Welcoming gender diversity in the early years: Interpreting professional guiding documents for gender-expansive practice

Abstract

This research takes up the challenge of interpreting the two newest grounds of human rights protection across Canada – gender identity and gender expression – for professional practice in early childhood education. To date, no human rights tribunal ruling on these grounds has engaged early childhood education, and while the legal duty remains for early childhood educators to provide an environment free of gender-identity and gender-expression discrimination, the Ontario profession’s governing bodies have provided no explicit guidance as to how. This research bridges early years educators’ new and likely unfamiliar legal responsibilities in relation to both grounds and everyday life in early years contexts. The findings demonstrate that ample support exists within the profession’s key guiding documents for ‘gender-expansive’ practice, or an approach to teaching children and supporting their development that both expects and sustains gender diversity. A similar analysis of guiding documents is needed internationally.

Introduction

This research takes up the challenge of interpreting the two newest grounds of human rights protection across Canada – gender identity and gender expression – for professional practice in early childhood education. Across all Canadian provinces and territories, early childhood educators (ECEs) are legally required to provide an environment for young children and their families that is free from discrimination on the grounds of both gender identity and gender expression. The process of amending human rights laws to include these two grounds began in the Yukon Territories in 2002, and took place in the province of Ontario via the 2012 passage of Toby’s Act (Act to Amend the Ontario Human Rights Code; Kirkup, 2018). Despite their presence across Canada, these grounds are not well understood among the general public or among actors in public-serving sectors.

Provincial and territorial human rights commissions – extrajudicial bodies with an educational and limited oversight mandate – have stepped up to guide institutions by provisionally defining gender identity and gender expression. Commission definitions vary little across provincial and territorial boundaries, such that the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s can be taken as exemplary:

Gender identity is each person’s internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A person’s gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex.

Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender. (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2014: 3)

Courts and human rights tribunals frequently reference commission materials in their decisions, and institutions use these materials to amend policy and guide practice in anticipation of legal precedent. Nevertheless, the lack of clear precedent-setting legal rulings has led to considerable uncertainty (see Kirkup, 2018). Among the few rulings to date, for example, there is a discrepancy as to whether gender-identity and/or gender-expression protections apply to transgender people alone (see Airton et al., 2019). Moreover, no ruling thus far has engaged the contexts in which early childhood education takes place. And while the legal duty remains for ECEs and their institutions to provide an environment free of gender-identity discrimination and gender-expression discrimination, the profession’s governing bodies and documents provide no explicit guidance as to how.

In what follows, we bridge ECEs’ likely unfamiliar legal responsibilities in relation to gender-identity and gender-expression discrimination and the familiar domain of classroom life. Through a critical reading, this research demonstrates that ample support exists within the Ontario profession’s key guiding documents for a ‘gender-expansive’ (Airton, 2018; Baum et al., 2012; Martino and Cumming-Potvin, 2018) early childhood practice. In our rendering, gender-expansive early years practice is an approach to teaching young children and supporting their development that both expects and sustains (see Paris, 2012; Paris and Alim, 2014) childhood gender diversity, whether on the order of gender identity or gender expression. We argue that, despite making limited reference to gender diversity, the Ontario profession’s key guiding documents – Early Learning for Every Child Today: A Framework for Ontario Early Childhood Settings (ELECT; Best Start Expert Panel, 2007) and How Does Learning Happen? Ontario’s Pedagogy for the Early Years (HDLH; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014) – support and even tacitly require gender-expansive practice in early years centres, and a similar reading is possible internationally.

A conceptual framework for gender-expansive early years practice

Our conceptualization of gender-expansive practice is proactive in that it seeks to prevent gender-identity discrimination and gender-expression discrimination and not only respond to individual discrimination events. To begin thinking through how a proactive approach would impact early years education, consider how the Ontario Human Rights Commission (2008) defines discrimination: it ‘may be direct and intentional (for example, if a person or group treats another person differently on purpose because of a Code ground)’, but it may also be ‘subtle or covert. Intent or motive to discriminate is not a necessary element for a finding of discrimination – it is sufficient if the conduct has a discriminatory effect’. In addition, ‘discrimination exists when rules, standards or requirements that appear to be neutral have a discriminatory impact on people identified by the Code’ (para. 3). Within this frame are two basic forms of discrimination for which an institution may be held accountable: interpersonal – whether intentional or not on the part of its actors – and institutional – or caused by structures like rules and routines.

