The Case for Teaching Sex Ed to a Mixed Group

Sex education is one of those topics that really tends to divide people. Many people, myself included, have strong feelings about what, when and how it should be taught. In some circles, the word "if" might even appear on that list.

As a society, we can see the discomfort with the topic through the many euphemisms we use for sex ed. (and sex in general, but that list would be longer than anyone might care to read!)-- from "human growth and development" to "family life", and everything in between. Sometimes these cause confusion, like the time I was in elementary school and I heard we were going to study "family life". I thought it would be about things like road trips and camping vacations.

The sad truth is, society has some big hangups when it comes to discussing sex and sex education, and students are all too aware of this.

Whatever our religious, cultural and political leanings, most Canadians can agree that it is a good idea to give kids some sort of "heads-up" about changes coming in puberty and how these affect human reproduction.

The old-school way was to separate out the boys and girls and give them the information they needed in a lecture followed by a question and answer session. Sometimes there would be a question box for students who were uncomfortable asking in person. The rationale was that students were more comfortable talking about these things with students of their own gender, and that they each needed different information.

And herein lies the problem.

This practice makes some assumptions that can hurt students.

First of all, I will argue that it is very important and relevant for students to understand the changes that everyone goes through in adolescence, not just themselves. By learning about others. students are much more likely to develop empathy with others. They are better equipped to understand other family members, friends and partners, and to become better parents as they have a greater understanding of the human reproduction portions of sex education.

Second of all, dividing the class in this way displays an assumption of the gender binary, and also of adherence to assigned gender for any trans or non-binary students who might not yet be "out". The intention of creating a safe environment to ask questions and share information does quite the opposite for such students. This can also be devastating for students who are questioning their gender identity.

If we are serious about creating safe, caring and inclusive schools that celebrate diversity and welcome everyone, we need to rethink the way we have traditionally gone about teaching sex education in particular, but also in all of the ways in which we assume gender binary by dividing students into boy and girl teams, lines in the hall, and so on from kindergarten or even earlier. In an era in which the topic of gender is as divisive as ever, we need to take care in our choices with the newest generation.

So how do we encourage students to ask questions and seek clarification?

Some things we can do to help create a safe environment for everyone:

- encourage students to share their feelings about sex and sex ed. with the group, allowing for students to contribute anonymously
- collaborate with the group to set up a list of behaviour expectations for group discussion
- encourage all students to ask questions, and make an effort to answer all the questions as accurately as possible (allow yourself time to consult with health professionals as needed)

Some ways to allow for anonymity:

- distribute 1-2 cards or sticky notes per student and instruct them to write their questions on these; students without questions can write "hello" or similar instead; collect all notes so that no one student stands out as having had a question
- have a question box students can add their questions to anonymously
- set up a Google Form with a short-answer option and turn off the "show email" option

Water-a Right or a Commodity?

Like so many things, my recent interest in water issues springs from my children; in this case my oldest son, who became interested in water issues in relation to a science project.

I am one of those people, who despite living in the Great Lakes region, where the world's largest supply of fresh water exists, and the tap water is treated and reliable, filtered my drinking water before consuming, even before the Walkerton incident.

While living on Lake Ontario, our family began to buy RO water from a local store. Even now, we have installed an RO system in our house for drinking water. This system uses a huge amount of water to backwash the filter, but that water can be captured and used for laundry and such. Still, it is a luxury, especially as we have ready access to what is arguably the best drinking water on the planet.

So I admit that I feel a little (though not a lot) guilty when I pass judgment on those I see with grocery carts loaded with crates of bottled water in individual-sized plastic bottles. Do those people understand how much waste they are generating with all that plastic? Even if it were all recycled successfully (which is rare, even if you do put it all in your blue box), do they understand that much of it is tap water (at best), and that none of it is regulated with the rigorous testing standards that our municipal tap water requires? Some, if not all of those plastic bottles also contain BPA, which has been shown to be toxic. Do consumers not understand how much less waste they would create by using their own reusable water bottle, in terms of energy, materials, health and money?

But others have addressed this issue, so I will move on now.

In Kenya and several other African countries, the World Bank's policy of putting exports first has meant that areas that are drought-prone are being used to produce frivolous water-intense products, such as cut flowers for the European market, despite their own population's desperate need for water to meet their own basic needs. The wealthy prosper while the general population pays with their health, and sometimes their lives.

