MIKE RIGGS: The issue is who gets to decide how topics like identity are introduced, at what age, and with what level of parental involvement

IMAGE CREDIT: Govt of BC

 

While it’s a “No” to SOGI for me, the issue has returned to the forefront of political conversation, as the Conservative Party of BC continue the process of electing a new party leader.

The pro-SOGI argument sounds compelling on the surface, but it leaves out a key reality that people aren’t reacting to SOGI because they “don’t understand it,” they’re reacting because they see how it’s actually being applied in classrooms and feel they’ve been left out of the conversation.

Saying SOGI is “just about belonging” oversimplifies it. In practice, it’s not just posters and storybooks. There have been real examples in BC where parents raised concerns about age appropriateness and transparency. School districts have used SOGI resources that go beyond basic anti bullying and move into identity-based discussions that some parents feel should be introduced at home first, not assumed by the system. 

For example, the issue of parental notification around gender identity in schools has become a major point of debate. Some districts have taken the position that schools may not inform parents if a child requests a different name or pronoun. That’s not a small detail; that’s a fundamental shift in the parent / school relationship. Whether people agree or disagree, it’s clearly more than just “kindness posters.”

Another example is curriculum overlap. 

While it’s technically true that SOGI isn’t a standalone subject, it is integrated into multiple areas like physical and health education and language arts. That means exposure isn’t optional in the same way people are being told, and the line between “inclusion” and “instruction” can become blurred depending on how it’s delivered.

The argument also leans heavily on statistics about bullying and mental health, which are real and important, but it assumes that SOGI is the only or best solution. Anti-bullying policies existed long before SOGI, and can be strengthened, without tying them to a specific framework that not all families are comfortable with. 

Protecting kids from bullying, and giving parents a say in how sensitive topics are introduced, are not mutually exclusive goals.

On the political side, calling it “opportunism” ignores that public concern around SOGI has grown over time. 

If multiple candidates are responding to it, that suggests there is a base of voters who feel unheard, not simply manipulated. Dismissing those concerns as ignorance or bad faith doesn’t resolve anything, it just deepens the divide.

At the end of the day, the real issue isn’t whether kids should feel safe at school, everyone agrees on that. The issue is who gets to decide how topics like identity are introduced, at what age, and with what level of parental involvement. That’s a legitimate debate, not “punching down.”

Framing one side as protecting children and the other as harming them oversimplifies a much more complex conversation that people across BC are clearly still trying to work through.