What, then, is gender-identity discrimination when it appears in the early years classroom? What does it look, sound or feel like in learning environments geared towards very young children? How might interpersonal and institutional gender-identity discrimination play out differently? Who might be at risk from either form, and who might be caught up in its enactment, intentionally or not? We must ask the very same questions about gender-expression discrimination when it appears in early years classrooms, as it is a distinct ground. ECEs must proactively mitigate each form of discrimination.

In the early years, interpersonal gender-expression discrimination would likely see a child receive differential treatment on the basis of gender non-conforming clothing, hair, behaviour and/or interests. If intentional, a child could be explicitly told or shown by an ECE that how they are expressing gender is wrong, whereas children with gender-conforming gender expressions (e.g. boys with typically masculine clothing, hair and interests) are not – for example, they could be explicitly redirected away from gender non-conforming play because X ‘is not for them’. If unintentional, this could be a pattern whereby a gender non-conforming child receives less attention or interest from ECEs, who may be reluctant to reward or sanction gender non-conforming play or other behaviour. An example of institutional gender-expression discrimination in the early years is the common practice of offering self-selected learning centres. This practice could enforce and reward gender conformity if, say, the learning centre themes are intensively gendered. If only the race car track and the home centre are available, this may prevent non-conforming girls or boys from playing according to their authentic interests – that is, expressing gender in their own way. Making a witnessed choice (Thorne, 1993) in front of peers and ECEs often results in gender-conforming behaviour in order to blend in.

While preventing gender-expression discrimination clearly requires changes in educator disposition, this age group challenges any clear-cut elucidation of gender-identity discrimination. If, as above, gender-identity discrimination is something that only happens to transgender people and only when their transgender status is apparent, self-declared or disclosed by another, it follows that transgender people are likely shielded from the same while they are ‘passing’ as a person of their assigned sex (if they are not out) or gender identity (if they are). In either instance, they would likely not be barred from accessing gendered spaces or activities (etc.), provided that they are accessing the wrong ones when appearing as a person of their assigned sex. At the centre of this formulation, however, is someone who has articulated that they are transgender. This requires an awareness of self as well as the capacity to articulate that self to others in a fairly complex way, which is not forthcoming from a preschooler.

Adult- or adolescent-centric notions of gender-identity discrimination commonly centre on refusal – for example, a transgender woman is refused entry to a women’s bathroom or a non-binary high school student is excluded from a binary-gendered athletics program. A child in the early years classroom may be told that they are in the ‘wrong place’ due to information that other children or adults possess about that child’s assigned sex, but it is harder to imagine that young child – who may come to articulate themself as transgender in the coming years – definitively stating their gender identity such that it supersedes the assigned sex qua gender information deployed to refuse their access. Put simply, a male-assigned child who is (passively or actively) dissuaded by ECEs from playing with ‘the girl toys’ may register a welling-up that any adult would narrate as a feeling of invalidation, but not link this welling-up to their ‘sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum’ (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2014: 3). If gender-identity discrimination means being told, in some way, that one is not who one is, but one is not yet able to clearly articulate one’s gender identity in a way that proximal adults will understand and respect, it is difficult to imagine how early years educators might prevent gender-identity discrimination in their classrooms. ¹

