(LifeSiteNews) — A regulatory organization of health professionals in Ontario trains its members to normalize and promote gender ideology in their practice, according to training materials available to the public and an anonymous source affiliated with the group. Failing to adhere to the liberal “diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)” guidelines may result in official complaints and disciplinary action against them.
The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (CASLPO) has updated its “Guide for Equitable and Inclusive Services” to embrace the radical gender ideology that is permeating Western culture, especially in Canada and the United States.
A presentation of the most recent version was given in May, during which CASLPO’s Audiology Advisor and Manager of Mentorship Samidha Joglekar and Director of Professional Conduct, General Counsel and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer Preeya Singh included lessons on “preferred pronouns” and systemic racism.
“CASLPO [is] inflicting harm on children or adults who are vulnerable because of disabilities or delays or disorders, or who are not capable [of] mak[ing] life-changing decisions,” a speech-language pathologist (SLP) who wishes to remain anonymous told LifeSiteNews via email. She added that the organization is also failing to “respect for the rights and beliefs of CASLPO members who choose not to engage in practices that harm our patients and clients, and that interfere with parents’ rights.”
Promoting liberal agendas in the name of ‘equity and inclusion’
CASLPO’s “Guide for Equitable and Inclusive Services”— also referred to as simply “the Guide” — was originally approved and enforced in September 2016. In December 2022, the College revised the document, specifically adding a new section on “preferred pronouns” which emphasizes the “importance of respecting and recognizing a patient’s identity through use of pronouns.”
To begin the presentation on the updated Guide — which was given in an online format on May 2, recorded and later posted to the organization’s website — Joglekar and Singh described the resource and standards as an opportunity to “reflect on our own bias, explore ‘blind spots,’ and challenge our assumptions.” They emphasized the need to “examine our own values, beliefs and privileges to understand how this impacts patient care.”
Early in the video, the presenters alluded to various “dimensions” of an individual, some of which they defined as “sex assigned at birth,” “gender identity,” “gender expression” and “sexual orientation.” They also claimed that there is a “whole continuum of experience” for both gender and sex and that society merely expects most to “identify” as male or female.
“This is to demonstrate that often, our expectations or what we think about others is not in tune with the reality of that person’s experience,” they said, adding emphasis on the need to “respect a person’s sense of self” specifically regarding gender, race, religion, age and disability. The Guide document also cites Ontario’s 1990 Human Rights Code as outlining specific “protected grounds” which includes gender and “sexual orientation.”
The four main principles of the Guide, which were covered in the presentation in addition to several hypothetical scenarios, are: “recognize that every individual is unique,” “practice with cultural competence and cultural humility,” “address and recognize conscious and unconscious bias” and “engage in anti-racist and anti-discriminatory practice.”
The “use of pronouns” section of the Guide lists “ze,” “ve” and “they” as examples of “preferred pronouns.” Professionals are told “it is best to have the conversation with your patient and not to make assumptions about what their gender identity is based upon your perception of their appearance.”
Illustrating how to promote liberal agendas to vulnerable patients
The second half of the presentation examined four hypothetical scenarios, which were presented by Singh and Joglekar, who then provided solutions to the mistakes made by the professionals in the hypotheticals.
In the first scenario, a parent tells the audiologist (AUD) that his son is a girl. The professional continues to use pronouns that refer to the boy’s biological sex rather than cater to his gender confusion, arguing that the use of “preferred pronouns” is “not relevant” to the hearing assessment he was conducting with the child.
Both leaders insisted that it was “not the right approach” to use biological pronouns and that as an AUD in Ontario, he “has a responsibility” to be “inclusive,” meaning catering to whatever misguided reality a patient may have about his or her identity.
Instead of remaining consistent with biological fact, Singh and Joglekar argued that the AUD should have used pronouns corresponding to the opposite sex of the child and should not have referred to these opposite pronouns as “preferred” pronouns because “pronouns are not a preference, they simply are.” If the “preferred pronouns” are used throughout his report, the leaders recommended the option of the audiologist also describing the boy as “assigned male at birth” instead of “a girl.”
Scenario two followed a “heterosexual white Christian male” who was preparing to assess a 9th grade student who used “they/them” pronouns. Upon seeing the boy for the first time and noting his dark skin, hoodie and eyebrow piercings, the SLP/AUD jumped to conclusions that he “may be a low achiever, not speak English well, be from lower socio-economic background and may not have a stable home.”
After polling participants to decide what these assumptions illustrated — the options being “conscious bias, discrimination including systemic racism, unconscious bias [and] privilege and power imbalance” — CASLPO leaders concluded the answer is “likely a combination of all.”
Singh and Joglekar provided ways in which the AUD/SLP should have acted during the assessment, presuming that his first impressions would have dictated his report.
