← Back to Shining a Legal Light on Advocacy Conversations

Calm is not compliance

If they say: She doesn’t seem like she’s in distress.

Say: Many girls and gender-diverse students internalise distress in ways that are invisible to adults. Apparent composure often hides pain. It’s still our job to accommodate what the child is carrying.

Legal grounding: Relying solely on external behaviour to assess need undermines substantive equality and can result in discrimination through omission.

This entry draws from the logic embedded throughout Kim Block’s duty to accommodate series, especially where it intersects with invisible disability, gender, and neurodivergence. Calmness is often misunderstood as capacity, and silence mistaken for consent—but these are dangerous misreadings when distress is being masked to survive.

Key takeaways

Internalised distress still matters
Many students—particularly girls and gender-diverse children—mask their struggles in school environments. Their apparent composure often conceals anxiety, sensory overwhelm, or emotional exhaustion.
Surface behaviour is not an accurate measure of need
When schools use calmness or the absence of disruption as a proxy for access, they risk ignoring the internal toll that unmet needs are taking on a child. Presence does not equal participation.
The duty to accommodate applies to invisible struggle
Under the Human Rights Code, a student’s needs do not have to be externally disruptive in order to be recognised. Substantive equality includes accommodations for those who suffer silently.