Reformed Christians are used to the notion that our Christian faith applies to all areas or all spheres of life. Because the lordship of Christ reaches into every domain of human existence (e.g. politics, education, business, science, art), so too should Christians endeavour to be ambassadors of our Lord to every discipline at hand. 

But Reformed Christians are not the only ones trying to apply our worldview to everything we do. Political progressives are doing the same. But rather than advocate for the lordship of Jesus Christ and biblical principles, progressives promote doctrines like gender ideology, the belief that our biological sex has no necessary bearing on our gender. 

Two pieces of legislation in Manitoba illustrate the invasion of gender ideology into all spheres of life. 

The Advocate for Children and Youth 

Manitoba has a public service position called the Advocate for Children and Youth. Its mandate is to “advise children, youth, and young adults of their rights and the services which should be available to them” and to “raise issues with government on behalf of the province’s children, and to advise the government on issues and areas of concern.” Highlights of its work from last year include providing 955 youth with advocacy services, investigating the deaths of 86 children, releasing a special report on sleep-related infant deaths, and conducting youth engagement workshops. 

The legislation guiding the Advocate, the Advocate for Children and Youth Act, states that children should “participate in decisions that affect their lives,” that services should “value their cultural background and respect their rights, interests and viewpoints,” and that services should respect “the values, beliefs, customs and traditional communities of Indigenous peoples.”  

But that isn’t enough for social progressives. The government recently introduced Bill 23, an amendment to the Advocate for Children and Youth Act, that would do little more than explicitly inject gender ideology into the legislation. The bill proposes to add a statement that “children and youth of all gender identities, including two-spirit, transgender and non-binary, deserve services that respect their dignity and support them in living fully and authentically.” 

This addition elevates gender identity as a characteristic worthy of special attention and deference. Aside from Indigenous identity, no other personal characteristics – such as sex, race, religion, disability, or family status – are mentioned in this Act. Only gender identity and Indigeneity get this special treatment. 

Public Schools 

Or consider Bill 38, which would amend the Public Schools Act. One of the very first sections of the Public Schools Act discusses bullying. Of course, Christians recognize bullying for any reason as wrong. And right now, Manitoba’s Public Schools Act agrees. There is no list of prohibited grounds for bullying that deems some reasons as worse than others or implies that bullying on some grounds is acceptable.  

But Bill 38 proposes to change that. It changes the definition of bullying to not only include individuals, but also entire groups or classes of people based on enumerated characteristics in Manitoba’s Human Rights Code. That Code includes a long list of protected classes: (a) ancestry, including colour and perceived race; (b) nationality or national origin; (c) ethnic background or origin; (d) religion or creed, or religious belief, religious association or religious activity; (e) age; (f) sex; (g) gender identity; (g.1) gender expression; (h) sexual orientation; (i) marital or family status; (j) source of income; (k) political belief, political association or political activity; (l) physical or mental disability; (m) social disadvantage. 

Again, note the insertion of gender ideology here. Gender identity and gender expression are now explicitly listed as prohibited grounds for bullying. 

And this bullying need not be an altercation between one person and another, say, one boy making fun of another boy for wearing a dress. It includes entire classes of people. One student simply posting on social media that “boys wearing dresses at school is dumb” or something like that would count as bullying. 

Now, again, our problem is not with schools punishing bullies who pick on kids who think they are transgender. We are commanded to “love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:39), “count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3), and to even “love your enemies, [and] do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). Bullying, for any reason, should be abhorrent to Christians. 

But our emphasis is on all reasons. Christians don’t need to enumerate that some reasons for bullying are worse than others, especially if these reasons breathe life into the lie that our biological sex should have no bearing on our gender identity. 

Now, by introducing all sorts of prohibited reasons for bullying, Bill 38 doesn’t explicitly elevate gender identity over and above the other listed characteristics. As you can read above, there is quite the list of characteristics in Manitoba’s Human Rights Code. But there are many personal traits a bully might pick on that are not included in that list: looks, hair colour, lack of athleticism, shyness, awkwardness, size, grades, etc. And, in practice, some of the characteristics listed in the law may still be elevated over others in that list.  

SOGI in British Columbia 

Take the example of British Columbia. In 2016, British Columbia included gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds for discrimination in its Human Rights Code (just as Manitoba has done). Later that year, the government required that all schools incorporate this list of characteristics into their anti-bullying policies (just as Manitoba is trying to do now). With that, SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) in schools was born.  

But what started as (and is still called) an anti-bullying policy has become far more. It quickly expanded into a set of teaching resources that public (and independent) schools were quick to incorporate into the classroom. The purpose of these resources was to teach that gender ideology is true, tolerant, and good. Even outdoor education was “queered.” The government boasts that all 60 school districts are using this material; even the executive director of FISA, the organization that represents independent schools across the province, proudly supported SOGI. 

Beyond this, schools switched to all-gender washrooms, allowed boys who identified as girls to play on girls’ sports teams, and failed to keep parents in the loop about their child’s expressed gender at school. 

All of this has sparked significant backlash against SOGI. British Columbia’s experience with SOGI is a warning story of where ostensible anti-bullying policies can lead. 

Loving all students regardless of their characteristics 

Instead of creating a limited list of prohibited grounds for bullying (as Manitoba’s Bill 38 does) or specially elevating gender identity as worthy of recognition (as Manitoba’s Bill 23 does), Christians should call for people and institutions to love all children and youth, regardless of their characteristics. This was the main recommendation in our report, Protect them all: A Christian case for eliminating lists of special identity groups in school policies.  

Unfortunately, that is not the direction that Manitoba – and most other provinces – is going. Instead, our governments are increasingly committed to incorporating their progressive worldview and gender ideology into every facet of their work. 

Christians need to be faithful in their calling to incorporate Christian beliefs in response.