Sep 2, 2023·edited Sep 2, 2023Liked by Line Editor
Implicit in the activists' position is that we should trust the teachers. I think that assumption is worth exploring.
FWIW my wife was an elementary school teacher for many years, and I had the opportunity to meet her colleagues. My three children went to school, and I now have four grandchildren there. For some eight years I sat on our Board's Special Education Advisory Committee, where we discussed issues confronting "exceptional" children.
The teachers I met were indeed caring and dedicated. But they were vulnerable to fads. A new idea would be proposed, usually by OISE, and would sweep the school system, uncritically. Unlike in most other segments of society, however, the fads in our schools left lasting residues. For example, teachers seem to be the last body of holdouts believing in Howard Gardner's theories of multiple intelligences (which has never had any empirical support).
While teachers and school principals may acquire some rudiments of psychological knowledge during their education, they are far from being trained psychologists. If a parent, upon being informed of his or her child's experiences, decides to consult a psychologist (which he pays out of his own pocket as I did), they are to be encouraged. (In my case, the psychologist's finding and recommendations were diametrically opposed to the school's).
Ideally though, looking out for children should be a shared responsibility. A teacher may bring skills and experience that a parent lacks. But a parent may bring deeper knowledge of the child than the teacher possesses. Teacher and parent should trust each other, even if they sometimes disagree. Hiding relevant information from the parent is not a way to build trust, or teamwork.
Many years ago, when he was advocating universal health care, Bob Rae was asked why? He answered (I paraphrase from memory): To get the children away from their bigoted parents.
At the end of the day, if society distrusts parents so much, their children should be taken away from them and raised communally. That applies to all children; who knows which parents are the evil ones?
I’m not sure the activists really do trust the teachers, or else they wouldn’t be advocating for legislation that prevents them from disclosing information to the parents. If there was trust, leaving discretion to the teachers would be sufficient.
The problems seems to be that people are trying to use the extremes or outliers to shape a general rule. Proponents for this legislation are picturing bigoted parents who’ll abuse or harm their kids if they identify as trans. Opponents of this legislation imagine teachers encouraging kids to identify as trans beyond scrutiny of the parents. Thinking back to my experience in school, I remember the kids with strict religious parents. I also remember teachers like the hardcore animals rights activist who was constantly proselytizing for her cause with questionable lack of discretion at school. Neither type was representative of the majority, but they exist and it’s odd to deny it.
George, I understand why you finished off your great comment with your sarcastic rhetorical question. The Line’s readers will all get it. As an escapee from communism I’ve an itch to clarify the record so the ambitious control types don’t get any new scary ideas. Parents are the foundation of societies. Distrust parents and governed society yearns to be a paranoid wasteland encouraging parents to retreat into a circle of wagons. Sure, there are a few bad parental apples; but the rest of the bushel in the village it takes to raise a child will, or at least should, know who they are and keep them on the straight and narrow while acting as parental surrogates.
Voluntary communal living isn’t necessarily bad. I stress the qualifier voluntary. Indigenous cultures made a decent go of it out of necessity, and we currently have a hybrid as our kids go to school 195 days a year, to daycare, and to clubs or institutions of various interests.
I know saying “I told ya so” isn’t an attractive trait, but heck, I’ve never been one to bother with trying to live up to unrealistic feminine beauty standards, so: I told ya so.
You guys underestimated how much average people have been observing over the past few years (remember Giganto-Boobs Shop Teacher?). I’m so glad the poll has given you guys the courage to actually say the obvious on some of these issues, I actually did “hallelujah hands” several times during this episode. Jen is absolutely right, it’s the issue of minors that is the tipping point, as many predicted.
Perhaps no girl has yet died on the rugby pitch, but injuries have already happened — Google “Payton McNabb” for one. Much of legacy media has done its best to have a near black-out of such stories (at least until their silence becomes conspicuous and they have to say *something*), but word is gradually getting around nevertheless. I wish it was an exaggeration, but at one point CBC had like 5-6 articles on non-binary haircuts and exactly 0 articles on the fact that one of the rapist-murderers of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte finagled his way into a women’s prison. (I am genuinely surprised that Bernardo hasn’t tried that yet.)
