I think anti-SOGI protesters are missing the point.
I recently participated in a protest march about SOGI-inclusive education in BC. Other than standing in support of members of the LGBTQ+ and trans community, I’m not sure it was really effective. Lobbing epithets and slogans across a police line doesn’t achieve much. It doesn’t advance the conversation. It only serves to show two opposing groups, entrenched in their beliefs. This isn’t really a forum in which to seek some kind of understanding about what’s actually in play, or to gain an understanding of what people are really upset about, or even if they fully comprehend the issue. We just heard or read slogans like:
“No place for hate.” “Stop the indoctrination of our kids.” “Gay rights are human rights.” “Protect parent rights.” “Leave our kids alone.”
And a recent Abby News report continues the beef, highlighting MLA Bruce Banman’s concern for ‘wokeness’ and an anti-SOGI protest at a local board of education meeting. Many parents are clearly pissed about losing control of what their kids are learning in school, declaring their loss of rights. They worry SOGI encourages children to change genders or undergo gender-affirming surgery, while others say it goes against religious values. As a result, the parental rights movement has emerged as a movement to limit discussions of sexuality and gender in schools under the auspices of both protecting children and protecting parents' rights to raise children as they see fit.
To make matters worse, the leader of the BC Conservative party apparently called homosexuality a “lifestyle” in an interview with media, a statement that, sadly, shows a lack of understanding of the target group of the SOGI 123 initiative.
Clearly, there’s much misunderstanding and misinformation about the real nature of the issue including:
The goals of SOGI 123 Despite some of the language around the program, B.C. does not have a SOGI curriculum. Instead, SOGI 123 is a resource endorsed by the provincial education ministry. The related guide on the program website focuses on addressing discrimination and bullying, creating a supportive and inclusive environment for LGBTQ students, and acknowledging there are people of varying genders and sexual orientations. Apparently, SOGI is also sometimes confused with sexual health education.
What it means to be gay Numerous studies have established that sex is not just male or female. Rather, it is a continuum that emerges from a person’s genetic makeup. Nonetheless, misconceptions persist that same-sex attraction is a choice – a ‘lifestyle’ – that warrants condemnation or conversion, and leads to discrimination and persecution.
In a letter to the editor proclaiming that there are many problems associated with SOGI ‘best practices’, one person writes:
I suspect a lot of people who are supporting SOGI have not actually read the policies or do not understand them. The recent letter by one man is a good example. They state in the letter that “LGBTQ values are not being forced on people.” That is completely wrong. In the BC Ministry of Education Policy Guide on SOGI, the first goal is: “Visibility: The diversity of sexual orientation, gender identities and expressions are recognized and valued.” If a student is being told they must “value” diversity of gender expression and gender identities then that in my mind is forcing those values on the student. I can fully support inclusion and protection of those I disagree with, but I cannot value something I believe is morally wrong.
So what is this person saying?
To them, is it morally wrong to accept people of different sexual orientations? Is it morally wrong to accept diversity, to accept others as you would expect them to accept you? Are they implying that the Golden Rule is morally wrong?
By the way, the policy goal does not say you must adopt another sexual orientation or gender identity. It only says to recognize and respect this diversity. There is no application of force nor an attempt to convert.
The author goes on to say that there are a number of other areas where SOGI “best practices” just don’t make sense:
Best Practice 1 “Common Language” — would force students to use pronouns which do not fit the obvious appearance of the individual causing considerable confusion for a young child and likely leading to more discrimination not less. Best Practice 4 “Confidentiality” — This states “students have the right to confidentiality of their official and preferred gender.” This is even more confusing. If the student can keep their preferred gender confidential then how can they expect to be treated appropriately? Best Practice 6 “Gender Integrated and Inclusive Activities” — This states that students will have the option to be included in the groups that correspond to their gender identity. This is completely contrary to how all sports organizations, including all international sporting organizations, work. No one allows persons who are physically male to compete as female just because they identify as gender neutral or gender female. It will not work and would be totally unfair. Best Practice 8 “Inclusive Learning” — This states that “classroom material and activities contain positive images and accurate information about sexual and gender diversity.” I simply don’t trust BC educators to provide accurate information. Accurate information must include the fact that all major religions including those most prevalent in our area: Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism teach that there are only two genders and consider all other gender expressions wrong.