It is much easier to imagine gender-identity affirmation in this context. Interpersonally, this aspect could look like ECEs affirming whatever gendered information any child shares with them (for examples, see Stafford, 2013), even if what is shared changes or there is no other gender-non-conforming indication. This gendered information may include a desire to be referred to by a name, pronoun or term misaligned with assigned expectations. Institutional gender-identity affirmation could look like removing structures or routines that involve the ‘gender-based’ division of children (e.g. ‘If you are a boy wearing green, come get a snack’). ² Notice, however, that this is indistinguishable from preventing institutional gender-expression discrimination, as described above. Arguably, then, gender-identity affirmation pertains to ECEs’ motivation for taking action; it is a practice of developing structures which sustain the possibility that any child could be transgender. After all, children who are transgender may not articulate this until long after they leave early years centres. This reality has spawned two fairly synonymous adjectives: ‘gender-creative’ (see Ehrensaft, 2016; Meyer and Pullen Sansfaçon, 2018) and ‘gender independent’ (see Pyne, 2014). Gender-creative and/or gender-independent children may be ‘comfortable with their natal sex, yet . . . challenge us to expand the boundaries of gender’s well-worn categories’ (Pyne, 2014: 1), may ‘reject the terms of “boy’ or “girl” altogether’ (1), or may ‘clearly and consistently identify with a different gender than expected’ (2). These terms hold space for children – including very young children – who do not live gender according to others’ expectations but may not articulate themselves (now or later) as transgender.

In line with our rendering of a gender-expansive practice, research has shown that gender-identity affirmation within and outside of the family is associated with better mental health outcomes (Hill et al., 2010; Olson et al., 2016; Turban and Ehrensaft, 2018). To this end, the paediatric profession (at least in Canada) affirms the validity of all children’s gender identities and gender expressions regardless of whether these align with caregiver expectations or wishes (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2020). By age three, most children can identify themselves as ‘a girl’ or ‘a boy’, which has been shown to also hold true for children whose gender identities are not the ones expected by their caregivers (Olson et al., 2015). That said, the Canadian Paediatric Society (2020) considers a fluid early childhood gender identity to be a variation of normal and not in any way pathological: ‘[some children] may alternate between identifying themselves as “boy” or “girl”, or even assume other gender identities at different times (sometimes even in the same day). This is normal and healthy’.

Awareness of gender expectations, including as a source of power and prestige, is common by age five. As children begin to register the impact of gender on their reception by and relationships with others, some stridently embrace or reject rigid gender expectations – for example, a girl going ‘through a stage of insisting on wearing a dress every day, or refusing to wear a dress even on special occasions’ (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2020). A strident embrace of gender norms can lead to disciplinary relations with peers, such as insisting that only girls or boys are ‘allowed’ to do, like, play with or wear some things (see Blaise, 2005, 2012; Wohlwend, 2009).

By kindergarten, most children have a fairly stable gender identity, including those who fall into the categories of transgender, gender-creative or gender independent. That said, most markedly gender-non-conforming children and those who experience clinical gender dysphoria (not necessarily the same group) do not grow up to be transgender adults, whereas ‘[gender dysphoria] that persists into adolescence is more likely to persist into adulthood’ (Drescher and Byne, 2012: 504).

Given the positive outcomes associated with gender-identity affirmation, we reiterate our insistence that a gender-expansive early years practice actively sustains the possibility that any child in the early years classroom might come to know themself as transgender or express gender in non-conforming ways, even if there are no ‘signs’ in the present. Furthermore, we argue that gender-expansive practice requires bracketing one’s socio-historical repertoire of such ‘signs’ because gender diversity is always changing (Airton, 2009, 2013; Airton et al., 2019). Interacting with every child as if their sense of their gender might change does not mean banishing gender altogether, or telling gender-conforming cisgender children that they are not who they are. This invalidation is as unconscionable in the case of cisgender children as it is for the transgender children who experience it on a regular basis. Rather, it means daily recreating an environment that is conducive to each child’s gender health, which Hidalgo et al. (2013: 286) define as each ‘child’s opportunity to live in the gender that feels most real or comfortable to that child and to express that gender with freedom from restriction, aspersion, or rejection’. As we shall demonstrate, Ontario ECEs’ legal responsibilities in relation to gender diversity reflect a commitment to fostering each child’s gender health through gender-expansive practice. As we recognize both gender diversity and the education of young children to be contextually specific, the next section offers context for early years education in Ontario, Canada.