Now just wait until Jimmy at the mechanics shop discovers that the vast majority (+80% by Blanchard’s estimates) of self-declared trans women are not, as he probably assumed, gay guys like cousin Tony with body dysmorphia and internalized homophobia, but are instead heterosexual guys with a paraphilia, most of whom have absolutely no intention of ever getting surgery, and Jimmy at the mechanics shop is going to start having some sharp questions about who’s in the community rec centre changing room with his daughter.
But a couple criticisms:
1. I wish you’d do proper research on claims like the suicidality canard before uncritically repeating them. Kids who identify as trans have suicide ideation rates on par with kids who have other mental distress issues: depression, anorexia, etc, which is unsurprising since such kids often have these as comorbidities. And importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that transition decreases suicide ideation: https://statsforgender.org/there-is-no-evidence-that-medical-transition-decreases-suicidality/
2. We already have legislation banning parents from getting any therapy for their kids that isn’t affirmation. Did you miss the entire C-4 conversion therapy debate? You seriously missed that gender identity was included? It has been a criminal offence in Canada to do gender exploratory therapy for a year and a half now. Perhaps a conviction wouldn’t stick, but what therapist is going to take that risk? It is effectively impossible to get non-affirming therapy without inside information.
3. Kids haven’t been taken away yet, but non-affirming parents have lost custody when the marriage breaks down.
BTW, watch for when the scandal breaks on what’s happening with the (disproportionately Indigenous) foster kids in BC and a certain Dr Wong.
As for C-4, this is actually not true. There were concerns that the term "conversion therapy" had been expanded wildly beyond its original meaning, and to encompass professional therapeutic approaches to gender dysphoria that allowed the child to "wait and see" but a clause was put in that bill explicitly protecting that approach. JG
The clause is very weak and very subject to interpretation. If a judge finds credible a witness’s claim that the therapist’s therapy was “based on an assumption that a particular … gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another” (e.g. the therapist is honest about the complications of hormone therapy or surgery, which can easily be seen as saying that not transitioning is preferable) then the test is met.
It is nearly impossible to overturn a 1st instance judge’s finding of fact. That means appeal would require a legal error or a successful Charter challenge. No sane person wants to risk the social and career suicide that this sort of charge would entail.
I invite you to find a single therapist in Canada who will go on the record as offering gender exploratory therapy.
A solid review from a legal practitioner who alas has to remain anonymous for obvious reasons can be found on Justdad07’s Substack
"If a judge finds credible a witness’s claim that the therapist’s therapy was “based on an assumption that a particular … gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another” ... then the test is met."
That's not quite right. The clause in the law is pretty clear: it's explicitly not trying to outlaw gender exploration therapy, as long as that therapy doesn't push one outcome over the other. There is no legal test to be met here because no part of C4 has yet been challenged by a court. No one has been subject to charges for practicing gender exploration therapy, so there simply is no practical case law to draw upon. Justdad07 et al. may fear that someone could run afoul of C4 for being "honest about the complications of hormone therapy or surgery" but that doesn't mean that fear is rational or well grounded.
That said, the "chilling effect" is a reasonable concern, IMO, especially considering some recent examples I could name. I don't think "wait and see" could be found guilty of violating C4 as the law has been written: but the fact that the law exists at all opens the possibility of a therapist facing charges. Even if those charges are dropped, the fear is there and that could have an impact on therapeutic approaches.
Thanks again ABC. Once practitioners in every profession have been sufficiently chilled, the block of ice that encapsulates them will move at such a glacial speed that above board professional services will be suspect and unaffordable. Clients’ choices will be: to seek out professionals willing to risk their careers for the higher good, at lower remuneration, while either charitably moonlighting politically or blending into the background to keep the glacier from grinding them into ice crystals; to do without; to head into the back allies; or to take their own stab at it. Stab was deliberately chosen for the danger in outcomes.
I remember there was a story of a father in the middle of custody trial who kept calling his child their original gender pronoun (forgot if the child was born male or female), just for the judge telling him to call them their new gender or held in contempt of the court. He refuses to do it and got jailed.
