I am surprised at your response to Danielle Smith’s proposal. I usually expect a more nuanced critique from The Line. However, you are quick to dismiss her proposal as bait for her base. My view is that her proposals offer some common sense boundaries around a radical gender orthodoxy that is out of control. I assume you characterize Danielle Smith’s base as leaning toward Libertarianism. I do not belong to that camp. I am just an old
One can argue that many (if not all) of her proposals are entirely popular positions that reflect reality while at the same time noting that the intentions behind these proposals are politically driven. (And driven by a specific sub-group that has explicitly chosen to make this a key issue.) JG
Or a mention that "Conservatives are taken over by the fringe". What's considered the "fringe" was centrist just 15-20 years ago. E.g. Pro-life cause is now considered to be a fringe So-con, a third of one party. But just over a decade ago, there were pro-life Liberals, there were pro-life Green candidates, and there were pro-life NDP. Those people are ousted by their party leaders in the name of progressivism (which is the fringe left). And anyone who dare to run as pro-life candidate will be labeled fringe by media everywhere without a second look. So are they actually fringe or just people holding onto beliefs that were othered by the left (and media joins in)?
There is no such thing as "pro-life". They are "pro-birth" who seek to impose their opinion on others with no knowledge of the situation while absorbing none of the costs or consequences.
With respect, you seem confident that you know a LOT about what motivates those you disagree with.
I can't help but notice that this seems VERY similar to the people who insist they KNOW that people who approve of trans story hour are motivated by a pedophilic interest in exposing children to sexual themes. (I'm thinking of that "taps sign" meme.)
Is it possible that pro-life people know their own minds better than you know their minds? Or that different people who favour various pro-life policies are motivated by different things?
Thank you! I am as stridently pro-choice as they come, but I absolutely hate how so many people on my side of the argument mischaracterize the views & beliefs of all abortion opponents.
Yes, some *are* misogynists, some *do* have selective morality, some *are* the vile clinic-protesting woman-harassing types, etc. But most of the ones I’ve encountered are thoughtful people who have a not entirely irrational position on what constitutes human and human rights, and who are also troubled by the hard questions their position creates in cases of rape, incest, etc.
My principles land me on it being the woman’s right to decide to end a pregnancy in basically 100% of the cases 100% of the time, but people who trivialize the debate like that piss me off to no end.
(Although there have been enough arrests with respect to DQSH that I’m probably more willing to overlook a bit of sign-tapping than you are.)
Should the same thing said about Liberals who ban psychologists and adults from telling a questioning teenager that they may not be gay or trans. They impose their opinion on others (experts at that) with no knowledge of the situation of the patient while absorbing kone of the costs and consequences. Or what about banning guns when the public safety minister even refused to try out shooting a gun in a gun range?
Gun issues which the Liberals have botched unimaginably are not on the same planet as trans issues which are millions of times more complex.
You'll have to link to a story relating to Liberals anywhere banning people from access to professional advice. Because I think that's a complete crock. maybe this is something that politicians of all stripes should keep their hands off; like abortion since they have no idea what they're talking about. Because your comment sounds a lot like a GOP talking point; pure crap.
While your point is word by word copy paste of talking points used by Dems and progressive activists that want to demonize pro-life people? Only Dems and progressive activists use the word "pro-birth".
Explain where the term is wrong. Are all those who demand women carry to term regardless of reason there to bear the costs? Or pay for the funerals in the most tragic cases? Are they donating thousands to single mothers shelters? Lined up outside hospitals with cases of diapers and formula? Or showing any concern about post-birth quality of life for mother or child? No. The abortion issue is about nothing more than oppression and control of women, with no understanding of the reasons the decision might be made. And since I have no understanding of what those individual situations are, I'm inclined to leave the decision to the people involved...the woman and the doctors she consults.
But I did notice you didn't link to any specific story. Have a nice day.
I am largely indifferent to the AB government's proposed handling of gender and sexuality issues in the health and education systems:
-as a father, I know teenagers are incapable of making life altering decisions. Delaying elective medical treatment until they are 16 is not outrageous
-is concealing a student's gender identity from their parents any different than not letting them know that their child is failing math?
-educators, social scientists and government in general are massively over-estimating their own capabilities and motivations in thinking that the state can make better decisions about children's well being in an overwhelming majority of cases. Social Workers can be called in to handle the rare exceptions
-I never had sex ed in school (early 80s) as I moved around a few times and the grades in which it was taught differed by school. It would have been a waste of time as I already knew all I needed to know by piecing together tidbits from movies, music, books and overheard conversations. The cost of information is now zero, even for those from allegedly conservative families. Google is new teacher of sexuality and gender
I am somewhat inclined to support these measures due to the Law of Triviality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality). Acting as arm chair social workers lets educators evade accountability for their primary tasks. I'd much rather they stay out of gender discussions and sex ed and focus on teaching kids reading and math.
It's not just abilities. Too many teachers also over-estimate how much they care about their students in relation to parents.
I'm not saying they don't care a lot. Many do. Caring a lot about young people is precisely why so many entered the profession in the first place.
But they don't care about their students even remotely as much as the students parents do. They can't. Any expectation of that would be absurdly unrealistic because teachers are not parents.
Information should NEVER be withheld from parents because parents are the strongest, most dedicated and most loyal advocates for their children and withholding information deliberately hinders the parents in that vital task for their child. When a child is struggling, they need their parents even when they don't think they do.
In the rare cases where a teacher suspects that a parent might harm their child if they knew certain information... that teacher has a legal duty to report that to child services because they're suspecting child abuse. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a well understood professional requirement, so I do not understand why some teachers seem to think NOT reporting suspected child abusers and keeping secrets is a remotely acceptable course of action, let alone the best one.
I would like to address one of your points above, namely:
"is concealing a student's gender identity from their parents any different than not letting them know that their child is failing math?"
From my perspective, I think the answer to this is a categorical "No" on the grounds that the nature of the latter is rationally tied to the objectives of formal education, whereas the former is an ancillary social issue, and the disclosure thereof may actually be contrary to the development / self-education of the student.
Firstly, may it be noted that I think that it is important that we expect teachers to relay relevant information about students to their parents that concerns their academic success. Without such information, a parent would not be duly equipped with the knowledge to support their child’s formal education ("math", as you point out). However, the mandatory reporting of a non-academic topic (i.e., pronouns) feels, to me largely arbitrary, materially divorced from the objectives of formal education and plainly (in my opinion) rooted in DS’ bases’ concern with (here we go) "gender ideology".
