From religious culture to gender identity
The publishing house ERPI has just released Citizen Passport1, its elementary school textbooks
for the Culture and Citizenship Quebec (CCQ) course.
NADIA EL-MABROUKPresident of the Rally for SecularismHaving actively participated in Debate2 that led to the redesign of the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course, we were eager to see how the curriculum for the new course would be rolled out.
From absolute recognition to critical dialogueThe ERC course gave a preponderant place to religious beliefs and practices, in a posture of absolute recognition. The textbooks were full of images of children wearing ostentatious religious symbols and representations of different religions with an emphasis on the most fundamentalist practices.
Fortunately, this is no longer the case with the CCQ manuals consulted. Gone is the anthology of religious symbols. We have not seen any of them. Children are no longer identified by religious affiliations.
When the theme of religions is addressed, it is addressed in its spiritual dimension, by involving philosophical reflection.
Thus, as announced in the program, the common thread is indeed that of reflection, critical judgment and learning to debate.
The main criticism of ECR was that it emphasized "differences" rather than rallying around a common civic culture. This is no longer the case for the CCQ manuals consulted. There is no emphasis on religious differences or on ethnic or "racial" differences. We understand that everyone in Quebec is part of the "diversity", and that a rapprochement between citizens is necessary. All this is very positive.
Secularism and its valuesWhat is less so, however, is that there is no reference to secularism and its principles. Even if, according to the curriculum, these are mandatory concepts to be addressed only in the second year of high school, one would have expected them to be mentioned, even minimally. Indeed, the importance of promoting the secular rule of law is part of the program's "pursuit
of the common good" purpose, in both primary and secondary schools.
However, this downside is compensated by the fact that the CCQ textbooks are, in fact, much more respectful of students' freedom of conscience than those of ERC. They are more in line with the values of secularism, since they offer a space not saturated with beliefs, conducive to critical thinking. This will allow students to escape identity assignments, and will promote their freedom of thought.
A new ideological fadUnfortunately, new ideological drifts have appeared in connection with the sexuality education component. It is a question of diversions of meaning aimed at denying the immutable biological nature of sex in order to reduce it to a subjective and fluid "feeling".
Thus, inthe Grade 5 textbook, sex is defined as a "social category". Oh, really? As François Chapleau, professor emeritus of biology at the University of Ottawa3, puts it, this definition is downright laughable when applied to the millions of other sexual species on Earth. How can the sex of moose or asparagus be explained in terms of "social categories"?
An effort is made to avoid the word "sex". For example, when the grounds of discrimination are listed, the box "to remember" talks about sexual orientation and gender identity... but no sex!
Isn't this a blatant lack of sensitivity towards women around the world who suffer discrimination,
harassment and violence on the basis of their gender?
Gender identity is defined as a "category that may be different from the one assigned at birth" and that "relates to what one feels inside oneself". How can children be made to believe that they were assigned a gender identity at birth?
The definition goes on to mention that one can "feel like: girl, boy, both, neither, sometimes one and sometimes the other." However, in the section devoted to the fight against sexual stereotypes, it is explained that young people should be able to freely express who they are (character trait, appearance, temperament) and choose what they prefer (activities, trades, clothing, etc.) regardless of whether they are girls or boys. How are teachers going to surf on this paradox which consists, on the one hand, in fighting against sexual stereotypes and, on the other hand, in integrating a definition of gender identity that is based, in large part, on the acceptance of these stereotypes?
To sum up, the CCQ program and textbooks are more likely to promote living together than those of the ERC course. But why risk discrediting ourselves by renewing an ideological, non-scientific vocabulary on sex and gender? Will teachers be trained in such diversions of meaning? There is a great risk that external organizations, potentially activists, will offer turnkey training on gender identity in the classroom.
The government must make up for it by removing the ideological definition of the word "sex" as a social category from the curriculum, and not approve textbooks that use such a vocabulary. Our children deserve better!
for the Culture and Citizenship Quebec (CCQ) course.
NADIA EL-MABROUKPresident of the Rally for SecularismHaving actively participated in Debate2 that led to the redesign of the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course, we were eager to see how the curriculum for the new course would be rolled out.
From absolute recognition to critical dialogueThe ERC course gave a preponderant place to religious beliefs and practices, in a posture of absolute recognition. The textbooks were full of images of children wearing ostentatious religious symbols and representations of different religions with an emphasis on the most fundamentalist practices.
Fortunately, this is no longer the case with the CCQ manuals consulted. Gone is the anthology of religious symbols. We have not seen any of them. Children are no longer identified by religious affiliations.
When the theme of religions is addressed, it is addressed in its spiritual dimension, by involving philosophical reflection.
Thus, as announced in the program, the common thread is indeed that of reflection, critical judgment and learning to debate.
The main criticism of ECR was that it emphasized "differences" rather than rallying around a common civic culture. This is no longer the case for the CCQ manuals consulted. There is no emphasis on religious differences or on ethnic or "racial" differences. We understand that everyone in Quebec is part of the "diversity", and that a rapprochement between citizens is necessary. All this is very positive.
Secularism and its valuesWhat is less so, however, is that there is no reference to secularism and its principles. Even if, according to the curriculum, these are mandatory concepts to be addressed only in the second year of high school, one would have expected them to be mentioned, even minimally. Indeed, the importance of promoting the secular rule of law is part of the program's "pursuit
of the common good" purpose, in both primary and secondary schools.
However, this downside is compensated by the fact that the CCQ textbooks are, in fact, much more respectful of students' freedom of conscience than those of ERC. They are more in line with the values of secularism, since they offer a space not saturated with beliefs, conducive to critical thinking. This will allow students to escape identity assignments, and will promote their freedom of thought.
A new ideological fadUnfortunately, new ideological drifts have appeared in connection with the sexuality education component. It is a question of diversions of meaning aimed at denying the immutable biological nature of sex in order to reduce it to a subjective and fluid "feeling".
Thus, inthe Grade 5 textbook, sex is defined as a "social category". Oh, really? As François Chapleau, professor emeritus of biology at the University of Ottawa3, puts it, this definition is downright laughable when applied to the millions of other sexual species on Earth. How can the sex of moose or asparagus be explained in terms of "social categories"?
An effort is made to avoid the word "sex". For example, when the grounds of discrimination are listed, the box "to remember" talks about sexual orientation and gender identity... but no sex!
Isn't this a blatant lack of sensitivity towards women around the world who suffer discrimination,
harassment and violence on the basis of their gender?
Gender identity is defined as a "category that may be different from the one assigned at birth" and that "relates to what one feels inside oneself". How can children be made to believe that they were assigned a gender identity at birth?
The definition goes on to mention that one can "feel like: girl, boy, both, neither, sometimes one and sometimes the other." However, in the section devoted to the fight against sexual stereotypes, it is explained that young people should be able to freely express who they are (character trait, appearance, temperament) and choose what they prefer (activities, trades, clothing, etc.) regardless of whether they are girls or boys. How are teachers going to surf on this paradox which consists, on the one hand, in fighting against sexual stereotypes and, on the other hand, in integrating a definition of gender identity that is based, in large part, on the acceptance of these stereotypes?
To sum up, the CCQ program and textbooks are more likely to promote living together than those of the ERC course. But why risk discrediting ourselves by renewing an ideological, non-scientific vocabulary on sex and gender? Will teachers be trained in such diversions of meaning? There is a great risk that external organizations, potentially activists, will offer turnkey training on gender identity in the classroom.
The government must make up for it by removing the ideological definition of the word "sex" as a social category from the curriculum, and not approve textbooks that use such a vocabulary. Our children deserve better!