Yes, that was out here in B.C. I will say that it wasn’t just the use of pronouns in that case, though, the judge had banned him from speaking about his daughter in the media and he had continued to do so (using her birth name). It’s not really an order I feel very comfortable with for various reasons, but the court justified it on the basis of privacy of a minor, I believe, which has some merit. But in the end the judge did not come out looking good in that case for sure.
this is what I mean when I used 'chilling effect' in an earlier comment. it doesn't matter how legal something is, or that a clause was added to C-4; Canadians have been told, in numerous ways, that affirmation is the only acceptable response
Sorry guys; we have to be conscious of libel risk here, just as everyone else. If you have something you'd like us to look into, please send it privately. lineeditor@protonmail.com
Great dialectic brave Matt and Jen. You’ve kindled erudite comments - lots to come I bet. The Line deserves a cut for doing the politicians’ democratic work and seeding the bureaucracies’ guidance garden. No Culture War is ever going to be settled by the later two. As long as the warriors are debating each other Canadians will hash this out and come to a sensible peace, after the whole thing exhausts them. Buckle up.
I’m an old Libertarian. Do whatever you - the collective you - think is the correct thing to do. If it isn’t urgent, think about it very carefully first and be damn sure you don’t make things worse in your haste.
My fascination is with the parental and educational sub-theme of all this. My wife is also a long serving teacher longing for retirement but saddened with abandoning her labour of love and anguish to the next fad to be endured. Matt and George Hariton already broached that theme. I’m looking forward to comments by teachers, with pseudonyms so they don’t get into trouble before Jordan Peterson traipses through the legal system.
I second Grizwald: “Very thoughtful, careful podcast. If that's how The Line handles culture war issues, maybe do more of it?”
To Jen's point that she doesn't want this issue legislated - the problem is that most schoolboards have already enacted their own policies which include detailed plans for keeping parents in the dark.
Good Job guys . I have to disagree on the legislation point though. The parents HAVE to be notified about such an important issue in their children's life. As both of you stated there are already safeguards in place if abuse is happening because of this issue or any others.
progressives have been putting up a hard line for a while without opposition, so of course they'd be surprised when they face their first backlash.
in bill banning conversion therapy, they made a law that therapists can't not be supportive of someone feeling that they're not straight and/or not identifying as their birth sex. parents and religious leaders having conversation that's not supportive with their questioning child can be considered as conversion therapy, etc. a lot of these issues were brought up by CPC MPs that were not supportive of the bill. but they're all shut down and called as bigots, even by their (then) party leader.
i dare to bet that had Higgs and Moe didn't happen to be the first to define the battlefield, this could have gone the same way as back then (though idk if Poilievre would have pulled the same move as O'Toole knowing how it cost the latter his leadership).
Conservatives often have problems in social issues because they let progressives set the term and spectrum of the conversation, and forced to speak in progressives' language, which makes it harder for them to push their stance forward without it being seen as going against the grain.
In spite of your not wanting to discuss the trans issue I am glad that you did. I am struggling with any number of aspects of it and your conversation today was very helpful. The changing dynamics of what constitutes or defines abuse for example is worrying to me and I was pleased to hear you describe it very well Jen.
Good discussion. And I do remember your prediction Matt. And my question now is the same as it was then: how is this a public issue at all?
I’m a parent with two kids. My value set leads me to be extremely supportive of their individual autonomy and choices regarding sexuality, mental health, and identity. And my own life experience has convinced me gender is a spectrum, not a binary. But I recognize these aren’t universally held beliefs. I’m okay with that. I don’t even want to convince anyone to think like I do. If you’re a parent, you know all you can do is your best, and hope to god it’s not going to hurt them more than it helps them.
So why should I accept governmental mandates or listen to moral panic over how I choose to help my kids in such personal matters? I mean, I’m not so crazy about other folks’ choices either. Can I demand enforced vaccinations, a ban on hunting with lethal weapons, and restricting religious indoctrination, all for anyone under 18? If not, I’ll continue to respect those who feel differently about how best to raise their families - and thank them and everyone else to stay the frak out of mine.
I want to learn more about this issue and this podcast really helped, thank you! I am now a paid subscriber! I have so many thoughts…
From everything I have read and heard, I still have so many unanswered questions. Like, exactly what problems are the governments trying to address with this legislation / policy change? Have there been many cases where teachers and the school were deliberately freezing out parents? Or examples like the one Jen mentions where parents discover that their kid identifies as trans/non-binary and that the teacher had known and actively kept it from them? For me, the policies and resulting debate came out of nowhere and I think landed onto systems that were already managing the issue well enough with things like reports on bullying, abuse, etc. What precipitated the government sticking their nose in? It just feels so… imported? Without knowing why they changed the policy, it feels like a very opportunistic and cynical move, and while perhaps not “life and death,” it does have consequences that will be felt by real already marginalized kids/people and by their teachers.
