by Chan Kulatunga Moruzi
Twitter: @ChanKulatunga
Earlier this month, Danielle Smith announced Alberta’s new gender-related legislation, including legislation around the social transition of students. The average Canadian likely knows little about these issues, but it seems many have strong opinions. Some politicians like Marci Len, Kristopher Wells and Naheed Menshi have called the new legislation anti-trans. So, what is the typical Canadian school policy and is Danielle Smith’s legislation truly undermining the rights, health and well-being of gender-diverse Canadians?
Canadian schools’ policies regarding the social transition of gender questioning students say they are guided by principles of inclusion, privacy, and respect for students’ gender identities. These policies outline that students have the right to use their preferred name and pronouns, participate in activities, and access washrooms and change rooms that correspond with their gender identity and emphasize that students’ comfort and privacy are paramount. Whether to inform and involve parents is often left to the discretion of the child and school staff.
Many provinces have selected grade 7 (approx 12 years old) as the appropriate age for children to make these decisions. Assumptions are made that if a child does not wish to involve their parents, they must be unsupportive and dangerous. These policies are grounded in the belief that a trans child should not be “outed.” Generally, the approach taken by Canadian school boards is through a human rights lens – that is, a human rights lens that looks at the rights of the young person at the moment, not necessarily their long-term health and well-being.
Generally, the approach taken by Canadian school boards is through a human rights lens – that is, a human rights lens that looks at the rights of the young person at the moment, not necessarily their long-term health and well-being.
Danielle Smith’s new legislation takes a different approach, one based on child safeguarding, focusing on the child’s long-term well-being. It mandates parental consent for students under 16 to use a different name and/or pronouns at school. For students aged 16 and 17, parents must be informed, although consent is not required. The policy emphasizes the belief that parents have the right to be involved in significant decisions affecting their children’s lives. It does not make automatic assumptions about parents and it recognizes that many youth identifying as transgender today also have many other mental health issues and that parents are best equipped to understand the context in which their child’s gender dysphoria emerged. Schools have directives they must follow if they suspect that a child is in danger in their home for any reason and certainly should use those resources when that is the case.
The Alberta policy aligns with policies announced last year in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, which have similar restrictions on name and pronoun changes in schools and parental involvement. It also aligns with the Cass Review, conducted in the UK, which recommends caution in social transitioning.
The Cass Review emphasized that social transition–including name and pronoun changes– is a significant psychosocial intervention that should involve parents and clinical support. A mental health professional should be involved, explaining the benefits and risks to the child and family, as well as incorporating a plan for monitoring and supporting desistance when appropriate. It highlighted that social transition could have long-term psychological and developmental impacts, and may change the trajectory of a young person’s identity development. It also points out, based on a systematic review, that the evidence of psychological benefits supporting social transition is very weak.
Before the affirmation model was implemented (watchful waiting which did not encourage social transition), most youth outgrew their gender distress and aligned with their natal sex (many growing up to be gay/lesbian). Under the new gender identity affirmation model, social transition appears to lock in a trans-identity, inhibiting the natural resolution of gender distress and increasing the likelihood of life-long medical interventions. In light of this, Smith’s policies are informed and strive to safeguard the youth’s broader well-being and their right to an open future while balancing parental rights and responsibilities. The right to an open future has been articulated with regard to puberty blockers, which also increases the likelihood of further medical intervention. This is echoed in detransitioner Katie Lennon’s testimony where she discussed how affirmation by key figures including teaching staff led her to cross-sex hormones at 18 and a double mastectomy and hysterectomy at 21.
What happens when schools walk back gender policies
Will it be possible for schools to walk back the policies they have already set in place and used for several years? A school in New York, the Charlton School was in exactly this predicament two years ago. The Charlton School is a small (approximately 41 students) therapeutic school offering an accredited high school curriculum for adolescent girls struggling with mental health challenges. Similar to many schools, they saw the number of students experiencing gender issues begin to grow. In 2016, they had one student requesting a pronoun and name change. At this time, they were using the “affirming model” that Canadian schools use. By 2018, they had 6 students identifying as transgender. By 2020, there were 9 and none of these students were doing well upon graduating.
The school prides itself on involving parents in their child’s education, so they decided to meet with parents to discuss. They researched the topic and discovered a very different narrative concerning the rise of gender distress in young people, especially girls. They found this was consistent with the rise of other mental health issues across the western world. They also read the studies that show desistance with a “watchful waiting approach”.
They developed a new school policy based on a biopsychosocial model and peer-reviewed literature. Their therapeutic staff was trained to use a more exploratory approach based on principles of adolescent development. The new policy explicitly did not allow name and pronoun changes with school staff. No stipulations were made for student-to-student interactions.
The guiding idea was not to encourage the students to identify with their natal sex but to leave the future open. This policy was introduced in 2022 and discussed with parents and students before enrolment. Alex Capo, the director of the school discusses their approach here. Since then, they have had 53 referrals to their school for gender dysphoria and were able to accept 18. All of the students adjusted to the policy within a week or so and students and staff have been able to work on the task at hand – educating and supporting the development of their students.
Two of these students have now graduated and have provided feedback to the school about their new gender policy. Here are their words:
These quotes illustrate that the context in which gender dysphoria arises is important and that gender distress does not necessarily indicate a deep-seated and permanent trans-identity. They also illustrate how difficult it is to walk back an identity once it is affirmed, especially when those insisting on affirming a trans-identity are authority figures. These students matured and grew, as they should, during this critical period of identity development.
School staff are generally not privy to students’ experiences outside of school and they do not have the training to initiate or support a psychosocial intervention, especially without parent involvement. School staff are also not likely to have balanced scientific knowledge regarding this topic.
Schools need to adopt new gender policies that ensure they leave the future open for their students. Students should explore and experiment, be allowed to express themselves and even change their names and pronouns with peers. Adults, however, should be aware that what they do matters. Teachers and school staff should be careful not to interfere with a child’s development and their right to an open future.