Since the author noted the above four practices to be particularly problematic, let’s look at those:
1 Common Language: I’m not seeing anything about forcing anyone to use pronouns
but rather the introduction of terminology that would help students better show their acceptance of others – the ultimate goal of the exercise. Discussion on the matter would hopefully lead to help broaden horizons and limit confusion where pronouns don’t necessarily match appearance. Introducing common language through policy and procedures is important to establish clarity. Using respectful SOGI terminology can foster shared understanding among students, educators and parents, and support greater collaboration in creating SOGI-inclusive school environments.
4 Confidentiality: The author’s question – If the student can keep their preferred
gender confidential then how can they expect to be treated appropriately? – is valid. Indeed, there could be confusion if someone wants to keep their preferred gender confidential. But I think the nuance in this policy is that it allows for the option of confidentiality. Some individuals may indeed be uncomfortable about “coming out” while others not, and we need to respect that choice.
6 Gender Integrated and Inclusive Activities: The author seems to be more worried
about their version of “fairness” as it relates to competition rather than the comfort of the participant in question. Indeed, gender issues in sports are complex and multifaceted, particularly as they relate to gender identity and sex variations. Sports organizations have been accused of implementing discriminatory policies, adhering to binary sex-segregation instead of considering gender identity or other competitive categories, and systematically excluding transgender athletes.
But the point here is that all students should have the opportunity to participate in classroom and extra-curricular activities, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity. I’m not convinced international sports rules are really applicable here.
8 Inclusive Learning: The author seems to want to hold to a vision of a sex/gender
binary as dictated by certain religious groups, even though we now know that gender diversity does exist. Scientists agree that there are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Nature, the world’s premier science journal, ran an editorial stating that “the research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female” and “the idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person's sex or gender is fundamentally flawed.” The bigger question, I would submit, is how might religions evolve to address another reality? How are we to understand religions that refuse to be inclusive and accepting of all?
The writer then offers a final concern:
My last concern is a financial one. The best statistics available in North America indicate that there are less than 6/10ths of one per cent of the population who are transgender or gender fluid. Creating special physical facilities for such a small group of individuals is a very poor use of our limited education funds. The money could be much better spent accommodating true special needs students and on programs to keep our children off drugs and out of gangs.
The author’s penultimate volley into the matter comes down to money. Basically, why are we wasting money on such a small group of people and, more specifically, why are we spending money creating non-gender washrooms? A
What are we to understand from such a query? Is the writer questioning the true value of investing in the treatment of minorities???? Why bother with such an insignificant number of people? he seems to be asking.
Honestly, this line of questioning leads to a discussion about how much is enough. How many is enough to justify action?
To me, such inquiry is an indication of a failure to see the end goal: feeling a sense of belonging. Feeling accepted and safe and secure in the place where you live, work, play and learn. Period.
And this, for everyone. Not just the majority.
By the way, according to a 2022 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 1.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender or nonbinary. This includes people who describe themselves as a man, a woman, or nonbinary, or who use terms such as gender fluid or agender to describe their gender. As a minority, transgender and nonbinary people face significant challenges and discrimination. Moreover, they are at high risk of having poor physical and mental health due to stigma.
So even though transgender people are indeed a minority, they still deserve equal rights and protections under the law.
In fact, many countries have passed laws to protect transgender people from discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, and other areas. And as we know, there has been an emphasis on transgender issues in the media and public discourse in recent years due to the growing visibility of transgender people and their allies. This increased visibility has helped to raise awareness about the challenges that transgender people face and has led to greater acceptance and support for the transgender community.
The writer ends by stating that:
If there really is a bullying problem in our schools, I suspect that drugs and gangs are a much bigger cause of the problem than someone who is not happy in the body that they either evolved in or were created in. SOGI is not the answer to bullying and discrimination. It is simply a philosophy being pushed by a small group of individuals who have no tolerance for those who disagree with their chosen lifestyle.