So far all I have found on the issue is a loud debate concerned with scary "what if" scenarios. What if immediately non-affirming parents were labeled (or charged?) as abusive and had their kids taken away? What if a teacher tells the parent and the kids ends up dead, either by their own hand or their parent’s? What if 12-year-olds, or anyone, are killed in sports by a trans player? What if teachers are with-holding this information completely and helping the kid get medical treatment? What if women are raped in bathrooms by trans-women? What if teachers are indoctrinating my kid against my beliefs? Not to say that these scenarios shouldn’t be discussed and prevented, but fear of all the What Ifs seems to be dominating conversations, and sometimes even presented as reasoning. (Mandatory government mandates policies hardly allow for any nuance or civilised conversations, mind you.)
For a discussion that centres on trans kids and schools, I have also seen/heard very little from trans kids and trans adults, nor from teachers and school administrators (although I think I did read that the NB teachers unions object to the policy change). But if we are making a policy about trans people, shouldn’t we be asking trans people what is best (recognizing that they are not a monolith and will have different opinions)? And perhaps not just throw worst-case scenarios at each other? Surely teachers have already encountered these situations, what have they done and how did that work?
Finally, I looked up this definitive Angus-Reid survey and found it a little concerning, especially considering how far and wide it is being quoted. The question was “Which policy do you prefer?” and the options were: Parents should neither be informed nor have a say – it’s up to the child, Parents must be informed if their child wants to be identified differently, or Parents must be informed AND give consent for this change (their emphasis). As someone who sits in the middle, I don’t feel like there is a choice for me there. I don’t want a policy where parents shouldn’t be informed, but I also don’t want one where they MUST be informed. I don’t personally think that this is something you can develop a blanket policy for, especially using the word must. Does no one else feel suspicious of the survey? (I occasionally do surveys for work so I was interested to see how they got their results and what the numbers were.)
I just find this all unsettling, since we ARE talking about kids. I hate that trans kids’ lives are being used as a political wedge, especially if there was no impetus for the policies, other than what ifs. And from the far-left faction screaming bigot and terf at anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% to the far-right talking about woke indoctrination, I don’t get the feeling either side actually cares about the kids, trans or cis, and that upsets me.
In terms of people being comfortable with the “Trans issue” I would imagine it would take most of us meeting, talking with, and knowing a trans person to understand it on a human, person-to-person level, and there are far fewer of them than the number of gay people we know. Finding suitable answers for how to ethically support the trans community requires more education, more time, and more nuance. At a lower volume.
Marci Ien is a pinhead. Drama! Kind of like the time she ran a stop sign, wouldn’t pull over for the police and refused to view the film proving she ran the stop sign. She was stopped for ‘driving while black’. Zero credibility. But did have a laugh about the ‘life and death’ comment!
> This opening skirmish was not fought on Liberal-friendly turf, which may reflect that Canadian society
i think it's more that the Conservative politicians that do the opening move, setting the policy, the talking points (parental rights), etc. while progressives have to react to it ("why are you against parental rights?"). this is the opposite how things usually go where progressives the one that start the opening move, then conservative politicians get badgered by media "why are you against trans right?"
When you state women's prisons are in the 10% *not* conceded, I fear you might not realise that biological males ARE in women's prisons: Matthew Harks, Adam Laboucan, Frederick Radcliffe, and more
Corrections Canada wrote a report covering a 27 month span. By my math, 14 incarcerated transwomen asked for a transfer to a woman's prison (10 were approved). And these numbers are just requests/transfers. Judges can now send males directly to women's jails.
Implicit in the activists' position is that we should trust the teachers. I think that assumption is worth exploring.
FWIW my wife was an elementary school teacher for many years, and I had the opportunity to meet her colleagues. My three children went to school, and I now have four grandchildren there. For some eight years I sat on our Board's Special Education Advisory Committee, where we discussed issues confronting "exceptional" children.
The teachers I met were indeed caring and dedicated. But they were vulnerable to fads. A new idea would be proposed, usually by OISE, and would sweep the school system, uncritically. Unlike in most other segments of society, however, the fads in our schools left lasting residues. For example, teachers seem to be the last body of holdouts believing in Howard Gardner's theories of multiple intelligences (which has never had any empirical support).