In my opinion, mandatory reporting (and approval for those under 15) much to the chagrin of the student seems inconsistent (maybe even, at odds) with the underlying rationale for why parents should be engaged in the education of their children. Firstly, how a child conducts themselves socially at school (subject to my note regarding “impending harm” below) has little to no bearing on their academic success. Secondly, if such self-exploration (“student-led learning”, one might say) is on terms which are desirous to the student, then it can be argued that such self-exploration is actually in furtherance of the objectives of education albeit for a non-curricula subject. And yes, it would always be best if the parents were involved in a constructive manner; I doubt any rationale actor would argue against the best case scenario being for students and parents to grow together in loving acceptance; however, one must reasonably reckon with the reality that schools are oftentimes proving grounds for many a young person’s personalities, and if that student is not ready, willing or able (and I throw this in for all those who would highlight Alberta’s child protection laws) to tell their family, then who is the government to tell this student who they must tell, when, and under what circumstances and/or whether they possess the right to make these choices at all?
Now, if you reject all of those arguments absolutely on the grounds that "Parents must always be consulted because they need to know about every part of their child's development," well let me be the first to tell you that not even God knew what Eve was up to in the Garden... But secondly, I implore you to reflect upon the substance of the regulation itself. The sheer arbitrariness of this soon-to-be regulation worries me, and it should worry every supporter of this publication, as this politically-motivated effort begs the question: what other personal or inter-personal qualities should the government enforce compelled disclosure and/or consent from parents? Not to be alarmist, but the arbitrariness of the regulation does not allow for a rational limit on what other matters a government might seek to impose mandatory disclosure (and consent). I invite you to tell me where this particular arbitrary limitation on a student’s section 2(b) freedom of conscience (particularly for those under 15) ends and where such other arbitrary limitations begin. Might it be extra-curricular interests or some other non-curricula topic? Hopefully, we would stop before we enter such dangerous grounds as sexual proclivities and social affiliations ("Mr. and Mrs. Brandt, I just wanted to let you know your son has been seen holding hands with a white boy."). Again, I don’t want to be alarmist, and it is true that we have not yet seen the regulation itself, but this regulation is fundamentally about how a student is allowed to comport themselves at school, and many sensible conservatives appreciate a “slippery slope” argument, so I hope that this demonstrates the threat that such arbitrary law-making presents for students (and might I say, Canadians) writ large.
Now, for those of you exclaiming “When a child is struggling, they need their parents!”, I say: Yes, in almost every case, when a child is “struggling” they need familial support – as Andrew (above), in my opinion correctly notes, parents are typically “the strongest, most dedicated and most loyal advocates for their children.” And I agree that it is important that teachers be under a positive obligation to report situations which might expose that student to some impending harm. For example, if a student suffering from an identity crisis were displaying symptoms that suggested an imminent threat to their health, then by all means such student’s parents should be informed. And this applies equally to disclosing affiliations (clubs, friend groups, etc.) which might place the safety of the student or the student body in jeopardy. However, I reject the argument that just because a student is engaging with their gender identity means that they are moments away from harming themselves; in fact, I would argue that such self-exploration suggests the opposite.
Which bring me to my final point: for a government which concerns itself with the ethics of elective surgery, it is not doing a good job of making space for students who wish to explore less invasive alternatives thereto. You can’t suck and blow, but I think DS cares to remember this fact on the grounds that her base would be unwilling to accept latitude on either position. But if we as a society intend on accepting and embracing “feminine boys” and “masculine women” and a diversity of gender etcetera in between, in addition to transpeople, then we need to be willing to grant as much freedom as possible for young people to explore themselves, and a primary way of doing so is through self-determination and pronouns.
Ultimately, my point is that where there is no threat to the safety of the student or the student body, let the child take as much space as they need to explore their relationship with their gender; a young boy may find a particular niche within his gender that may have seemed prohibited by traditional masculine values (perhaps imparted by family members, or perhaps not), or they may decide to transition, or they may be OK with “just being one of the guys”: regardless, the student was given every opportunity to explore their identity devoid of external influence and on terms they deem amenable to their self-development.
As an aside, I think your point on the cost-value of sex education is a bit nonsensical... They have math on the internet too yet I do not hear you calling for a boycott of government-directed algebra. And heaven forbid someone learn sex "education" from an 80's movie...
I find it interesting that "this is between the medical practitioner/teacher and their patient, government shouldn't meddle" used by progressives when conservative government regulate trans issues. but when they do it, it's okay (e.g. When discussing gender/sexhal orientation questioning teenager, short of positive encouragement of trans/gay tendency can make a medical practitioner loses their license or adults face criminal charge.)
Or that "the number of trans kids are so small, why should we make regulation about it?" while at the same time requiring every men's bathroom in federal sector to provide tampons for a specific subset of this already small demographic. If their number is small enough for government to regulate, then it's small enough to require such a wide ranging regulations.
I didn't realize the health ministries of Britain, Sweden, Finland, France, and the Danes were all right wing fringe. Who knew?
Here's an idea: how about Health Canada conduct a systemic review of all the literature about transitioning and the long term effects on children who are put on various medications and hormones and come up with medical best practices for all these cheering professional medical bodies for affirmation only. Oh wait... that's what these fringe governments have done. Funny, isn't it, that all would arrive at the same conclusion... pulling back on affirmation only, shutting down widespread and easily accessible medical 'services' for transitioning CHILDREN (what could informed consent possibly mean without this information), and basing these cautious approaches through policy because of "very poor quality" evidence now justifying the progressive pearl clutching at a Conservative government's similarly cautious approach. Or maybe, just maybe, the politicization of this issue largely isn't a right wing tactic so championed by the left. Maybe, just maybe, a cautious approach is a legitimate expression of very real parental concern.
The CMA then. Some Canadian medical authority. The only one out of North America I can think of is the Florida Health review ("low quality evidence" and "unacceptably high risk of doing harm"... and we know how much Trudeau loves claiming what is and is not 'acceptable' to Canadians!), but although it mirrors the concerns raised in the English Cass review and the Finnish review ("the functioning of gender-dysphoric youth treated with hormones does not improve and in fact, often worsens," and "the missing evidence base" for the Dutch protocol), we know how easily anything from any 'tainted' source is arbitrarily dismissed. So why not a systemic review by some Canadian medical authority... unless the gender ideologues so concerned about the health and welfare of youth suffering some version of body incongruence (is there a developing kid that doesn't feel this way at some point?) know perfectly well that we're running a real time and extensive medical experiment on Canadian kids through thoroughly captured institutions that present the facade of medical care?
And even if this travesty is put aside, surely housing convicted serial male rapists in women's prisons probably isn't a good idea. Nor is having males by enforced legislation staff women's shelters. Or bump females out of various sports. Or have 50 year old men competing in an Otter swim class meant for 12 and 13 years old girls and using the same change rooms. How else are we to address any these issues except by direct intervention by non captured governments setting policies on the physical reality of sex-based differences?
Which appears to be cautiously pro gender affirming care, with a clear caveat: "More research is needed to inform the optimal management of adolescents with gender dysphoria."
