Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Education

Toronto-area Catholic school hid ‘trans’ identity of 10-year-old girl from her parents

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A school in the York Catholic District School Board kept ten-year-old Julie’s ‘transition’ a secret from her parents and called the Children’s Aid Society when her parents questioned what was happening with their daughter. The girl has since detransitioned.

A Toronto-area Catholic school has been exposed for hiding a young girl’s “gender transition” from her parents, and calling the Children’s Aid Society on the family when the parents expressed concern over the decision. 

In a September 3 article, the National Post revealed that an unnamed school in the York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB), located in the suburbs of Toronto, kept a ten-year-old girl’s “transition” a secret from her parents and called the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) when her parents questioned what was happening. The National Post article uses the alias “Julie” for the girl for privacy reasons, it also uses aliases for the names of the parents.

“Transgender activists were actively posting videos about ‘safe’ breast binding and how euphoric testosterone makes you feel and how it makes all your problems suddenly disappear. The more I was brainwashed by these videos, the more I started to resonate with them,” Julie, who is now thirteen and no longer thinks she is “transgender,” told the outlet.  

The article retells Julie’s experience, relaying that her gender dysphoria began in 2021 when she installed social media app TikTok and spent hours on it during COVID lockdowns. While online, Julie fell down rabbit holes and “discovered the LGBTQ+ community.” 

In 2021, at the start of her grade five year, after watching a video asking viewers whether they were “anxious and uncomfortable” in their own bodies, Julie became convinced she was “non-binary.”

In 2022, she came out to her class and began using “they/them” pronouns and a male name with the help of a teacher from the YCDSB. This development was kept from her parents who only discovered it in June 2022 when Julie began cutting her hair short and revealed that she did not feel “like a girl anymore.” 

“It was a horrible time for me as a parent because so much was happening behind my back. I didn’t know for a long while about many things that were happening. I suspected that something was really wrong,” Julie’s mother, Christina, recalled to the National Post.  

Many Ontario school boards have policies requiring teachers and staff withhold students’ private information from their parents, including the York Region District School Board, Thames Valley District School Board, and the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.    

By the beginning of grade six, in September 2022, Julie believed she was a boy, using a male name and looking into testosterone injections and a double mastectomy. 

However, instead of addressing Julie’s underlying phycological issues, doctors assured her that chest binding was safe and even asked if she would like to learn about puberty blockers.  

“At that age, I can’t make a conscious decision about medical interventions with an extremely high risk of life-threatening side effects that could make me unable to ever conceive a child,” Julie declared. “All accepted that I’m a boy and never tried to dig up any underlying problems that might be causing these suicidal ideations.”  

After Julie ran away, the school called CAS, claiming that Christina’s opposition to Julie’s transition is a potential “culprit of conflict.” Over the next few months, the school called CAS several times, leading the agency to visit the family in their home at least five times. 

The school principal told CAS that “she knows that the family loves their child and want the best for the child but they are doing a lot of damage emotionally at this time.” 

Finally, in the early months of grade seven, now aged twelve, Julie’s father brought home Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier, which discussed the reasons behind gender dysphoria. While her father had bought the book for himself, Julie read it out of curiosity.  

“After reading about detransitioners and how they came to identify as transgender, I understood I was heading in the wrong direction and needed to turn around before I hurt my loved ones or myself,” she revealed.  

This began Julie’s detransition journey, which she discovered was not as celebrated as her initial decision to identify as a boy.  

“When we announced that she wants to go back to female pronouns, everyone kept asking: ‘Are you sure? Are you sure you want to transition?’” Christina said. 

Similarly, Julie revealed, “I did not really lose any friends, but my closest friends seem to be, pushing away from me. Like, they’re not talking to me as much, and they’re part of the LGBTQ” community.” 

Now, as she enters grade eight, Julie revealed that she “finally felt truly at peace with my identity.” 

Unfortunately, Julie’s story is not unique.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.     

Despite the claims of LGBT activists, a significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Studies find that more than 80 percent of children suffering gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence  and that “transition” procedures, including “reassignment” surgery, fail to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide – and even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Education

Parents should oppose any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology in schools

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.

In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.

According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)

By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.

It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.

It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”

So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.

Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.

Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.

Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.

Paige MacPherson

Associate Director, Education Policy
Continue Reading

Alberta

Parents in every province—not just Alberta—deserve as much school choice as possible

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents.

This week, the Smith government in Alberta will likely pass Bill 27, which requires schools to get signed permission from parents or guardians prior to any lessons on human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation.

It’s a sensible move. The government is proactively ensuring that students are in these classes because their parents want them there. Given the sensitive nature of these topics, for everyone’s sake it makes sense to ensure parental buy-in at the outset.

Unfortunately, many school trustees don’t agree. A recent resolution passed by the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) calls on the Smith government to maintain the status quo where parents are assumed to have opted in to these lessons unless they contact the school and opt their children out. Apparently, the ASBA thinks parents can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for their children on this issue.

This ASBA resolution is, in fact, a good example of the reflexive opposition by government school trustees to parental rights. They don’t want parents to take control of their children’s education, especially in sensitive areas. Fortunately, the Alberta government rebuffed ASBA’s demands and this attempt to abolish Bill 27 will likely fall on deaf ears.

However, there’s an even better safeguard available to Alberta parents—school choice. Out of all Canadian provinces, Alberta offers the most school choice. Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents. Simply put, parents who are dissatisfied with the government school system have plenty of options—more than parents in any other province. This means Alberta parents can vote with their feet.

Things are quite different in other parts of the country. For example, Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces do not allow any provincial funding to follow students to independent schools. In other words, parents in these provinces who choose an independent school must pay the full cost themselves—while still paying taxes that fund government schools. And no province other than Alberta allows charter schools.

This is why it’s important to give parents as much school choice as possible. Given the tendency of government school boards to remove choices from parents, it’s important that all parents, including those with limited means, have other options available for their children.

Imagine if the owners of a large grocery store tried to impose their dietary preferences by removing all meat products and telling customers that the only way they could purchase meat is to make a special order. What would happen in that scenario? It depends on what other options are available. If this was the only grocery store in the community, customers would have no choice but to comply. However, if there were other stores, customers could simply shop elsewhere. Choice empowers people and limits the ability of one company to limit the choices of people who live in the community.

Think of government school boards as a monopolistic service provider like a grocery store. They often do everything possible to prevent parents from going anywhere else for their children’s education. Trusting them to do what’s best for parents and children is like assuming that the owners of a grocery store would always put the interests of their customers first and not their own self-interest. Monopolies are bad in the private sector and they’re bad in the education sector, too.

Clearly, it makes sense to require schools to get proactive consent from parents. This ensures maximum buy-in from parents for whatever courses their children take. It’s also important that Alberta remains a bastion of school choice. By making it easier for parents to choose from a variety of education options, Alberta puts power in the hands of parents, exactly where it belongs. Parents in other provinces should want that same power, too.

Continue Reading

Trending

X