The Ontario context

In Ontario, the professionalization of early childhood education follows a Canadian and international trend, reflecting broader shifts towards understanding early learning’s importance and the critical role of ECEs in supporting learning (Gananathan, 2015; McCuaig and Akbari, 2014). An example of this professionalization was the establishment of the College of Early Childhood Educators in Ontario. In May 2007, the provincial government passed the Early Childhood Educators Act (updated in 2014 to the Child Care and Early Years Act), which established the College of Early Childhood Educators (2019).

The 2014 Child Care and Early Years Act recognizes that ECEs must have knowledge of developmentally appropriate and inclusive practice in order to support the well-being of all children, and must understand their legal responsibility to provide an environment for young children and their families that is free from discrimination on all grounds; as of 2012 in Ontario, these include gender identity and gender expression. ³ As a result, this research argues that ECEs’ professional knowledge base must include the manifestation and mitigation of gender-identity discrimination and gender-expression discrimination. This is essential knowledge for sustaining gender diversity in the contexts in which they work.

Next, this research considers how gender-expansive practices fall under professional responsibilities as outlined in two guiding documents: ELECT (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007) and HDLH (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014). Despite making no explicit reference to practices that welcome and sustain childhood gender diversity, this research suggests that the key guiding documents support and even tacitly require gender-expansive practice.

Gender-expansive analysis of professional guiding documents

To reiterate, gender-expansive early years practice is an approach to teaching young children that expects and sustains childhood gender diversity. It is proactive in that it seeks to prevent gender-identity discrimination and gender-expression discrimination, whether interpersonal or institutional, and not only respond to discrimination events. Thus, gender-expansive early years practice welcomes flowing intra-category gender-expression diversity among all children and actively sustains the possibility that any child might come to know themself as transgender.

The ELECT document is a guide for curriculum development and delivery in early childhood settings. It complements the Child Care and Early Years Act (previously the Ontario Day Nurseries Act), Ontario Early Years Centre guidelines and the Kindergarten Program (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007), but is recognized as the foundational document in the Ontario early years sector (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014). Whereas the purpose of ELECT is to guide the early years curriculum, HDLH (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014) guides pedagogy – approaches to teaching and learning – in Ontario early years centres. All licensed childcare program mission statements in Ontario must be consistent with HDLH. HDLH identifies four foundations of learning: belonging, well-being, engagement and expression. The foundations ‘apply regardless of age, ability, culture, language, geography, or setting’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 7), and regardless of gender identity or gender expression.

It is important to note that there is some confusion within the early years sector in regard to how ELECT (intended to guide curriculum) and HDLH (intended to guide pedagogy) guide practice, given that ELECT is rooted in developmentalism and HDLD, in contrast, holds a broader relational view of children. Thus, it is important that educators (and researchers) reflect on the challenges associated with delineating curriculum and pedagogy, and analyse and reflect on the multiple perspectives that can, and do, guide our interactions with young children as they pertain to gender-expansive practices.

In the following sections, ELECT and HDLH are analysed through the conceptual framework for gender-expansive early years practice that was developed in the first half of the article, resulting in three broad themes: (1) supporting belonging, well-being and gender-identity development through relationships; (2) reducing discrimination by fostering expression; and (3) a planned play-based curriculum is powerful for cultivating curiosity and affirming gender diversity.

Supporting belonging, well-being and gender-identity development through relationships

Both ELECT and HDLH emphasize the relational character of healthy early childhoods. The ecology of support in which each child is embedded includes relationships between ECEs and family members, between ECEs and children, between children and their family members, and among children themselves. Supporting children means supporting these relationships, and ELECT’s second principle highlights this: ‘Partnerships with families and communities strengthen the ability of early childhood settings to meet the needs of young children’ (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 5). HLDH emphatically asserts that ‘[f]ostering good relationships with children and their families is the single most important priority for educators in early years programs’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 24).