Given that's from 2019, I suspect that's about right. And I also suspect that a review held by the CMA today -- given where many European states have gone -- would probably be more cautious, still.
What you see as 'cautious' I see as fully affirming. Nowhere does either this CMA document or the DSM V indicate that over 90% of dysphoria related to natal sex has a 'success' rate eliminating the incongruence by going through puberty. Transitioning doesn't even come close to this long term success rate. But nowhere do I see warnings that the majority of transitioned youths later report their incongruence was based on the profound discomfort of being same sex attracted.
So here's the thing: if young gays and lesbians turn to medicine today with such normal discomfort, they - in accordance with medical authorities - will be directed by medical professionals down the 'affirmation' path. That's the policy. This starts with blockers and over 90% of youth who go on puberty blockers then go on to hormones which guarantees no 'return to normal'. Note that the CMA does not indicate this consequence. It suggests the opposite, namely, "Hormonal suppression can delay puberty and give youth and their families more time to make decisions about transitioning." The path and the goal here is unidirectional plain and it isn't what I would consider 'cautious' except by the speed of the one way journey.
Once upon a time and not that long ago, most Canadians were in agreement that using medical means to 'guide' gays and lesbians away from same sex attraction was called 'conversion' and therapies that used this approach were later condemned. And for very good reasons. It caused a great deal of harm to those seeking medical help. Now we find the majority of youth suffering from incongruence with their bodies are attracted to the same sex but are medically directed by these 'cautious' medical authorities to once again use medicalization to not alter their attraction but alter the sex of their own bodies in order to find 'alignment'. (Iran, by the way, offers gays and lesbians this same alignment 'therapy'... or face the death penalty.) If only we had a term to describe this medically biased approach to alleviate same sex attraction feelings... oh wait... convex... conver... um... ah yes... compelled pronouns! That'll fix it. No conversion therapy going on here. Just a very strange kind of caution.
What's your citation for that? My understanding of the research is that roughly 60-80% of children (depending on the study) with gender dysphoria turn out to be gay rather than trans after puberty. The concern, of course, being that by offering puberty blockers without being able to identify which kids are gay vs. trans means that we may be pushing some kids into a process of lifelong medicalization whom would otherwise have turned out to be ordinarily gay and at peace with their natal sex. That doesn't mean that there is literally no role for puberty blockers in any possible case -- but it does mean that if that is an option, extreme caution, study, and selectivity is warranted.
I'm not sure where you're getting the claim that 90% of dysphoria can be resolved through puberty. What study are you basing that on?
American College of Pediatricians: "Experts on both sides of the pubertal suppression debate agree that within this context, 80 percent to 95 percent of children with GD accepted their biological sex by late adolescence" (to name just one <a href="https://acpeds.org/position-statements/gender-dysphoria-in-children">source</a>). There are many.
The point of this rate, however, lies not with the high percentage as a specific number but with the fact the rate CLEARLY demonstrates that 'diagnosed' gender dysphoria in children and youth does not predict persistence into the future. That's really important when we're talking about life-long, life-altering medical intervention. This raises the issue of iatrogenic harm (medical harm) where we have overwhelming evidence that current treatments cause life long harms to sexual and reproductive functions. This is not in doubt nor under debate. But the argument suggests that the benefits of gender care now carried out outweigh these known harms.
Is that true?
Well, if NOT pursuing these in-vogue therapies produces a much higher rate of congruence for youth and children experience incongruence (the basis for the DSM V diagnosis), then promoting and imposing what's called Affirmation Only policies and directives is at best clearly misguided and not medically sound. Because the evidence for benefit is based on sparse and very low quality longitudinal research (as every systemic review has concluded), then it is legitimate for parents to have great concern about today's common medical practice regarding 'gender' care. It is also quite legitimate about what effect pushing this ideology in schools has on vulnerable children and how this plays out in the wider culture. It raises legitimate concerns about institutions imposing the ideology in sports, in prisons, in women's spaces, on medicine, on scientific research. And I think (FWIW) more of us need to understand that this 'culture war' issue is no such thing in effect: it's not about culture unless and until it is politicized. It's about respecting reality and trying to alter this by using words and associating morality to the 'correct' version. It's about tearing down professional and institutional neutrality - like medicine - in order to impose an ideological narrative on everyone... even when it directly threatens the health and safety of our children! That's not political. That's fundamental. What's truly crazy is how few people really are concerned about this versus appearing to support the ideology in action.
Maybe Smith’s policies are not obvious to the Normies. Come next door to the Skeptics and it becomes clear.
Education as an institution is ideologically captured, we all agree on that since Oct 7th surely. K-12 is no different (read CUPE’s website lately?), lagging the ivory tower radicals perhaps but captured nonetheless.
Don’t look at SK and NB, look south to progressive cities and states with exponentially growing populations of trans-identifying youth confused about… everything. Look at Lia Thomas and the effect on (now) demoralized female athletes. Look at teacher unions and school boards controlled by, you guessed it, more progressive radicals.
Smith’s policies aren’t an attack on vulnerable kids, they are a shield against the radicals who have co-opted the Education system. This is an example of looking ahead and doing something about it now. You can argue it is solutions looking for problems but then don’t criticize when Govs fail to look ahead and fix the health system because similarly that could viewed as solutions looking for problems.
Perhaps Smith drifted from a Libertarian core but the reason institutions are corrupt in the first place is because no one stood their ground to defend them and push back against the cultural Marxists. If Smith waited around for the Normies to figure out which way the wind is blowing the kids would all be on puberty blockers and waving Hamas flags before anyone would act. Not too far from that as it is.
This isn't a "culture war" - radical nutbags have taken over schoolboards and professional colleges, decided that they can *change our kids names and gender* without telling us, that amputations and chemical castration are loving care, that large males can compete against women - and nobody can speak against this without public shaming and fear of losing their job. None of this was a thing 10 years ago, it's been astroturfed and imposed on us, and opposing it is not playing at culture war. I also prefer government stay out of this stuff, but like you said what other option is there? Look at the Alberta Medical Association's statement today saying "puberty blockers are reversible" - this is 1000% false, and it shows how far the rot has spread. This is exactly the role of the executive, this is the vast majority's opinion, and there's no other way to get out from under a captured bureaucracy. FWIW I love gay and gnc people, I do believe that some kids will turn out to be trans, but jaysus h christ this shit is outta control
In all seriousness, I am yet to hear a proper argument on why any of these measures will specifically be bad. All I am hearing are rhetorical statements like "They will not feel safe" or as this podcast says "looking for problems to solve". But my question is simple: exactly what is wrong with this bill?
There's no bill yet, just statements of principle, and I think it's obvious that it's going to be hard to operationalise many of the measures in a reasonable way.