While teachers and school principals may acquire some rudiments of psychological knowledge during their education, they are far from being trained psychologists. If a parent, upon being informed of his or her child's experiences, decides to consult a psychologist (which he pays out of his own pocket as I did), they are to be encouraged. (In my case, the psychologist's finding and recommendations were diametrically opposed to the school's).
Ideally though, looking out for children should be a shared responsibility. A teacher may bring skills and experience that a parent lacks. But a parent may bring deeper knowledge of the child than the teacher possesses. Teacher and parent should trust each other, even if they sometimes disagree. Hiding relevant information from the parent is not a way to build trust, or teamwork.
Many years ago, when he was advocating universal health care, Bob Rae was asked why? He answered (I paraphrase from memory): To get the children away from their bigoted parents.
At the end of the day, if society distrusts parents so much, their children should be taken away from them and raised communally. That applies to all children; who knows which parents are the evil ones?
I’m not sure the activists really do trust the teachers, or else they wouldn’t be advocating for legislation that prevents them from disclosing information to the parents. If there was trust, leaving discretion to the teachers would be sufficient.
The problems seems to be that people are trying to use the extremes or outliers to shape a general rule. Proponents for this legislation are picturing bigoted parents who’ll abuse or harm their kids if they identify as trans. Opponents of this legislation imagine teachers encouraging kids to identify as trans beyond scrutiny of the parents. Thinking back to my experience in school, I remember the kids with strict religious parents. I also remember teachers like the hardcore animals rights activist who was constantly proselytizing for her cause with questionable lack of discretion at school. Neither type was representative of the majority, but they exist and it’s odd to deny it.
To be clear; the legislation has been proposed by Conservatives. It demands disclosure to parents, not the other way around.
I thought the activists were advocating for NO legislation? Or more flexible legislation?
George, I understand why you finished off your great comment with your sarcastic rhetorical question. The Line’s readers will all get it. As an escapee from communism I’ve an itch to clarify the record so the ambitious control types don’t get any new scary ideas. Parents are the foundation of societies. Distrust parents and governed society yearns to be a paranoid wasteland encouraging parents to retreat into a circle of wagons. Sure, there are a few bad parental apples; but the rest of the bushel in the village it takes to raise a child will, or at least should, know who they are and keep them on the straight and narrow while acting as parental surrogates.
Voluntary communal living isn’t necessarily bad. I stress the qualifier voluntary. Indigenous cultures made a decent go of it out of necessity, and we currently have a hybrid as our kids go to school 195 days a year, to daycare, and to clubs or institutions of various interests.
Tom
Thank you for adding the clarification. For what it's worth, we were refugees from Communism too.
That's worth a lot George, and you proved and added value to it by giving back to Canada. Enjoy your grandchildren.
I know saying “I told ya so” isn’t an attractive trait, but heck, I’ve never been one to bother with trying to live up to unrealistic feminine beauty standards, so: I told ya so.
You guys underestimated how much average people have been observing over the past few years (remember Giganto-Boobs Shop Teacher?). I’m so glad the poll has given you guys the courage to actually say the obvious on some of these issues, I actually did “hallelujah hands” several times during this episode. Jen is absolutely right, it’s the issue of minors that is the tipping point, as many predicted.
Perhaps no girl has yet died on the rugby pitch, but injuries have already happened — Google “Payton McNabb” for one. Much of legacy media has done its best to have a near black-out of such stories (at least until their silence becomes conspicuous and they have to say *something*), but word is gradually getting around nevertheless. I wish it was an exaggeration, but at one point CBC had like 5-6 articles on non-binary haircuts and exactly 0 articles on the fact that one of the rapist-murderers of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte finagled his way into a women’s prison. (I am genuinely surprised that Bernardo hasn’t tried that yet.)
Now just wait until Jimmy at the mechanics shop discovers that the vast majority (+80% by Blanchard’s estimates) of self-declared trans women are not, as he probably assumed, gay guys like cousin Tony with body dysmorphia and internalized homophobia, but are instead heterosexual guys with a paraphilia, most of whom have absolutely no intention of ever getting surgery, and Jimmy at the mechanics shop is going to start having some sharp questions about who’s in the community rec centre changing room with his daughter.
