Constitutional Court of Ecuador imposes criteria on trans children in education

On January 8, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador issued a ruling that establishes new guidelines for the treatment of “trans children” in the educational field, a decision harshly criticized by several institutions, including the legal firm Dignidad y Derecho.

“The ruling establishes that educational institutions must recognize, accept, encourage and accompany situations of sex change in minors. This means, for example, that boys who identify as the opposite sex can use girls’ bathrooms, girls’ uniforms, participate in girls’ sports activities, and be addressed by the feminine social name with which they identify. The same applies to girls who identify as boys,” explained Pablo Proaño, lawyer for the study, in an interview with ACI Prensa.

“This is an issue that, as of this ruling, is already a reality in the educational field.” Lament.

According to the ruling 95-18-EP/24the obligation to accept and accompany the “gender transition” processes of minors reaches all educational institutions, both public and private.

In addition, the Ministry of Education is required to develop an inclusion protocol for students with “generic sex diversity,” following the guidelines of the ruling.

An emblematic case

The case that gave rise to this sentence began in 2017, when a foreign family enrolled their 5-year-old son in a school on the Ecuadorian coast. The parents requested that the “gender identity” of the minor, who identified as a girl, be recognized, demanding that he be treated as such, that he be able to use a uniform, female bathrooms and dressing rooms, and participate in sports activities intended for girls. Given the refusal of the school authorities, a complaint was filed for discrimination and psychological violence, which escalated to the Constitutional Court.

The Court accepted the lawsuit, arguing that the obligation not to discriminate based on “gender identity” includes supporting the transition processes of minors from the educational environment. The ruling also introduces definitions of LGBTI terminology, such as “gender expression”, “transgender person” and “queer”.

However, the decision was not unanimous. Two judges issued a saved vote (dissenting from the majority), in which they criticized the majority’s position. “It is unacceptable that the highest body of constitutional justice assumes the moral postulates that underpin gender ideology, as the majority ruling has done,” they stated.

Organizations such as Dignidad y Derecho have expressed concern about the scope of this ruling. In a statement sent to ACI Prensa, they point out that, although the Ecuadorian Constitution protects non-discrimination and the safety of minors, “the Court ignored the lack of scientific evidence and international consensus on gender transitions in minors.”

He also cited examples from countries such as Holland, the United Kingdom and Chile, where physical, psychological and ethical complications have been recorded when allowing decisions of this nature in children.

The ruling also coincides with other cases that generate debate about “trans childhood” in Ecuador. One of them is the lawsuit 1313-19-JPcurrently under discussion in Court, where the parents of a 9-year-old minor sued the Civil Registry for denying the change of sex on the child’s ID.

Dignidad y Derecho warns that “these cases generate a serious precedent that exposes the physical and psychological integrity of boys, girls and adolescents in the development of their sexual identity.” Likewise, “it arbitrarily imposes the obligation of society to accept and promote situations of gender change in minors.”