On sports, the policy of "biological women-only leagues" is explicitly stated as applying to both kids and adults. What happens to people who want to play in sports in which national or international bodies have decided to permit trans women to play? The National Women's Soccer League in the US permits trans women players (subject to conditions about gender identity, testosterone level, whatever) - is Alberta going to prevent NWSL teams from playing in Calgary against Foothills WFC? Are trans girls who have the ambition to play pro soccer going to not be allowed to play soccer with their future peers in Alberta? Will the province become unable to host qualification events for the national Olympic team in sports where trans women are allowed?
A lot of sports have decided to not allow trans women to compete, too. Those questions don't really apply to those sports, but the provincial government stepping in here and trying to create new rules that apply only to Alberta is going to cause headaches and not really solve any.
The bureaucratic headaches for schools is going to be huge, too. Think about how broad the provision of "parents must be notified and opt in to any instance when a teacher provides formal instruction on subject matter involving gender identity, sexual orientation or human sexuality." Are teachers going to have to have parents individually approve every novel and play they teach in English class, and then track which kids are approved for each novel? Pretty much every work a student reads in high school is going to involve those. Is heterosexuality a sexual orientation? Why not? If there's a textbook that incidentally portrays a kid with gay parents, will parents be asked to approve that instance of teaching? What about mentioning gay people in history class?
The idea of having parents notified and opting-in to "each instance" of any instruction where "gender identify, sexual orientation, or human sexuality" can't be anything but a bureaucratic nightmare, if that provision can mean anything at all.
Parents have the right to know what's being taught in school, that's clear! But giving a case-by-case, child-by-child veto on subjects that are going to be coming up *all the time* is just not practical, and it's probably going to be impossible to actually draft language that actually *does* what the one-line policy idea here actually purports to do. I'm reminded of the Texas bill that purported to ban sexually-explicit drag shows aimed at minors: the language ended up being so broad that a judge found that it could reasonably apply to "cheerleading" or "dancing".
“A lot of sports have decided to not allow trans women to compete, too.”
Please stop using this misleading language.
These sporting organizations have decided that trans women must compete in their biological sex category, as do all other males, regardless of what they report as their internal, immeasurable, externally undetectable gender identity.
No trans women have been banned from any sports or prevented from competing.
I think it was very clear from context that I meant "women's sports" leagues, but sure, I could have been more precise. Congrats, you've found a nit to pick!
No, it wasn’t clear at all. It implied that trans women were being prevented from competing in sports. Women’s leagues are a small (and still somewhat under-funded) subsection of Canadian sports. There are vastly more men’s (and boys’) teams and leagues.
One point made in the podcast was the loss of trust in institutions. For me, the most dramatic example of that is the famous photo of Kayla Lemieux, high school shop teacher, standing at a circular saw with ridiculous prosthetic breasts Forget the transgender issue. This is a teacher who is supposed to be demonstrating safety to young students in a shop class but clearly was chiefly concerned with making some sort of a social statement . Their job responsibilities were way down the priority list. The reason Lemieux was not reprimanded immediately was certainly related to the toxic environment around transgenderism and the warped priorities of teacher’s unions.
How could anyone trust a school principal that allowed that to continue.
Very good article on those who transition back to their biological sex in yesterdays New York Times. Danielle Smith’s proposals are not raging right wing nonsense. People must stop making this political. Like our Prime Minister did by his trash comments on Ms. Smith being transphobic.
I have supported the right for people to transition and live their lives socially not in their genetic sex ever since I read of the transition of the man who became Christine Jorgensen in 1964.
I was 14 in 1964 when I read about it. Obviously I am not some raging anti trans fascist.
Smith’s proposals are in line with what is going on in the UK and Europe.
I would suggest those who are outraged by Smith read up on what is going on across the Atlantic.
Google The Tavistock Clinic in London ,England. You will be enlightened
Our media is sadly unwilling to report these changes.
There must be information on all aspects of the trans thing; it shouldn’t be all tilted to favour the trans activists.
Thing is this proposal by DS is very common sense and limited in scope. It may well be politically driven, but it does serve an actual problem of parental rights regarding minors. Go back a few weeks to see how many parents and children participated in a nationwide (or just BC?) walkout/absence to understand how popular these measures will be. In fact, my guess is this will become more popular than what the media thinks it will be.
You have forgotten the second key element of luxury beliefs: it’s not just that they matter to people with more money than sense. It’s that the cost of their implementation is borne by people in the lower economic and social classes.
So 500 foster kids in BC are in a particular gender clinician’s service. (And may I note, foster kids are disproportionately Indigenous. Do we really need a “sterilizing First Nations kids” scandal?)
And so women in Fraser Valley Institution (also disproportionately Indigenous, but also disproportionately survivors of adult & childhood sexual & physical abuse) have to stay on constant alert as males — with no surgery, and with disturbingly high rates of sexual offence convictions (based on Corrections Canada’s own data) — are moved into the female prison population. And they’re on alert not only for their own safety, but for their young children, as “Madeline” Harks (60 victims by his own tally) or “Tara Desousa” (at 12, murdered a 3-year old; at 15, sexually assaulted a 3 month old baby boy who as a result required reconstructive surgery, the attack so terrible “Desousa” became the youngest dangerous offender in Canadian history) skulk about the Mother & Child cottage.
A lot of us are active in this issue NOT because we are socially conservative but because we are old-fashioned class-conscious lefties who want to protect the vulnerable from exploitation.
If some middle-class munchausen’s parent wants to sterilize their gender-addled kid, you know what, fine. Ruin your kid’s life for Twitter likes and Instagram clout, fill your boots. But they can pay the cost of flying to Thailand like Susie Green did with the son that she & her husband could not tolerate to grow up to be a gay man.
Oh but wait, no they can’t, because even Thailand —at urging of their own LGBT community —banned under-18 trans surgeries *15 years ago*, because they were horrified about gay kids taking irreverent steps before they had the maturity to understand what they were doing.
Consider that—we are 15 years behind Thailand, perhaps the trans-friendliest place in the world, on this issue.
I am appalled at your smug, dismissive attitude towards what is in reality one of the biggest medical scandals of our time. So called affirmative treatment guidelines have our medical practitioners accepting as gospel the TikTok influenced gender self assessment of troubled and often autistic young people who desperately need some guard rails so they can make it through to adulthood with bodies and minds intact.
Hundreds of under 18s are undergoing surgical and medical treatment that cause sterility, permanent sexual impairment and a lifetime of dependence on drugs to maintain the façade of being a different sex. If this isn’t a crisis that warrants government intervention then what does?
Kudos to Danielle Smith for having the courage to stand up for these vulnerable young people.