Despite taking a more developmentalist perspective to early years education, ELECT recognizes that ‘[f]amilies live in, and belong to, multiple communities that may support or thwart their ability to support young children’s optimal development’ (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 9). Transgender children whose gender identities are affirmed by their family members are virtually indistinguishable from cisgender children using common markers of mental health (Olson et al., 2016). Conversely, as previously discussed, parental disaffirmation places transgender children or adolescents at a significant mental health risk. Children who are gender non-conforming but not necessarily transgender (e.g. boys perceived to be somehow ‘feminine’ or girls perceived to be somehow ‘masculine’) may also experience the erosion of their parent or guardian relationships when the latter become focused on ‘correcting’ their gender expression.

ECEs are well placed to offer accurate information and strategies for supporting all children’s healthy gender-identity development and gender expression, particularly when family members are placing their children’s well-being and the parent–child relationship at risk due to misconceptions about gender. Knowledgeable ECEs can educate parents and caregivers about childhood gender diversity when families lack the knowledge of how to support their gender-creative child. For example, if a parent were to express grave concern about their child’s gender-non-conforming behaviour, an ECE could provide accurate information, as follows:

• Gender-non-conforming behaviour in early childhood, or at any age, is not pathological. It may or may not continue beyond the early years but, either way, gender-non-conforming behaviour (or its absence) does not predict a child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

• Playing with gender is normal and healthy, and does not alter a child’s gender identity. It is impossible to alter anyone’s gender identity, at any age, whether or not they are transgender. Gender identity cannot be changed by rewarding gender conformity or by withholding support for or discouraging gender non-conformity.

• Whether a child comes to identify as transgender or not, affirming how that child identifies and expresses gender now leads to the best mental health and well-being outcomes.

ECEs can also support relationships by encouraging family members to follow a child’s lead and avoid imposing their own views on development; this includes encouraging families not to draw excessive (even affirming) attention to gender-non-conforming play or other behaviour. Similarly, ECEs should not ‘flag’ a child or speak to their parents based on a child’s gender-non-conforming play; this runs counter to HDLH’s guidance that ECEs ‘[connect] with each child . . . recognizing and valuing his or her unique spirit, individuality, and presence’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 26). Lastly, this research notes HDLH’s emphasis on taking a strength-based approach to supporting families, including in relationship to their children’s gender health (Hidalgo et al., 2013), because ‘[w]hen educators establish positive, authentic, and caring relationships with families and provide a safe, non-judgemental environment for shared learning, everyone benefits’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 31). Therefore, ECEs should emphasize to parents their unique power to support positive outcomes for their children when they affirm how their children identify and/or express gender. In sum, by partnering with families to counter misconceptions, listening to their concerns and providing evidence-based strategies, ECEs can help strengthen the relationships that children depend on.

The ELECT document insists that ‘[b]enefits are greatest when there is planned programming for children and their families and relationships with families are based on mutual trust and respect and are sensitive to family culture, values, language and composition’ (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 9). If a child’s family includes transgender and/or gender-non-conforming people, that family’s culture includes gender diversity. However – and remembering that gender-identity discrimination is mitigated by practising as though any child present could be transgender – ECEs may not know whether a child’s family includes transgender people. It is therefore critical to assume that this is the case, in every case. Children’s relationships with their family members must not be eroded through exposure to unaddressed (and therefore sanctioned) gender-identity and/or gender-expression discrimination in the early years centre. To this end, we suggest that ECEs should use the guiding questions from HDLH in considering whether their practices and structures are gender-expansive (we have adapted them to our topic in italics):

• ‘Consider your program – its philosophy, mission, policies, and daily practices. How do the program’s values reflect and affect your relationship with each child? With each family? Is everyone’s voice valued? How would an observer know?’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 28).

• Is your program committed to supporting every child regardless of non/conformity with expectations related to their assigned sex?

• How would a member of a gender-diverse family know that they are welcome and valued here?

• ‘Which policies and practices may be barriers to establishing relationships and ensuring the meaningful participation of [gender-diverse] children? Of all families?’ (28).

• ‘What else can be done to strengthen relationships and ensure social inclusion, participation, and a sense of belonging for each child and family [regardless of gender identity and/or gender expression]?’ (28).

• ‘How can you connect with community partners to better support the mental health and well-being of [gender-diverse] families and children?’ (34).

