In a decision released last month, HRTO member Eva Nichols wrote that the young girl did not face “adverse effects, because of her gender and gender identity” and that the teacher’s comments did not amount to “the poisoned environment that is reported. with counsel.” The discussions surrounding gender identity took place in January 2018, when the girl attended an elementary school in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. “It is clear that this Application is not ultimately only or even primarily about NB’s experience in the 1st grade classroom, but the adults’ desire to create systemic change which, if implemented, would be contrary to the Code, policies of the Commission and the case law of the Court,” Ms. Nichols wrote, referring to the Ontario Human Rights Code. (The names of the applicant and the parents were anonymized in the decision.) In recent years, governments and school boards have been challenged by a small but vocal group of socially conservative families over equality policies in schools and health curricula that include discussions of gender identity and same-sex marriage. School policies and curriculum are largely provincially directed. But equality advocates say they are concerned that the upcoming municipal elections in Ontario see some candidates as opposed to classroom discussions of topics such as gender identity that push these issues to the fore. In this particular case, the court was told the teacher overheard “some teasing behaviour” and then read the book to her students My Princess Boy, which deals with gender identity and the importance of acceptance and kindness. The teacher, whose name has been withheld, then responded to a child’s direct question by saying it was true that a person can change their body. In further discussions, he told the class that a person can feel different than what they look like physically. The court also heard an incident in class where a girl chose a bottle of hand sanitiser with a cut-out figure of a boy stuck to it and others shouted she couldn’t use it. In response to the incident, the teacher showed the class a video discussing preferred pronouns. Later, the children argued about gender groupings and the teacher said “there is no such thing as boys and girls”. The teacher said she misspoke and later apologized to the class. She clarified her statement to the students by drawing a linear gender spectrum on the board that showed girls and boys at each end, with other possible gender options in the middle. The child known as NB informed his parents about these classroom discussions. According to the judgment summary: “Appellant emphasized at the hearing that this case is not about ‘turning back the clock’ on identified individuals, but about protecting children and putting in place some ‘reasonable guardrails.’ . at school board level to “rein in the excesses of gender ideology”. The applicant alleged that the girl was “constantly discriminated against by a series of lessons that denied the existence of female gender and biological sex and undermined the value of identifying as a woman”. However, the court found no connection between the allegations and the teacher’s comments or the school board’s policy that protects and supports transgender students. “It is clear that what NB’s parents were seeking was not a clarification or correction for their daughter, but systemic changes in school board policy and an education system that in their view should not allow concepts such as ” gender fluidity’. in the classroom,” Ms. Nichols wrote. The application was filed in court in March 2019. The hearing was held over six days this March. Darcy Knoll, spokesperson for the Ottawa Public School Board, said Tuesday that “the decision reaffirms the importance of cultivating learning environments for students of all ages that are inclusive and represent all gender identities.” Lisa Bildly, who represented the family, said in an e-mailed statement that she was disappointed but not surprised by the decision. “Respecting the inherent human dignity of gender diverse individuals, through inclusion and acceptance, is a very different goal than inspiring all children to believe that their gender is a fantasy or that they should have a gender identity,” she said, adding that schools are deviating from the path of inclusion and heading “towards indoctrination”. But Amanda Dimilta, who practices education law on behalf of students facing barriers, said the decision “advances equality in education”. Ms. Dimilta was not involved in the case, but reviewed the decision. “It reaffirms the importance of teaching inclusion and diversity in classrooms, even to young students, even when their families may have different beliefs,” she said. Our Morning Update and Afternoon Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.