I appreciate your comments, but note that the national conversation is studiously avoiding any references to walk-backs in gender affirming care that is taking place in other countries. If Premier Smith made reference to this, I missed it. Some of these countries are socialist democracies that many Canadians admire, but hard research over long periods of time has shown some serious problems that required a course correction.
Trans activists and their allies want to drive a gender affirming care narrative around our emotions and feelings of abandonment of children that could lead to suicidal thoughts. Let’s not sweep that under the rug. However, proper medical care of minors should identify a serious spike in gender dysphoria, particularly among young girls, and wonder why that is, and what should be done about it. Premier Smith supports buying children some time to learn more about themselves so they can make good decisions. What is so bad about that?
I’d also note that relying on the Canadian Medical Association to deal with gender medicalization is a great idea. After all they established such a great record with lobotomies…
Oh wait, no, they were lobotomy cheerleaders starting in the 40s, only started to lose enthusiasm for them in the 60s and those procedures were still only stopped for good in Canada once legislation was passed to ban them in the late 70s.
But I’m sure the CMA will get it right this time! Institutions like that are famous for learning the lessons of history.
Not the medical professions first stumble. Tommy Douglas famously wrote his thesis supportive of the eugenics movement and its policies. He was following the ideas very popular in the medical community of the time. Those policies were enthusiastically adopted by, and taken to their ultimate conclusion, by a popular political party in Germany at that time..
I'd like to hear a discussion somewhere about why all of a sudden it's OK to tell a group of very troubled young people that everyone hates them and they're sure to be genocided/commit suicide. We've known about the dangers of glamorizing suicide since 'the Sorrows of Young Werther' (1774), and up until trans issues exploded about 10 years ago the media was careful to never suggest the suicide was inevitable or a solution, or that people who kill themselves are martyrs to a cause. Why is this now different and why is it being led by the people who supposedly want us to "be kind"? Expecially when the suicide data absolutely does not support this narrative? This is the very worst of the rhetoric and if this stopped it would go a long way toward letting people have a calmer and more helpful discussion. And yes, like our hosts, I blame the media and our institutions.
Jen I Love you. But...why are Denmark, Norway, Sweeden, France, the UK stopping the use of Puberty Blockers? Did David Parker tell them to as well? Look on my Twitter for a clip of Kemi Badenoch explaining what was happening : young gay kids, struggling with their identity (and often depression, anxiety, autism) were rushed into hormones and surgery because they were led to view their problems as resulting from "being born in the wrong body". Not in every case, but they realized it was akin to gay-to-trans conversion therapy.
I am surprised at your response to Danielle Smith’s proposal. I usually expect a more nuanced critique from The Line. However, you are quick to dismiss her proposal as bait for her base. My view is that her proposals offer some common sense boundaries around a radical gender orthodoxy that is out of control. I assume you characterize Danielle Smith’s base as leaning toward Libertarianism. I do not belong to that camp. I am just an old
fashioned centrist who eschews anything extreme.
Victoria
One can argue that many (if not all) of her proposals are entirely popular positions that reflect reality while at the same time noting that the intentions behind these proposals are politically driven. (And driven by a specific sub-group that has explicitly chosen to make this a key issue.) JG
Or a mention that "Conservatives are taken over by the fringe". What's considered the "fringe" was centrist just 15-20 years ago. E.g. Pro-life cause is now considered to be a fringe So-con, a third of one party. But just over a decade ago, there were pro-life Liberals, there were pro-life Green candidates, and there were pro-life NDP. Those people are ousted by their party leaders in the name of progressivism (which is the fringe left). And anyone who dare to run as pro-life candidate will be labeled fringe by media everywhere without a second look. So are they actually fringe or just people holding onto beliefs that were othered by the left (and media joins in)?
I believe we noted that mainstream parties BOTH left and right are increasingly beholden to their respective, ideologically motivated bases, yes. JG
There is no such thing as "pro-life". They are "pro-birth" who seek to impose their opinion on others with no knowledge of the situation while absorbing none of the costs or consequences.
With respect, you seem confident that you know a LOT about what motivates those you disagree with.
I can't help but notice that this seems VERY similar to the people who insist they KNOW that people who approve of trans story hour are motivated by a pedophilic interest in exposing children to sexual themes. (I'm thinking of that "taps sign" meme.)
Is it possible that pro-life people know their own minds better than you know their minds? Or that different people who favour various pro-life policies are motivated by different things?
Thank you! I am as stridently pro-choice as they come, but I absolutely hate how so many people on my side of the argument mischaracterize the views & beliefs of all abortion opponents.
Yes, some *are* misogynists, some *do* have selective morality, some *are* the vile clinic-protesting woman-harassing types, etc. But most of the ones I’ve encountered are thoughtful people who have a not entirely irrational position on what constitutes human and human rights, and who are also troubled by the hard questions their position creates in cases of rape, incest, etc.
My principles land me on it being the woman’s right to decide to end a pregnancy in basically 100% of the cases 100% of the time, but people who trivialize the debate like that piss me off to no end.
(Although there have been enough arrests with respect to DQSH that I’m probably more willing to overlook a bit of sign-tapping than you are.)
Should the same thing said about Liberals who ban psychologists and adults from telling a questioning teenager that they may not be gay or trans. They impose their opinion on others (experts at that) with no knowledge of the situation of the patient while absorbing kone of the costs and consequences. Or what about banning guns when the public safety minister even refused to try out shooting a gun in a gun range?
Gun issues which the Liberals have botched unimaginably are not on the same planet as trans issues which are millions of times more complex.
You'll have to link to a story relating to Liberals anywhere banning people from access to professional advice. Because I think that's a complete crock. maybe this is something that politicians of all stripes should keep their hands off; like abortion since they have no idea what they're talking about. Because your comment sounds a lot like a GOP talking point; pure crap.
No comparison is perfect in every detail. But on the issue of unnecessarily legislating on controversial issues to please a base, the shoe fits.
While your point is word by word copy paste of talking points used by Dems and progressive activists that want to demonize pro-life people? Only Dems and progressive activists use the word "pro-birth".
Explain where the term is wrong. Are all those who demand women carry to term regardless of reason there to bear the costs? Or pay for the funerals in the most tragic cases? Are they donating thousands to single mothers shelters? Lined up outside hospitals with cases of diapers and formula? Or showing any concern about post-birth quality of life for mother or child? No. The abortion issue is about nothing more than oppression and control of women, with no understanding of the reasons the decision might be made. And since I have no understanding of what those individual situations are, I'm inclined to leave the decision to the people involved...the woman and the doctors she consults.
But I did notice you didn't link to any specific story. Have a nice day.
I am largely indifferent to the AB government's proposed handling of gender and sexuality issues in the health and education systems:
-as a father, I know teenagers are incapable of making life altering decisions. Delaying elective medical treatment until they are 16 is not outrageous
-is concealing a student's gender identity from their parents any different than not letting them know that their child is failing math?