In addition to supporting children’s relationships of care and dependence, and given what is known about gender-expression discrimination among children themselves, ELECT’s and HDLH’s shared emphasis on supporting healthy peer relationships can also be interpreted through a gender-expansive lens. In describing the foundation of belonging, HDLH insists that ‘[e]nabling children to develop a sense of belonging as part of a group is also a key contributor to their lifelong well-being. A sense of belonging is supported when each child’s unique spirit, individuality, and presence are valued’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 24). A child’s sense of belonging can be at risk when they are subjected to unwelcome gender-norm enforcement by their peers, which can be passive (e.g. avoidance or ostracism) or active (e.g. targeted harassment). HDLH offers indicators that ECEs can use to gauge a child’s sense of belonging (26) and well-being (32) in the program, and we have adapted these in relation to gender (in italics). For example, does every child:

• ‘[P]articipate fully in ways that are most comfortable to them’ (26) (e.g. freely access spaces and activities that are not only those typically engaged in by children of their assigned sex, and without sanction from other children)?

• ‘[N]otice similarities and differences between self and others and respond positively to the uniqueness, differing capabilities, and perspectives of others’ (26) (e.g. describe how they differ from others on the order of gender identity and gender expression)?

• ‘[E]xperience a sense of competence, autonomy, and agency as they participate at their own pace throughout daily experiences and interactions’ (32) (e.g. share their gendered knowledge and experiences with other children and adults, or correct others who misgender them)?

• Exhibit signs of ‘developing a strong sense of self and the ability to value their own unique identity’ (33) (e.g. create drawings or representations of themself that align with their gender expression, or describe what they know or like about their gender)?

If the answer to any of these questions is negative, this indicates that the early years space is in need of a shift towards more gender-expansive practices.

Reducing discrimination by fostering expression

Taken together, ELECT and HDLH mandate that early years centres be free from discrimination on a variety of grounds, echoing their legal responsibilities in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code. ⁴ Principle 3 of ELECT acknowledges that centres must plan for meaningful engagement and equitable outcomes for all children, which does not happen without purposeful planning and attention to how learning environments and interactions influence children’s opportunities. While Principle 3 broadly discusses equity, diversity and inclusion, it does make two specific references to gender. The first requires ECEs to ‘take into account the differences each child and family brings to an early childhood setting including appearance, age, culture, ethnicity, race, language, gender [expression, gender identity], sexual orientation, religion, family environment and developmental abilities’ (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 11). In the previous section, we discussed ECEs’ responsibilities towards gender-diverse children and families. This research elaborates on the second reference to gender in Principle 3, focusing on removing preconceived notions about gender while addressing prejudice and counteracting bias; this is an ongoing process of checking ‘curriculum and pedagogy against program standards that reflect inclusion and accessing expertise’ and, in some cases, hiring ‘[a]dditional early childhood practitioners with specific expertise who can build and support capacity . . . to support inclusion’ (13).

ELECT’s action-oriented and process-based approach to fostering equitable early years climates is supported by HDLH’s pedagogical recommendations on ‘[f]ostering communication and expression in all forms’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 41). HDLH encourages authentic conversation between ECEs and children in which ‘adults show respect for what the child is interested in and what the child is trying to communicate and are also willing to share their own perspective in a positive and meaningful way to continue the exchange’ (41). However, gender diversity is frequently yet passively sanctioned in everyday conversations wherein gender-conforming interests and gender-binary-based observations (e.g. that X is a boy/for boys) are affirmed and others are not.

Echoing ELECT’s process-based account of equity, HDLH’s guidance on fostering children’s communication and expression every day can be read through a gender-expansive lens. Whereas common-sense (and often binary) knowledge about gender is regularly conveyed to children as ‘just how things are’, the preceding quotation suggests another path for ECEs when gender comes up in conversation with children: explicitly state that this is the ECE’s own experience or perspective (about gender, boys, girls, men, women, etc.) that they are sharing, and that other people have different perspectives. Other gender-expansive communication practices are as follows (adapted for the early years from Airton, 2018):

• Answering a question (‘Is that a boy or a girl?’) with a question (‘Why does that matter? Would you play with them either way?’);

• Questioning children’s automatic gendering of toys and materials, characters in books and images, for example (‘Hmm. It does not say that [X] is a [boy]. I wonder why we are thinking that? Can girls do [what X is doing, etc.]?’);

• Using ‘unlikely’ pronouns for unnamed characters in picture books (‘I’m so glad the firefighter came and brought [her or their] big truck!’).