But a couple criticisms:
1. I wish you’d do proper research on claims like the suicidality canard before uncritically repeating them. Kids who identify as trans have suicide ideation rates on par with kids who have other mental distress issues: depression, anorexia, etc, which is unsurprising since such kids often have these as comorbidities. And importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that transition decreases suicide ideation: https://statsforgender.org/there-is-no-evidence-that-medical-transition-decreases-suicidality/
2. We already have legislation banning parents from getting any therapy for their kids that isn’t affirmation. Did you miss the entire C-4 conversion therapy debate? You seriously missed that gender identity was included? It has been a criminal offence in Canada to do gender exploratory therapy for a year and a half now. Perhaps a conviction wouldn’t stick, but what therapist is going to take that risk? It is effectively impossible to get non-affirming therapy without inside information.
3. Kids haven’t been taken away yet, but non-affirming parents have lost custody when the marriage breaks down.
BTW, watch for when the scandal breaks on what’s happening with the (disproportionately Indigenous) foster kids in BC and a certain Dr Wong.
As for C-4, this is actually not true. There were concerns that the term "conversion therapy" had been expanded wildly beyond its original meaning, and to encompass professional therapeutic approaches to gender dysphoria that allowed the child to "wait and see" but a clause was put in that bill explicitly protecting that approach. JG
The clause is very weak and very subject to interpretation. If a judge finds credible a witness’s claim that the therapist’s therapy was “based on an assumption that a particular … gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another” (e.g. the therapist is honest about the complications of hormone therapy or surgery, which can easily be seen as saying that not transitioning is preferable) then the test is met.
It is nearly impossible to overturn a 1st instance judge’s finding of fact. That means appeal would require a legal error or a successful Charter challenge. No sane person wants to risk the social and career suicide that this sort of charge would entail.
I invite you to find a single therapist in Canada who will go on the record as offering gender exploratory therapy.
A solid review from a legal practitioner who alas has to remain anonymous for obvious reasons can be found on Justdad07’s Substack
"If a judge finds credible a witness’s claim that the therapist’s therapy was “based on an assumption that a particular … gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another” ... then the test is met."
That's not quite right. The clause in the law is pretty clear: it's explicitly not trying to outlaw gender exploration therapy, as long as that therapy doesn't push one outcome over the other. There is no legal test to be met here because no part of C4 has yet been challenged by a court. No one has been subject to charges for practicing gender exploration therapy, so there simply is no practical case law to draw upon. Justdad07 et al. may fear that someone could run afoul of C4 for being "honest about the complications of hormone therapy or surgery" but that doesn't mean that fear is rational or well grounded.
That said, the "chilling effect" is a reasonable concern, IMO, especially considering some recent examples I could name. I don't think "wait and see" could be found guilty of violating C4 as the law has been written: but the fact that the law exists at all opens the possibility of a therapist facing charges. Even if those charges are dropped, the fear is there and that could have an impact on therapeutic approaches.
Justdad07’s Substack:
https://justdad7180.substack.com/p/a-review-of-bill-c-4-an-act-to-amend
Thanks ABC. I'm now at a loss for words. The education I'm getting may timidly bring them back when I graduate.
You may be interested in this one as well:
https://justdad7180.substack.com/p/is-gender-exploratory-therapy-conversion
Justdad07 doesn’t post often, but his articles on these topics are of exceptional quality.
Thanks again ABC. Once practitioners in every profession have been sufficiently chilled, the block of ice that encapsulates them will move at such a glacial speed that above board professional services will be suspect and unaffordable. Clients’ choices will be: to seek out professionals willing to risk their careers for the higher good, at lower remuneration, while either charitably moonlighting politically or blending into the background to keep the glacier from grinding them into ice crystals; to do without; to head into the back allies; or to take their own stab at it. Stab was deliberately chosen for the danger in outcomes.
they may have added that clause, but the 'chilling effect' still happens.
it's a potentially dangerous situation for a therapist; why invite trouble?
I remember there was a story of a father in the middle of custody trial who kept calling his child their original gender pronoun (forgot if the child was born male or female), just for the judge telling him to call them their new gender or held in contempt of the court. He refuses to do it and got jailed.