-educators, social scientists and government in general are massively over-estimating their own capabilities and motivations in thinking that the state can make better decisions about children's well being in an overwhelming majority of cases. Social Workers can be called in to handle the rare exceptions
-I never had sex ed in school (early 80s) as I moved around a few times and the grades in which it was taught differed by school. It would have been a waste of time as I already knew all I needed to know by piecing together tidbits from movies, music, books and overheard conversations. The cost of information is now zero, even for those from allegedly conservative families. Google is new teacher of sexuality and gender
I am somewhat inclined to support these measures due to the Law of Triviality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality). Acting as arm chair social workers lets educators evade accountability for their primary tasks. I'd much rather they stay out of gender discussions and sex ed and focus on teaching kids reading and math.
I agree, in particular, with point 3, fwiw. JG
It's not just abilities. Too many teachers also over-estimate how much they care about their students in relation to parents.
I'm not saying they don't care a lot. Many do. Caring a lot about young people is precisely why so many entered the profession in the first place.
But they don't care about their students even remotely as much as the students parents do. They can't. Any expectation of that would be absurdly unrealistic because teachers are not parents.
Information should NEVER be withheld from parents because parents are the strongest, most dedicated and most loyal advocates for their children and withholding information deliberately hinders the parents in that vital task for their child. When a child is struggling, they need their parents even when they don't think they do.
In the rare cases where a teacher suspects that a parent might harm their child if they knew certain information... that teacher has a legal duty to report that to child services because they're suspecting child abuse. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's a well understood professional requirement, so I do not understand why some teachers seem to think NOT reporting suspected child abusers and keeping secrets is a remotely acceptable course of action, let alone the best one.
**PROGGY ALERT**
Hi, Doug:
I would like to address one of your points above, namely:
"is concealing a student's gender identity from their parents any different than not letting them know that their child is failing math?"
From my perspective, I think the answer to this is a categorical "No" on the grounds that the nature of the latter is rationally tied to the objectives of formal education, whereas the former is an ancillary social issue, and the disclosure thereof may actually be contrary to the development / self-education of the student.
Firstly, may it be noted that I think that it is important that we expect teachers to relay relevant information about students to their parents that concerns their academic success. Without such information, a parent would not be duly equipped with the knowledge to support their child’s formal education ("math", as you point out). However, the mandatory reporting of a non-academic topic (i.e., pronouns) feels, to me largely arbitrary, materially divorced from the objectives of formal education and plainly (in my opinion) rooted in DS’ bases’ concern with (here we go) "gender ideology".
In my opinion, mandatory reporting (and approval for those under 15) much to the chagrin of the student seems inconsistent (maybe even, at odds) with the underlying rationale for why parents should be engaged in the education of their children. Firstly, how a child conducts themselves socially at school (subject to my note regarding “impending harm” below) has little to no bearing on their academic success. Secondly, if such self-exploration (“student-led learning”, one might say) is on terms which are desirous to the student, then it can be argued that such self-exploration is actually in furtherance of the objectives of education albeit for a non-curricula subject. And yes, it would always be best if the parents were involved in a constructive manner; I doubt any rationale actor would argue against the best case scenario being for students and parents to grow together in loving acceptance; however, one must reasonably reckon with the reality that schools are oftentimes proving grounds for many a young person’s personalities, and if that student is not ready, willing or able (and I throw this in for all those who would highlight Alberta’s child protection laws) to tell their family, then who is the government to tell this student who they must tell, when, and under what circumstances and/or whether they possess the right to make these choices at all?
Now, if you reject all of those arguments absolutely on the grounds that "Parents must always be consulted because they need to know about every part of their child's development," well let me be the first to tell you that not even God knew what Eve was up to in the Garden... But secondly, I implore you to reflect upon the substance of the regulation itself. The sheer arbitrariness of this soon-to-be regulation worries me, and it should worry every supporter of this publication, as this politically-motivated effort begs the question: what other personal or inter-personal qualities should the government enforce compelled disclosure and/or consent from parents? Not to be alarmist, but the arbitrariness of the regulation does not allow for a rational limit on what other matters a government might seek to impose mandatory disclosure (and consent). I invite you to tell me where this particular arbitrary limitation on a student’s section 2(b) freedom of conscience (particularly for those under 15) ends and where such other arbitrary limitations begin. Might it be extra-curricular interests or some other non-curricula topic? Hopefully, we would stop before we enter such dangerous grounds as sexual proclivities and social affiliations ("Mr. and Mrs. Brandt, I just wanted to let you know your son has been seen holding hands with a white boy."). Again, I don’t want to be alarmist, and it is true that we have not yet seen the regulation itself, but this regulation is fundamentally about how a student is allowed to comport themselves at school, and many sensible conservatives appreciate a “slippery slope” argument, so I hope that this demonstrates the threat that such arbitrary law-making presents for students (and might I say, Canadians) writ large.
Now, for those of you exclaiming “When a child is struggling, they need their parents!”, I say: Yes, in almost every case, when a child is “struggling” they need familial support – as Andrew (above), in my opinion correctly notes, parents are typically “the strongest, most dedicated and most loyal advocates for their children.” And I agree that it is important that teachers be under a positive obligation to report situations which might expose that student to some impending harm. For example, if a student suffering from an identity crisis were displaying symptoms that suggested an imminent threat to their health, then by all means such student’s parents should be informed. And this applies equally to disclosing affiliations (clubs, friend groups, etc.) which might place the safety of the student or the student body in jeopardy. However, I reject the argument that just because a student is engaging with their gender identity means that they are moments away from harming themselves; in fact, I would argue that such self-exploration suggests the opposite.
Which bring me to my final point: for a government which concerns itself with the ethics of elective surgery, it is not doing a good job of making space for students who wish to explore less invasive alternatives thereto. You can’t suck and blow, but I think DS cares to remember this fact on the grounds that her base would be unwilling to accept latitude on either position. But if we as a society intend on accepting and embracing “feminine boys” and “masculine women” and a diversity of gender etcetera in between, in addition to transpeople, then we need to be willing to grant as much freedom as possible for young people to explore themselves, and a primary way of doing so is through self-determination and pronouns.
Ultimately, my point is that where there is no threat to the safety of the student or the student body, let the child take as much space as they need to explore their relationship with their gender; a young boy may find a particular niche within his gender that may have seemed prohibited by traditional masculine values (perhaps imparted by family members, or perhaps not), or they may decide to transition, or they may be OK with “just being one of the guys”: regardless, the student was given every opportunity to explore their identity devoid of external influence and on terms they deem amenable to their self-development.
As an aside, I think your point on the cost-value of sex education is a bit nonsensical... They have math on the internet too yet I do not hear you calling for a boycott of government-directed algebra. And heaven forbid someone learn sex "education" from an 80's movie...
