My previous understanding of SOGI in schools was that it involved more explicit teaching rather than the goal of it to be visibility, protection, and inclusion. This gives me more confidence about addressing this in the classroom because creating a safe and inclusive space seems easier and more natural than explicitly teaching content about SOGI.

I had very little prior knowledge about intersex. Understanding that there are so many different variations of intersex due to chromosome and fetal development abnormalities is very eye-opening and I feel like I have a much better understanding of it now.

A resource I really like on the BCTF site is the “Gender Self-Portrait.” I’m thinking about integrating it into the global issues socials unit I’ll be doing with the grade 6 class during practicum. It would be the perfect art lesson during the gender inequalities topics. It involves making a collage on folder paper that has the outside representing the expected gender norms and then it opens up to the actual likes and thinks the student identifies with on the inside. https://www.bctf.ca/classroom-resources/details/gender-self-portrait

At Uplands, one of the teachers reads a rainbow-sticker book to her class each week when they come for book exchange. The books related to SOGI all have a rainbow heart on the spine so she has a student find a book with the sticker than reads it to the class after they’ve picked out their new books. I think it’s a great way to incorporate visibility of people that may be different from who the students know through a story book. She simply reads a story and has a short discussion about it afterwards.

If a parent opposes their kid learning about SOGI, my principal should be able to support me.

Something I found surprising on the CMSD SOGI Policy was that under the definitions section, it defines “gender nonconforming” as referring to “children who express gender in ways that differs from societal expectations of the sex and gender assigned to them at birth. For the purposes of this policy and accompanying regulations, gender non-conforming children are included under the term trans*.” The idea that children who don’t fit into the stereo-typical societal gender norms are assumed to be trans is strange to me. I know it says for the purpose of the policy, but the idea that they should fit into the box of boy or girl or they are trans seems like a big jump. Maybe it’s just old wording or very policy focused but it just sounds like a very outdated view.