Yes, that was out here in B.C. I will say that it wasn’t just the use of pronouns in that case, though, the judge had banned him from speaking about his daughter in the media and he had continued to do so (using her birth name). It’s not really an order I feel very comfortable with for various reasons, but the court justified it on the basis of privacy of a minor, I believe, which has some merit. But in the end the judge did not come out looking good in that case for sure.
and CBC had no trouble reporting that news
this is what I mean when I used 'chilling effect' in an earlier comment. it doesn't matter how legal something is, or that a clause was added to C-4; Canadians have been told, in numerous ways, that affirmation is the only acceptable response
Sorry guys; we have to be conscious of libel risk here, just as everyone else. If you have something you'd like us to look into, please send it privately. lineeditor@protonmail.com
I have to agree with Jen on this. When trans started talking about kids, I started to listen. Otherwise I really didn't care about trans.
Great dialectic brave Matt and Jen. You’ve kindled erudite comments - lots to come I bet. The Line deserves a cut for doing the politicians’ democratic work and seeding the bureaucracies’ guidance garden. No Culture War is ever going to be settled by the later two. As long as the warriors are debating each other Canadians will hash this out and come to a sensible peace, after the whole thing exhausts them. Buckle up.
I’m an old Libertarian. Do whatever you - the collective you - think is the correct thing to do. If it isn’t urgent, think about it very carefully first and be damn sure you don’t make things worse in your haste.
My fascination is with the parental and educational sub-theme of all this. My wife is also a long serving teacher longing for retirement but saddened with abandoning her labour of love and anguish to the next fad to be endured. Matt and George Hariton already broached that theme. I’m looking forward to comments by teachers, with pseudonyms so they don’t get into trouble before Jordan Peterson traipses through the legal system.
I second Grizwald: “Very thoughtful, careful podcast. If that's how The Line handles culture war issues, maybe do more of it?”
To Jen's point that she doesn't want this issue legislated - the problem is that most schoolboards have already enacted their own policies which include detailed plans for keeping parents in the dark.
Good Job guys . I have to disagree on the legislation point though. The parents HAVE to be notified about such an important issue in their children's life. As both of you stated there are already safeguards in place if abuse is happening because of this issue or any others.
Great podcast, thanks. The Line just gained a new paid subscriber !
progressives have been putting up a hard line for a while without opposition, so of course they'd be surprised when they face their first backlash.
in bill banning conversion therapy, they made a law that therapists can't not be supportive of someone feeling that they're not straight and/or not identifying as their birth sex. parents and religious leaders having conversation that's not supportive with their questioning child can be considered as conversion therapy, etc. a lot of these issues were brought up by CPC MPs that were not supportive of the bill. but they're all shut down and called as bigots, even by their (then) party leader.
i dare to bet that had Higgs and Moe didn't happen to be the first to define the battlefield, this could have gone the same way as back then (though idk if Poilievre would have pulled the same move as O'Toole knowing how it cost the latter his leadership).
Conservatives often have problems in social issues because they let progressives set the term and spectrum of the conversation, and forced to speak in progressives' language, which makes it harder for them to push their stance forward without it being seen as going against the grain.
In spite of your not wanting to discuss the trans issue I am glad that you did. I am struggling with any number of aspects of it and your conversation today was very helpful. The changing dynamics of what constitutes or defines abuse for example is worrying to me and I was pleased to hear you describe it very well Jen.
Thanks guys
Good discussion. And I do remember your prediction Matt. And my question now is the same as it was then: how is this a public issue at all?
I’m a parent with two kids. My value set leads me to be extremely supportive of their individual autonomy and choices regarding sexuality, mental health, and identity. And my own life experience has convinced me gender is a spectrum, not a binary. But I recognize these aren’t universally held beliefs. I’m okay with that. I don’t even want to convince anyone to think like I do. If you’re a parent, you know all you can do is your best, and hope to god it’s not going to hurt them more than it helps them.
So why should I accept governmental mandates or listen to moral panic over how I choose to help my kids in such personal matters? I mean, I’m not so crazy about other folks’ choices either. Can I demand enforced vaccinations, a ban on hunting with lethal weapons, and restricting religious indoctrination, all for anyone under 18? If not, I’ll continue to respect those who feel differently about how best to raise their families - and thank them and everyone else to stay the frak out of mine.
What’s more conservative than that?