STAY TUNED FOR THE RETURN OF PROGGY
I find it interesting that "this is between the medical practitioner/teacher and their patient, government shouldn't meddle" used by progressives when conservative government regulate trans issues. but when they do it, it's okay (e.g. When discussing gender/sexhal orientation questioning teenager, short of positive encouragement of trans/gay tendency can make a medical practitioner loses their license or adults face criminal charge.)
Or that "the number of trans kids are so small, why should we make regulation about it?" while at the same time requiring every men's bathroom in federal sector to provide tampons for a specific subset of this already small demographic. If their number is small enough for government to regulate, then it's small enough to require such a wide ranging regulations.
I didn't realize the health ministries of Britain, Sweden, Finland, France, and the Danes were all right wing fringe. Who knew?
Here's an idea: how about Health Canada conduct a systemic review of all the literature about transitioning and the long term effects on children who are put on various medications and hormones and come up with medical best practices for all these cheering professional medical bodies for affirmation only. Oh wait... that's what these fringe governments have done. Funny, isn't it, that all would arrive at the same conclusion... pulling back on affirmation only, shutting down widespread and easily accessible medical 'services' for transitioning CHILDREN (what could informed consent possibly mean without this information), and basing these cautious approaches through policy because of "very poor quality" evidence now justifying the progressive pearl clutching at a Conservative government's similarly cautious approach. Or maybe, just maybe, the politicization of this issue largely isn't a right wing tactic so championed by the left. Maybe, just maybe, a cautious approach is a legitimate expression of very real parental concern.
I suspect Smith et al. Would see that as federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction. JG
The CMA then. Some Canadian medical authority. The only one out of North America I can think of is the Florida Health review ("low quality evidence" and "unacceptably high risk of doing harm"... and we know how much Trudeau loves claiming what is and is not 'acceptable' to Canadians!), but although it mirrors the concerns raised in the English Cass review and the Finnish review ("the functioning of gender-dysphoric youth treated with hormones does not improve and in fact, often worsens," and "the missing evidence base" for the Dutch protocol), we know how easily anything from any 'tainted' source is arbitrarily dismissed. So why not a systemic review by some Canadian medical authority... unless the gender ideologues so concerned about the health and welfare of youth suffering some version of body incongruence (is there a developing kid that doesn't feel this way at some point?) know perfectly well that we're running a real time and extensive medical experiment on Canadian kids through thoroughly captured institutions that present the facade of medical care?
And even if this travesty is put aside, surely housing convicted serial male rapists in women's prisons probably isn't a good idea. Nor is having males by enforced legislation staff women's shelters. Or bump females out of various sports. Or have 50 year old men competing in an Otter swim class meant for 12 and 13 years old girls and using the same change rooms. How else are we to address any these issues except by direct intervention by non captured governments setting policies on the physical reality of sex-based differences?
The last thing I've seen from the CMA on the issue is this: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/191/3/E69
Which appears to be cautiously pro gender affirming care, with a clear caveat: "More research is needed to inform the optimal management of adolescents with gender dysphoria."
Given that's from 2019, I suspect that's about right. And I also suspect that a review held by the CMA today -- given where many European states have gone -- would probably be more cautious, still.
What you see as 'cautious' I see as fully affirming. Nowhere does either this CMA document or the DSM V indicate that over 90% of dysphoria related to natal sex has a 'success' rate eliminating the incongruence by going through puberty. Transitioning doesn't even come close to this long term success rate. But nowhere do I see warnings that the majority of transitioned youths later report their incongruence was based on the profound discomfort of being same sex attracted.
So here's the thing: if young gays and lesbians turn to medicine today with such normal discomfort, they - in accordance with medical authorities - will be directed by medical professionals down the 'affirmation' path. That's the policy. This starts with blockers and over 90% of youth who go on puberty blockers then go on to hormones which guarantees no 'return to normal'. Note that the CMA does not indicate this consequence. It suggests the opposite, namely, "Hormonal suppression can delay puberty and give youth and their families more time to make decisions about transitioning." The path and the goal here is unidirectional plain and it isn't what I would consider 'cautious' except by the speed of the one way journey.
Once upon a time and not that long ago, most Canadians were in agreement that using medical means to 'guide' gays and lesbians away from same sex attraction was called 'conversion' and therapies that used this approach were later condemned. And for very good reasons. It caused a great deal of harm to those seeking medical help. Now we find the majority of youth suffering from incongruence with their bodies are attracted to the same sex but are medically directed by these 'cautious' medical authorities to once again use medicalization to not alter their attraction but alter the sex of their own bodies in order to find 'alignment'. (Iran, by the way, offers gays and lesbians this same alignment 'therapy'... or face the death penalty.) If only we had a term to describe this medically biased approach to alleviate same sex attraction feelings... oh wait... convex... conver... um... ah yes... compelled pronouns! That'll fix it. No conversion therapy going on here. Just a very strange kind of caution.
What's your citation for that? My understanding of the research is that roughly 60-80% of children (depending on the study) with gender dysphoria turn out to be gay rather than trans after puberty. The concern, of course, being that by offering puberty blockers without being able to identify which kids are gay vs. trans means that we may be pushing some kids into a process of lifelong medicalization whom would otherwise have turned out to be ordinarily gay and at peace with their natal sex. That doesn't mean that there is literally no role for puberty blockers in any possible case -- but it does mean that if that is an option, extreme caution, study, and selectivity is warranted.
I'm not sure where you're getting the claim that 90% of dysphoria can be resolved through puberty. What study are you basing that on?
American College of Pediatricians: "Experts on both sides of the pubertal suppression debate agree that within this context, 80 percent to 95 percent of children with GD accepted their biological sex by late adolescence" (to name just one <a href="https://acpeds.org/position-statements/gender-dysphoria-in-children">source</a>). There are many.
The point of this rate, however, lies not with the high percentage as a specific number but with the fact the rate CLEARLY demonstrates that 'diagnosed' gender dysphoria in children and youth does not predict persistence into the future. That's really important when we're talking about life-long, life-altering medical intervention. This raises the issue of iatrogenic harm (medical harm) where we have overwhelming evidence that current treatments cause life long harms to sexual and reproductive functions. This is not in doubt nor under debate. But the argument suggests that the benefits of gender care now carried out outweigh these known harms.
Is that true?