What would change were water to be added to the list of human rights? To be honest, I really don't know. There are other rights that did make the list that are largely ignored in many countries. Still, I suspect that governments and multi-national institutions would feel a greater pressure to ensure the availability of water to the people. This doesn't mean it would change much, but it might provide a starting point for discussion, negotiations, legislation, etc.

I've heard the argument over and over--"we have the same amount of water we have always had--it's a demand issue". Well, this is true, to a point. Rising ocean levels and aridation of land mean that while the planetary water level remains static, the amount of fresh water available is decreasing. Add to this the problems of shrinking glaciers and pollution, and you can see that while population is definitely a mitigating factor, there is much more to this than a simple demand issue. We live in a world in which more people have access to a cell phone than have access to a toilet. This is not a healthy situation, particularly in areas that have high population density. Outbreaks of cholera are becoming more common. The health of a population is dependent on the availability of a reliable source of clean water.

Yes, we need to run factories, refineries, industry, etc. We need to farm in order to feed the planet, but we need to do it in a manner that protects our waterways. Gone are the days when we can carelessly heap on tonnes of pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizers without experiencing the consequences within our own lifetimes. We need to care for the soil in order to preserve the land for future crops as well as regain the health of our waterways. We need industry, but we also need to find a balance that allows us to meet our own more basic needs.

Other threats to our water that I've read about recently include natural gas "fracking", over-use of large capacity wells that can cause water table imbalances leading to arsenic contamination (geologist types might be able to explain this better than I), nano particles which may cause problems we have yet to discover, GMO-based agriculture, factory farming (mono-culture farms, lack of soil maintenance/crop rotation, reliance on agro chemicals, poor livestock rearing practices, etc.), and invasive species. And that's before I've actually started any dedicated reading or research into the subject!

My own country's government recently voted against declaring water a human right. Since we have the largest amount of fresh water of any nation on the planet, and our country's economy has always been "resource-focused", it is perhaps understandable that some might be inclined to treat it as such. However, I do not need to consume a tree or an ingot of nickel in order to survive. None of us does. These are secondary needs; water is a primary need without which none of us can survive. It is my assertion that it needs to be treated as such.

If you only had 3 minutes to get out...

what would you take with you? 
So begins the MSF (Doctors Without Borders) tour of a refugee camp.

In a country as rich in money, resources and security as ours, it is easy to take the basics for granted. The average Canadian uses 306 litres of water a day. In a refugee camp, the quota is  5 litres per person, often carried long distances by the women and children.
How many bathrooms are there per person in your house? Ours has 3 for 4 people.
In a refugee camp, there are typically 100 people per latrine, with digestive disorders the norm. And that's if you are lucky enough to even reach the safety of a refugee camp in the first place.

The tour started with us having to "bribe" the border official to let us pass since we weren't carrying passports.

The cholera tent was particularly eye opening. Those who make it there and recover tend to do so quickly once given intravenous fluids, but many don't survive. Dehydration from chronic diarrhea is a major killer. It is common, as displaced people must often travel long distances with little access to water in order to reach relative safety.

There are the usual kinds of photos that we've all seen at some point (children with bloated stomachs receiving nutritional supplements, long lineups of people behind razor wire, etc.), but there are others too. We saw pictures of people who are dressed in clothing like any of us here would wear, clearly people who recently enjoyed privileges similar to our own. These really hit home for me. People don't plan on being uprooted.

Could we cope living like this? Sure, maybe for a weekend. But these aren't always temporary situations. This isn't a family camping trip. Through no choice of their own, some people live like this for years, even decades, often with the fear of being sent back to certain death, often wondering if relatives are alive and if they'll ever see them again.

We saw the mental health tent, full of children's drawings of violence they'd encountered. In many countries, gang rape is used as a weapon against women and children. HIV is not a stranger. And the culture ostracizes its victims.

42 million people are uprooted by war. That's more than the entire population of Canada. It's difficult to comprehend, and all too easy to forget or ignore.

The tour is child-friendly (not a lot of graphic images, upbeat, but realistic too) and takes about an hour. It is currently at Waterloo Town Square in Ontario and will be touring the west coast next summer.

See: http://refugeecamp.ca/about-refugees/  for more information.

Photo credits:
Top:© Pascale Zintzen/MSF A camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Masisi, Democratic Republic of Congo, where 2,300 families have sought shelter after fleeing violent attacks throughout North Kivu province (2008).
Bottom: © Daniela Abadi/MSF Ethnic Hmong refugees from Laos are currently confined to a camp controlled by the Thai military in Thailand’s northern Petchabun province.  Once a day, Hmong refugee children are allowed to leave the camp to attend school (2008).