Is the writer then implying that people who are dealing with gender issues are not being bullied sufficiently to warrant action?
He goes on to note that, moreover, SOGI won’t solve our bullying and discrimination problem. Perhaps. But it’s a step in that direction.It’s a tool that can be used to promote inclusivity and respect for diversity in schools and, as such, a way to create a safe and inclusive environment for LGBTQ students and, by extension, a way to address discrimination and bullying.
By providing teachers with the resources they need to support LGBTQ students, SOGI can help create a more welcoming environment for all students. That said, studies show that having SOGI-specific anti-bullying policies improve the school climate for LGBTQ and heterosexual students, reducing discrimination, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts for all students.
Has the pendulum swung too far? Maybe. But this seems to be the typical MO when you try to introduce new concepts that might be counter to someone’s beliefs or upbringing, but, given evolved knowledge, shows that a different course may be warranted.
So where do we go from here?
Clearly, protest and disruption are not getting us anywhere. What we really need is calm, considerate and respectful discussion in which we review the real objections while also addressing concerns, not to mention any mis- or dis-information. We need to have hard conversations across difference. And we need to listen.
Change is hard. Sure.
But, in this case, the concept is simple:
Respect and acceptance of others.
In fact, if we could simply do this, we wouldn’t need all the special rules and policies.
At the end of the day, the question we really need to be asking is:
How can we create the conditions in which everyone can be their best selves?
Let me end by offering this revelatory quote that has been circulating around social media for the last few years:
“Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s ‘lifestyle’, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe, say or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”
_________________________________________________________________________
A Gender-neutral washrooms are designed to be accessible and safe for people of all genders,
including transgender and nonbinary individuals. These washrooms are not only inclusive, but also help to reduce the risk of harassment and violence that transgender people often face in gender-segregated washrooms. The design of public spaces has historically been gender-driven, which has led to discrimination and danger for the LGBTQ+ community. Gender-neutral washrooms are a step towards creating equitable spaces that cater to the needs of all citizens. It is also worth noting that gender-neutral washrooms are not just for transgender people. They can also benefit families with young children, people with disabilities, and anyone who requires assistance from someone of a different gender.
“Making school an accepting place, for all kids, for all kids to explore who they are, to be who they are, to grow up and be whoever they feel they are and want to be, is so important and it will lead to an even better community in the future.”
- Randall Garrison, NDP Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke
SEE ALSO
Abbotsford anti-SOGI protests sharing misinformation, inciting hate: Educators
Superintendent says local groups are spreading misinformation about learning resources
by JESSICA PETERS
https://www.abbynews.com/local-news/abbotsford-anti-sogi-protests-sharing-misinformation-inciting-hate-educators-5934633
SOGI EDUCATION Answers to Frequently Asked Questions By The Public By BRITISH COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION https://bcsta.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-SOGI_Education_BCSTA-FAQs_updated_Sept2018.pdf
What really is the SOGI 123 resource in British Columbia schools?
Q&A on the LGBTQ anti-bullying program with ARC Foundation’s national program manager
By PAUL HENDERSON https://www.vicnews.com/news/what-really-is-the-sogi-123-resource-in-british-columbia-schools-107995
SOGI-Inclusive Education Myth Busting
By MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CHILD CARE
SOGI Myth-busting
Speaking points for supporters of inclusivity in schools.
By WHITNEY_Ambit Gender Diversity Consulting
Letter: Why I am against SOGI 123
By J. A. MALCOLM
Former student urges incumbent Steinbach school trustee to reconsider stance on sexuality education
Brochure from Brad Unger campaign says B.C. sexuality education program affects 'innocence of children'
By ERIN BROHMAN
Wow! What a complete and thorough analysis. If only most people took the trouble to learn and explore rather than hurling slogans at each other in ignorance. I agree with your take on this Issue. The value of resources teaching acceptance and diversity is a no-brainer.