We conclude this second theme from this gender-expansive analysis of ELECT and HDLH with a caution about gender conformity as a function of time in the early years classroom. The duration of another person’s focus or interest can be interpreted as affirmation (or not) of what one is sharing. Consider formal moments like show-and-tell or circle sharing, or informal conversations wherein children are informally sharing about their lives with an ECE. The gender binary produces some (gender-conforming) things as intuitive and not requiring explanation, but other things as ‘complicated’ or ‘excessive’. When we invite children to speak about their families, for example, we may feel like a child is ‘sharing too much detail’ or ‘taking too long’, when, in fact, their family exceeds our commonsensical ideas about family composition or roles. And so we invite ECEs to notice when their attention is wandering from a child’s sharing, or when they find themselves becoming impatient; similarly, ECEs can greet all children’s sharing about their gendered experiences with palpable interest, even if these seem mundane. These gender-expansive practices reflect HDLH’s insistence that an early years ‘program can foster communication and engagement [by] providing time, space, and materials to encourage expression through creative material that reflect children’s capabilities as well as their social and cultural background’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 43). We suggest that early years centres consider this guiding question from HDLH in relation to gender diversity: ‘How can you make sure that every child, regardless of [their] communication abilities, is heard?’ (45).

A planned play-based curriculum is powerful for cultivating curiosity and affirming gender diversity

A final emphasis of ELECT and HDLH that, in this analysis, supports and requires gender-expansive practice is a play-based curriculum. ELECT’s Principle 4 charges ECEs with considering their learners’ particular characteristics in curriculum planning; this involves developing ‘specific goals for children that support self-regulation (behaviour, emotion and attention), identity, social inclusion, health and well-being’ (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 14), and not only foundational skills. A curriculum that supports identity and social inclusion is one that attends to gender diversity. In conceptualizing gender-expansive early years practice, we offered an example of a play-based curriculum that does the opposite: reinforcing and even rewarding gender-conforming choice by providing, for example, only a race car track and home centre as free-play options. Boys and girls tend to gravitate towards different play spaces as they find pleasure in ‘getting it right’ (MacNaughton, 2006). Children learn early on how they should position themselves in the learning environment according to dominant gender expectations; therefore, educators must consider the ways in which they unconsciously mark play spaces as ‘for girls’ or ‘for boys’ and influence children’s play choices. ELECT holds that ‘[t]he understanding that what one believes and what others believe may not be the same is a critical element in the development of theory of mind that is acquired around four years of age’ (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 14; citing the research of Astington, 1993). We observe that this easily extends to gender, given that young children tend towards enforcing contextual gender norms on each other. As ‘[e]ffective settings take advantage of play and embed opportunities for learning in the physical environment and play activities’ (15), play can become a powerful tool for affirming gender diversity in the early years. ECEs can be proactive by examining the decisions they make when planning lessons and designing the learning environment.

One area of proactive gender-expansive practice is examining the materials available. When these materials offer all children a range of ways to explore gender, they accord with HDLH’s guidance that ECEs provide ‘a wide variety of interesting objects and open-ended materials for children to explore with their senses, manipulate, and investigate’ (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014: 37). Like their age peers, gender-creative (etc.) young children are ‘most likely to engage in long, complex episodes of play and demonstrate interest in learning when educators value their ideas and contributions to the Curriculum’ (35). We suggest the strategies below to help all children feel as though their experiences of gender are valued in the early years:

• Creating and using materials that represent a variety of gender expressions, including of boys, girls, men and women who express gender in both conforming and non-conforming ways;