I want to learn more about this issue and this podcast really helped, thank you! I am now a paid subscriber! I have so many thoughts…
From everything I have read and heard, I still have so many unanswered questions. Like, exactly what problems are the governments trying to address with this legislation / policy change? Have there been many cases where teachers and the school were deliberately freezing out parents? Or examples like the one Jen mentions where parents discover that their kid identifies as trans/non-binary and that the teacher had known and actively kept it from them? For me, the policies and resulting debate came out of nowhere and I think landed onto systems that were already managing the issue well enough with things like reports on bullying, abuse, etc. What precipitated the government sticking their nose in? It just feels so… imported? Without knowing why they changed the policy, it feels like a very opportunistic and cynical move, and while perhaps not “life and death,” it does have consequences that will be felt by real already marginalized kids/people and by their teachers.
So far all I have found on the issue is a loud debate concerned with scary "what if" scenarios. What if immediately non-affirming parents were labeled (or charged?) as abusive and had their kids taken away? What if a teacher tells the parent and the kids ends up dead, either by their own hand or their parent’s? What if 12-year-olds, or anyone, are killed in sports by a trans player? What if teachers are with-holding this information completely and helping the kid get medical treatment? What if women are raped in bathrooms by trans-women? What if teachers are indoctrinating my kid against my beliefs? Not to say that these scenarios shouldn’t be discussed and prevented, but fear of all the What Ifs seems to be dominating conversations, and sometimes even presented as reasoning. (Mandatory government mandates policies hardly allow for any nuance or civilised conversations, mind you.)
For a discussion that centres on trans kids and schools, I have also seen/heard very little from trans kids and trans adults, nor from teachers and school administrators (although I think I did read that the NB teachers unions object to the policy change). But if we are making a policy about trans people, shouldn’t we be asking trans people what is best (recognizing that they are not a monolith and will have different opinions)? And perhaps not just throw worst-case scenarios at each other? Surely teachers have already encountered these situations, what have they done and how did that work?
Finally, I looked up this definitive Angus-Reid survey and found it a little concerning, especially considering how far and wide it is being quoted. The question was “Which policy do you prefer?” and the options were: Parents should neither be informed nor have a say – it’s up to the child, Parents must be informed if their child wants to be identified differently, or Parents must be informed AND give consent for this change (their emphasis). As someone who sits in the middle, I don’t feel like there is a choice for me there. I don’t want a policy where parents shouldn’t be informed, but I also don’t want one where they MUST be informed. I don’t personally think that this is something you can develop a blanket policy for, especially using the word must. Does no one else feel suspicious of the survey? (I occasionally do surveys for work so I was interested to see how they got their results and what the numbers were.)
I just find this all unsettling, since we ARE talking about kids. I hate that trans kids’ lives are being used as a political wedge, especially if there was no impetus for the policies, other than what ifs. And from the far-left faction screaming bigot and terf at anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% to the far-right talking about woke indoctrination, I don’t get the feeling either side actually cares about the kids, trans or cis, and that upsets me.
In terms of people being comfortable with the “Trans issue” I would imagine it would take most of us meeting, talking with, and knowing a trans person to understand it on a human, person-to-person level, and there are far fewer of them than the number of gay people we know. Finding suitable answers for how to ethically support the trans community requires more education, more time, and more nuance. At a lower volume.
Marci Ien is a pinhead. Drama! Kind of like the time she ran a stop sign, wouldn’t pull over for the police and refused to view the film proving she ran the stop sign. She was stopped for ‘driving while black’. Zero credibility. But did have a laugh about the ‘life and death’ comment!
This feels earlier than normal. I like it.
> This opening skirmish was not fought on Liberal-friendly turf, which may reflect that Canadian society
i think it's more that the Conservative politicians that do the opening move, setting the policy, the talking points (parental rights), etc. while progressives have to react to it ("why are you against parental rights?"). this is the opposite how things usually go where progressives the one that start the opening move, then conservative politicians get badgered by media "why are you against trans right?"
When you state women's prisons are in the 10% *not* conceded, I fear you might not realise that biological males ARE in women's prisons: Matthew Harks, Adam Laboucan, Frederick Radcliffe, and more
Corrections Canada wrote a report covering a 27 month span. By my math, 14 incarcerated transwomen asked for a transfer to a woman's prison (10 were approved). And these numbers are just requests/transfers. Judges can now send males directly to women's jails.
www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/005008-r442_E-en.shtml