Inclusivity in Sex Education

Introduction

In July 2018, the new Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, repealed the 2015 sexual education curriculum that was put in place by the previous Liberal party. He introduced the 1998 version as the interim curriculum that teachers must abide by. Parents of students in Ontario appear to be divided over the issue. The primary concern regarding the curriculum is that it introduces controversial topics such as gender fluidity and acceptance of same-sex relationships and families. Most complaints come from parents of religious backgrounds, claiming it infringes on their right to freedom of religion, as many of the topics covered conflict with their beliefs. Many teachers and students express concerns that the interim curriculum violates the rights of students by lacking inclusivity. Teachers have also expressed anger at a website created where parents can express their issues with teachers who continue to teach the 2015 curriculum (CBC News, 2018). This local issue has global implications as people nationally and internationally can observe that one of the most progressive nations has repealed a curriculum aimed at advancing the rights of many individuals, especially LGBT youth. However, the issue has also sparked outrage and movements toward the recognition of these issues.

Inclusivity in Sex Education

The views of the teachers and students outraged by the repeal align with much of radical feminist ideals. As stated in radical feminist literature, the focus often lies on issues regarding the body and sexuality. In particular, the issue of sexual consent and finding personal pleasure would be approved, as sexual violence is a prominent issue campaigned for by radical feminists. However, it also conflicts with the views of some radical feminists who adhere to traditionally binary views of gender identity and expression. As a whole, the issue of inclusivity in sex education curricula is a feminist issue, as it aims to create equality and address topics beyond the majority, or straight and/or cisgender students. In a lengthy article published by Campaign Life Coalition, one of Canada’s largest pro-life lobbyist groups, immense concern was shown with the curriculum, revealing a clear bias against the LGBT population. It aimed to discredit those of opposing viewpoints, claiming they are a small minority. The article claims that those opposed to the repeal and who have spoken out about the issue “do not at all represent the ordinary voting public,” and therefore individuals should not be swayed by “the media's political propaganda campaign” (Campaign Life Coalition, n.d.).

Religious and Health Concerns

The article addressed the issue regarding religion, but only mentioned it in terms of the Catholic school system being incapable of teaching the curriculum as it goes against their beliefs. It claims the curriculum is dangerous for students as it aims to “normalize homosexual ‘marriage’,” does not accurately represent the risks of contracting sexually transmitted infections from anal intercourse, and suggests that the representation of gender as fluid causes gender confusion, potentially leading students to feel “‘pushed’ by the school system to get sex reassignment surgery” (Campaign Life Coalition, n.d.). Not only are these ideas homophobic and transphobic, but they are also taken out of context. An excerpt from the curriculum posted in the article itself states, “engaging in activities like oral sex, vaginal intercourse, or anal intercourse means that you can get infected with an STI. If you do not have sex, you do not need to worry about getting an STI” (Campaign Life Coalition, n.d.). This excerpt clearly states the reality of contracting an STI from sexual activity and consistently emphasizes using protection, such as condoms.

Furthermore, it does not coerce or force students into feeling as if they should have sex before they are ready, as the article claims. In discussing parts of the grade 8 curriculum, which addresses creating boundaries on one’s own sexual limits, the article claims that this “has an undertone that is too sexually permissive and is giving license to promiscuity” (Campaign Life Coalition, n.d.). It goes as far as to say that “it may actually be illegal for adults to instruct underage children to have sex” and that it poses “a risk that this will put pressure on kids to become sexually active” (Campaign Life Coalition, n.d.). This example is supported by a “2014 poll of UK teens conducted by the Institute of Public Policy Research” (Campaign Life Coalition, n.d.), which is entirely irrelevant to this specific curriculum and the students of Ontario. The excerpts are exaggerated and not accurately evaluated. By suggesting to students—who at the grade 8 level are likely to be exposed to the possibility of sexual activity in the near future—to start thinking about their personal beliefs and boundaries with as much information from a health professional on safety and consent as possible, this is the opposite of trying to force students to engage in sexual activity before they are ready. While this article provides valuable insight into the viewpoints of some individuals, it is, in my opinion, incredibly biased and represents a minority with extremely bigoted and aggressive stances against the LGBT community. The only valuable information from this article is its brief, albeit biased, outlook from a religious perspective.

Challenges and Public Opinion

While it may be challenging to integrate some of these ideas into a traditional Catholic school system, students at these schools are no less likely to face the same issues as students in public schools. They should still be given the same opportunities for inclusivity and be educated in sexual health to make well-informed choices. A global news poll of 500 Ontario parents found that “50 percent of them said they were OK with the 1998 curriculum being taught, with 48 percent believing it does ‘a good job’ of addressing current issues” (Westoll, 2018). The poll also found support for the curriculum between 68 and 84 percent, depending on the grade and its contents (Westoll, 2018). In Ontario, there was widespread support for the inclusive 2015 curriculum, exemplified by a high school student-led walkout named March for our Education on September 21st. The event had a projected attendance of 40,000 students and faculty from more than 100 schools across the province (CTV News, 2018).

References

• CBC News. (2018). Ford government repeals Ontario sex-ed curriculum. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-1.4756074
• Campaign Life Coalition. (n.d.). Why we oppose Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum. Campaign Life Coalition. Retrieved from https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/why-we-oppose-sex-ed
• Westoll, N. (2018). Poll shows split on Ontario sex-ed curriculum. Global News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/4444444/ontario-sex-ed-curriculum-poll/
• CTV News. (2018). Students protest sex-ed curriculum changes. CTV News. Retrieved from https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/students-protest-sex-ed-curriculum-changes-1.4106109