Following two more scenarios related to racial discrimination and “derogatory comments” about a family that practiced the Sikh religion, Singh and Joglekar answered questions from participants, many of which centered around gender.
One participant asked how CASLPO professionals should act if “it’s not safe” to use a patient’s “preferred pronouns” in reports. The answer was to tell the patient what will be in the report and who will have access to, then “let them decide” whether to include pronouns that contradict their biological sex. The presenters emphasized that “there’s no age for consent” and that each patient has the right to give consent to what information is shared with those “in the circle of care.”
The source pointed out that this mindset is “misleading,” as the “ability to consent must be considered in the context of capability.” She added that this is highlighted by the Canadian Mental Health Association and within legislation enacted by the Ontario Government. Because SLPs and AUDs must scrutinize whether a patient is unable to provide consent, the source said that those who “support transgenderism can manipulate the consent issue to their liking,” engaging in “an abuse of power.”
Similarly, another participant wondered if health professionals could disclose pronouns and sexual deviancy among children if parents are unaware of such confusion, as well as if opposing parental views could be acknowledged in reports. The answer remained focused on a conversation with the patients (minors, in this case) and if they don’t give consent to share information with their family, “that needs to be respected.”
The relationship between a child and his or her respective healthcare provider — which could result in keeping parents in the dark about gender confusion — was emphasized as “very important.” A final question related to pronouns sought guidance on how to respond if colleagues refused to use “preferred pronouns” when talking about your own patient. Leaders said the use of pronouns corresponding to biological sex when discussing gender confused patients is “bad practice,” “wildly disrespectful” and “a form of discrimination.”
CASLPO DEI training slammed as ‘not an ethical practice,’ ‘absolutely insane’
In an email exchange with LifeSiteNews, the anonymous SLP in Ontario expressed concern about the guidelines and the presentation, which she chose to watch “as part of my professional development.” She explained that AUDs and SLPs under the College’s jurisdiction work with all ages, from infants to elderly, including those in palliative care.
“The patient’s brain is underdeveloped or has suffered from impairment, and I am further damaging it [by following the guidelines],” the source related. “I am confusing the child [or adult]. I am disturbing their path of development and maturity. That is not an ethical practice. But this is what CASLPO is recommending that their members follow. It is irresponsible.”
“The tone of the Guide was accusatory, and it made me feel like CASLPO thinks that their members do not know how to think for themselves, are not conscious of how they are feeling[,] thinking [and] believing,” she told LifeSiteNews. “It was an insult to my intelligence and as a person of faith. It’s difficult for me to describe in words how this document offended me.”
“I cannot be silent about this. It presents a harm to the public and it is a threat to the rights and freedoms of CASLPO members. Also, as a regulatory college, CASLPO’s purpose is to protect the public.”
The source explained that a number of things could occur if a patient were to complain that she or other CASLPO members violated the DEI guidelines, including a referral to the Discipline Committee, Complaints Committee, “appear before a panel to be cautioned” and “required to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program.”
The CASLPO website also indicates that those who file a complaint may choose to resolve the issue less formally through an alternative process.
While AUDs and SLPs work with adults suffering from cognitive issues due to various health conditions or injuries, the source told LifeSiteNews that “the majority of SLP CASLPO members are employed in settings for children,” including schools. Child patients “may have a variety of conditions such as autism, head injury, developmental delay, psychological disorders [and] genetic syndromes.”
“By the very nature of our work with children, we are contributing to the formation of the child — cognitively and neurologically, socially, physically, academically [and] emotionally,” explained the source, whose career as a SLP began in the Ontario school system. “Children are very sensitive and impressionable. Thus, it is a great responsibility when families entrust their children to the care of therapists.”
“What are we doing as clinicians when we tell the child that ‘yes, even though you were born a biological male, I will refer to you as a girl’ because the child made that decision, even if the parents don’t agree with the child?”
“This is absolutely insane,” he told LifeSiteNews via email. “A speech-language pathologist’s job is to help children with speech impediments to overcome the problem. Period. It’s not to encourage children to embrace a transgender identity. If an SLP were to affirm a child’s delusion of being ‘trapped in the wrong body,’ they would be participating in child abuse.”
Fonseca added that “it’s unconstitutional for CASLPO to coerce [its members] to violate their conscientious or religious beliefs” and that he “find[s] it deeply disturbing that DIE activists have infiltrated yet another licensed profession” since he is “the father of a child who benefited from the services of a caring speech-language pathologist.”
“The DIE mandate at CASLPO must be stopped. It must be resisted and ripped out by the roots,” Fonseca said, suggesting that “every SLP of good will…put together a slate to run for CASLPO’s Board of Directors at the next election slated for each region” or “go public with a petition” to remove the mandates and “organize a strike until they get a commitment that the DIE mandate will be abolished.”
Contact information for respectful communication:
CASLPO diversity, equity and inclusion office