Handegül

contemporary feminist fairy tales in North America and England. London &
New York: Routledge, pp. 185-200.
Lionni, Leo. (2009) Little Blue and Little Yellow. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Mallan, Kerry. (2009) Gender dilemmas in children’s fiction. Basingstoke & New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marshall, Elizabeth. (2004) “Stripping for the wolf: rethinking representations
of gender in children’s literature.” Reading Research Quarterly 39:3, pp. 256-
270. Electronic version: <www.jstor.org/stable/4151769>
M ayle, Peter. (2000) Where did I come from? New York: Kensington Publishing.
M ayle, Peter. (2015) Ben Nereden Geldim? Translated by Osman Akınhay.
İstanbul: Agora Kitaplığı.
Mccleary, Carol. (2010) The day my daddy lost his temper. Seattle: Parenting
Press.
Millett, Kate. (1970) Sexual politics. New York: Doubleday and Co.
Muhlen, Bruna von; Marlene Strey; Andressa Botton & Marilia Saldanha. (2012)
“Gender issues in children’s literature: which discourses are presented to
children?” International Journal of Psychology 47: S1, p. 395. Electronic ver-
sion: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.709106>
Munsch, Robert. (1980) The paper bag princess. Toronto: Annick Press.
Neydim, Necdet. (2006a) “Çeviri Çocuk Edebiyatı ve Çocuk Edebiyatı Çevirisi
Üzerine.” Çeviribilim June. Electronic version: <https://ceviribilim.
com/2006/06/01/ceviri-cocuk-edebiyati-ve-cocuk-edebiyati-cevirisi-uzer-
ine>
Neydim, Necdet. (2006b) “Masumiyetini Tamamen Kaybeden Seçki: 100
Temel Eser.” Çeviribilim August. Electronic version: <http://ceviribilim.
com/?p=312>
Neydim, Necdet. (2020) “Translation approaches to children’s classics: adapta-
tion, rewriting, cultural interference.” RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları
Dergisi 19, pp. 851-858.
Newbery, John. (1744) A little pretty pocket-book. John Newbery.
Paul, Lissa. (2005) “Feminism revisited.” In: Hunt, Peter (ed.) 2005. Understanding
children’s literature: key essays from the second Edition of ‘The international
companion encyclopedia of children’s literature’. 2nd edition. London & New
York: Routledge, pp. 114-127.
Phelps, Ethel Johnston. (1981) The maid of the north: feminist folk tales from
around the world. New York: Holt

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 177

R adford, Sheri. (2014) Not just another princess story. Vancouver: Simply Read
Books.
Rose, Jacqueline. (1984) The case of Peter Pan or The impossibility of children’s
fiction. London & Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press.
Rowe, Karen. (2012) “Feminism and fairy tales.” In: Zipes, Jack (ed.) 2012.
Don’t bet on the prince: contemporary feminist fairy tales in North America and
England. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 209-226.
Ruterana, Pierre. (2012) “Children’s reflections on gender equality in fairy
tales: a Rwanda case study.” The Journal of Pan African Studies 4:9, pp. 85-101.
Sanders, Jayneen. (2016) My body! What I say goes! Macclesfield: UpLoad
Publishing.
Sanders, Jayneen. (2019) Bu Vücut Benim! Ben Ne Dersem O Olur! Translated by
Nurten Hatırnaz. İstanbul: Beyaz Balina Yayınları.
Sanders, Rob. (2018) Pride: the story of Harvey Milk and the rainbow flag. New
York: Random House.
Sexton, Anne. (1971) Transformations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sezer, Melek Özlem. (2010) Masallar ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet. 6th edition. Istanbul:
Evrensel Basım Yayın.
Shavit, Zohar. (1981) “Translation of children’s literature as a function of its
position in the literary polysystem.” Poetics Today 2:4, pp. 171-179. Electronic
version: <www.jstor.org/stable/1772495>
Silverberg, Cory. (2015) Sex is a funny word: a book about bodies, feelings, and
YOU. Oakland: Seven Stories Press.
Stephens, John. (1996) “Gender, genre and children’s literature.” Signal 79, pp.
17-30.
Trites, Roberta Seelinger. (1997) Waking sleeping beauty: feminist voices in chil-
dren’s novels. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Tsao, Ya-Lun. (2008) “Gender issues in young children’s literature.” Reading
Improvement 45:3, pp. 108-114.
Tuncer, Nilüfer. (1995) “Children’s literature in Turkey.” Türk Kütüphaneciliği
9:3, pp. 268-269. Electronic version: <www.tk.org.tr/index.php/TK/article/
download/1002/999>
Yolen, Jane. (1981) Sleeping ugly. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan.
Yuan, Mingming. (2016) “Translating gender in children’s literature in China
during the 1920s. A case study of Peter Pan.” International Journal of

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

178 Demirhan, Handegül

Comparative Literature & Translation Studies 4:3, pp. 26-31. Electronic ver-
sion: <http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.4n.3p.26>
Zaghini, Edgardo. (2005) “Babar has come to England: classic European chil-
dren’s literature in translation.” In: Hallford, Deborah & Edgardo Zaghini
(eds.) 2005. Outside in: children’s books in translation. Malta: Compass Press,
pp. 22-27.
Zinn, Emily. (2000) “Rediscovery of the magical: on fairy tales, feminism, and
the New South Africa.” Modern Fiction Studies 46:1, pp. 246-269. Electronic
version: <https://doi.org/10.1353/mfs.2000.0015>
Zipes, Jack. (1994) The trials and tribulations of Little Red Riding Hood. London
& New York: Routledge.
Zipes, Jack. (2012a) “Introduction.” In: Zipes, Jack (ed.) 2012. Don’t bet on
the prince: contemporary feminist fairy tales in North America and England.
London & New York: Routledge, pp. 1-38.

BIONOTE / NOTA BIOGRÁFICA

H andegül Demirhan is a PhD student in Translation, Gender and Cultural
Studies and part of GETLIHC research group (Gender Studies: Translation,
Literature, History, and Communication) at the University of Vic-Central
University of Catalonia. She is also a teaching assistant in the Translation
and Interpreting Studies department and a board member in Gender and
Women’s Studies Research Centre at İstanbul Gedik University, Turkey. Her
main research areas are gender and translation, translation of children’s lit-
erature, and feminist pedagogy. She is interested in editing and translating
children’s literature focusing on gender, and her gender-friendly translation
of Pollyanna (2018) is an example.
H andegül Demirhan es estudiante de doctorado en Traducción, Género
y Estudios Culturales y forma parte del grupo de investigación GETLIHC
(Estudios de Género: Traducción, Literatura, Historia y Comunicación) en la
Universidad de Vic-Universidad Central de Cataluña. También es asistente
de cátedra en el departamento de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación
y miembro de la junta del Centro de Investigación de Estudios de Género y
Mujeres de la Universidad Gedik de Estambul, Turquía. Sus principales áreas

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178

Translating gender and sexuality in children’s literature: Turkey as a case study 179

de investigación son género y traducción, traducción y literatura infantil y

pedagogía feminista. Está interesada en editar y traducir literatura infantil
centrada en el género, y su traducción amigable con el género de Pollyanna
(2018) es un ejemplo.

MonTI 14 (2022: 149-179) | ISSN-e: 1989-9335 | ISSN: 1889-4178