Article content continued

The response of the school board’s lawyers, who asked for dismissal of the complaint, state the claim has no reasonable basis for success. The lawyers note that teachers’ right to teach gender identity is endorsed by the minister of education, and that the “age-appropriateness of a classroom discussion does not engage a Code-protected prohibited ground.” That is to say, even if N was adversely affected by the teacher’s lessons — and they do not deny that this is the case — she has no grounds for redress according to the Human Rights Code.

If the school board is successful in its bid for dismissal, it means that the words “gender identity” and “gender expression” do not apply to everyone. They apply only to those whose gender identity does not synchronize with their biology — the protection of a biologically female child to identify as a girl would not be protected. Feelings of distress among the very small percentage of children whose gender identity differs from their biological sex must be alleviated at all cost. If that cost involves distress or confusion in the vast majority of other children like N, that is not “discrimination.”

The Buffones are not buying this (while acknowledging the human rights tribunal may well do so). The Ontario Human Rights Code takes a fairly broad view of discrimination. It states, for example, that a “poisoned environment” is a form of discrimination. The Buffones are “going to provide evidence that the manner in which (the teacher) was teaching the concept of gender identity resulted in a poisoned environment.”