• Being intentional in how and when to set out different stereotypically gendered materials, toys and dress-up clothes, such as having a ‘pirate day’ for everyone in which all children are encouraged to participate (in lieu of having pirate and princess options in the dress-up area on all days);

• Integrating books with transgender and/or gender-non-conforming main or secondary characters when selecting books on a particular theme (e.g. bullying, friendship, family) so that these books are seamlessly integrated into the curriculum;

• Being non-reactive (either negatively or positively) if a child expresses a gender-non-conforming play or other preference (e.g. putting on ‘the wrong’ costume), and intervening only if other children or staff react in a disciplinary fashion (in a way that produces this reaction as the problem, not the play itself);

• Similarly, modelling a calm and normalizing engagement in gender-non-conforming play by doing so yourself (with or without a child’s initiation);

• Responding to children’s gender-norm enforcement with gentle scepticism (e.g. ‘Why can’t she play this game with you [boys]? That does not make sense to me’).

Lastly, our research encourages ECEs to recognize gender creativity as a form of deep creativity, as a

child’s ability for joint planning and assigning roles during pretend play with other children is related to the child’s level of theory of mind or ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one’s own. (Best Start Expert Panel, 2007: 16)

A gender-expansive mindset would enable an ECE to recognize and greatly value a child’s creativity if they can deviate from stereotypical gender expectations during play or seamlessly integrate another child’s gender-non-conforming play into their own.

Conclusion

In this article, we have bridged ECEs’ legal responsibilities in relation to gender identity and gender expression and the more familiar domain of the early years classroom. This research argues that considerable support exists within Ontario’s key guiding documents for gender-expansive practices in the early years. Furthermore, Canadian ECEs’ legal responsibilities in relation to gender diversity seamlessly reflect a commitment to fostering each child’s gender health, including through gender-expansive practice. Despite focusing on early years documents in Ontario, this article’s conceptual framework and suggestions for gender-expansive practice can be applied more broadly, given a striking similarity in how the protected grounds of gender identity and gender expression are defined across Canada and internationally (see Kirkup, 2018).

In summary, the findings demonstrate that support exists within the profession’s key guiding documents for a gender-expansive early years practice. The findings of our gender-expansive analysis are summarized in the following five overarching suggestions for professional practice:

• Provide accurate information (e.g. that behaviour etc. that does not align with expectations based on a child’s sex assignment is normal, not pathological);

• ‘Go with it’ (e.g. if a child engages in gender-non-conforming play, do not intervene or overreact, whether positively or negatively);

• Affirm children’s gender identities and gender expressions, as this teaches children that they are the authority on who they are;

• Find teachable moments (e.g. question children’s automatic gendering of others);

• Examine materials through a gender-expansive lens (e.g. create and use materials that offer a variety of gender representations).

Given that this article’s conceptual framework for gender-expansive early years practice differentiates between interpersonal and institutional discrimination, we close by noting an irony that characterizes our suggestions: they are largely interpersonal, or things that we are asking individual ECEs to do in the course of their daily work. This bears directly on the working conditions of ECEs and, as such, it is worth acknowledging that ECEs are rarely provided with paid time to plan or access resources that would allow them to integrate gender-expansive practices (i.e. having the time to locate and integrate books with transgender and/or gender-non-conforming characters). These challenges are exacerbated by the additional strained practical environments that ECEs work in, which include the high number of children in their care and minimal breaks. These structural issues serve to undermine the abilities of ECEs to uphold their professional obligations in all areas of their practice. As such, we want to stress the need for broader structural changes that would allow the time and space for ECEs to enhance and make changes in practice. Indeed, seemingly unrelated systemic changes and issues raised in ECE collective bargaining bear directly on the capacity of early years centres to offer an environment that welcomes gender diversity. The welcome offered to transgender and/or gender-non-conforming children and their families in the early years centre will be strengthened to the extent that ECEs’ working conditions are improved.

Overall, gender-expansive practices materially manifest ECEs’ legal duty to develop a centre community that validates all children’s ways of living gender. We hope that this research has provided a starting place for our colleagues in the early years field.