Well, if NOT pursuing these in-vogue therapies produces a much higher rate of congruence for youth and children experience incongruence (the basis for the DSM V diagnosis), then promoting and imposing what's called Affirmation Only policies and directives is at best clearly misguided and not medically sound. Because the evidence for benefit is based on sparse and very low quality longitudinal research (as every systemic review has concluded), then it is legitimate for parents to have great concern about today's common medical practice regarding 'gender' care. It is also quite legitimate about what effect pushing this ideology in schools has on vulnerable children and how this plays out in the wider culture. It raises legitimate concerns about institutions imposing the ideology in sports, in prisons, in women's spaces, on medicine, on scientific research. And I think (FWIW) more of us need to understand that this 'culture war' issue is no such thing in effect: it's not about culture unless and until it is politicized. It's about respecting reality and trying to alter this by using words and associating morality to the 'correct' version. It's about tearing down professional and institutional neutrality - like medicine - in order to impose an ideological narrative on everyone... even when it directly threatens the health and safety of our children! That's not political. That's fundamental. What's truly crazy is how few people really are concerned about this versus appearing to support the ideology in action.
Maybe Smith’s policies are not obvious to the Normies. Come next door to the Skeptics and it becomes clear.
Education as an institution is ideologically captured, we all agree on that since Oct 7th surely. K-12 is no different (read CUPE’s website lately?), lagging the ivory tower radicals perhaps but captured nonetheless.
Don’t look at SK and NB, look south to progressive cities and states with exponentially growing populations of trans-identifying youth confused about… everything. Look at Lia Thomas and the effect on (now) demoralized female athletes. Look at teacher unions and school boards controlled by, you guessed it, more progressive radicals.
Smith’s policies aren’t an attack on vulnerable kids, they are a shield against the radicals who have co-opted the Education system. This is an example of looking ahead and doing something about it now. You can argue it is solutions looking for problems but then don’t criticize when Govs fail to look ahead and fix the health system because similarly that could viewed as solutions looking for problems.
Perhaps Smith drifted from a Libertarian core but the reason institutions are corrupt in the first place is because no one stood their ground to defend them and push back against the cultural Marxists. If Smith waited around for the Normies to figure out which way the wind is blowing the kids would all be on puberty blockers and waving Hamas flags before anyone would act. Not too far from that as it is.
This isn't a "culture war" - radical nutbags have taken over schoolboards and professional colleges, decided that they can *change our kids names and gender* without telling us, that amputations and chemical castration are loving care, that large males can compete against women - and nobody can speak against this without public shaming and fear of losing their job. None of this was a thing 10 years ago, it's been astroturfed and imposed on us, and opposing it is not playing at culture war. I also prefer government stay out of this stuff, but like you said what other option is there? Look at the Alberta Medical Association's statement today saying "puberty blockers are reversible" - this is 1000% false, and it shows how far the rot has spread. This is exactly the role of the executive, this is the vast majority's opinion, and there's no other way to get out from under a captured bureaucracy. FWIW I love gay and gnc people, I do believe that some kids will turn out to be trans, but jaysus h christ this shit is outta control
In all seriousness, I am yet to hear a proper argument on why any of these measures will specifically be bad. All I am hearing are rhetorical statements like "They will not feel safe" or as this podcast says "looking for problems to solve". But my question is simple: exactly what is wrong with this bill?
I don't believe we argued that the measures were, specifically bad, and in fact pointed out that we expected them to be very popular. JG
There's no bill yet, just statements of principle, and I think it's obvious that it's going to be hard to operationalise many of the measures in a reasonable way.
On sports, the policy of "biological women-only leagues" is explicitly stated as applying to both kids and adults. What happens to people who want to play in sports in which national or international bodies have decided to permit trans women to play? The National Women's Soccer League in the US permits trans women players (subject to conditions about gender identity, testosterone level, whatever) - is Alberta going to prevent NWSL teams from playing in Calgary against Foothills WFC? Are trans girls who have the ambition to play pro soccer going to not be allowed to play soccer with their future peers in Alberta? Will the province become unable to host qualification events for the national Olympic team in sports where trans women are allowed?
A lot of sports have decided to not allow trans women to compete, too. Those questions don't really apply to those sports, but the provincial government stepping in here and trying to create new rules that apply only to Alberta is going to cause headaches and not really solve any.
The bureaucratic headaches for schools is going to be huge, too. Think about how broad the provision of "parents must be notified and opt in to any instance when a teacher provides formal instruction on subject matter involving gender identity, sexual orientation or human sexuality." Are teachers going to have to have parents individually approve every novel and play they teach in English class, and then track which kids are approved for each novel? Pretty much every work a student reads in high school is going to involve those. Is heterosexuality a sexual orientation? Why not? If there's a textbook that incidentally portrays a kid with gay parents, will parents be asked to approve that instance of teaching? What about mentioning gay people in history class?
The idea of having parents notified and opting-in to "each instance" of any instruction where "gender identify, sexual orientation, or human sexuality" can't be anything but a bureaucratic nightmare, if that provision can mean anything at all.
Parents have the right to know what's being taught in school, that's clear! But giving a case-by-case, child-by-child veto on subjects that are going to be coming up *all the time* is just not practical, and it's probably going to be impossible to actually draft language that actually *does* what the one-line policy idea here actually purports to do. I'm reminded of the Texas bill that purported to ban sexually-explicit drag shows aimed at minors: the language ended up being so broad that a judge found that it could reasonably apply to "cheerleading" or "dancing".
“A lot of sports have decided to not allow trans women to compete, too.”
Please stop using this misleading language.
These sporting organizations have decided that trans women must compete in their biological sex category, as do all other males, regardless of what they report as their internal, immeasurable, externally undetectable gender identity.
No trans women have been banned from any sports or prevented from competing.
I think it was very clear from context that I meant "women's sports" leagues, but sure, I could have been more precise. Congrats, you've found a nit to pick!
No, it wasn’t clear at all. It implied that trans women were being prevented from competing in sports. Women’s leagues are a small (and still somewhat under-funded) subsection of Canadian sports. There are vastly more men’s (and boys’) teams and leagues.
Get some fresh air, guys.
Alas, I’m stuck here until the cat decides she wants to get up. Them’s the rules.
One point made in the podcast was the loss of trust in institutions. For me, the most dramatic example of that is the famous photo of Kayla Lemieux, high school shop teacher, standing at a circular saw with ridiculous prosthetic breasts Forget the transgender issue. This is a teacher who is supposed to be demonstrating safety to young students in a shop class but clearly was chiefly concerned with making some sort of a social statement . Their job responsibilities were way down the priority list. The reason Lemieux was not reprimanded immediately was certainly related to the toxic environment around transgenderism and the warped priorities of teacher’s unions.
How could anyone trust a school principal that allowed that to continue.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-school-board-goes-silent-on-viral-teacher-citing-personnel-matter
So one teacher represents the profession?
It’s a gorgeous Saturday. Don’t spend it all arguing on the internet!
Fear not...the sun beckons. Just an interesting debate during morning chores. :)
????
!
Very good article on those who transition back to their biological sex in yesterdays New York Times. Danielle Smith’s proposals are not raging right wing nonsense. People must stop making this political. Like our Prime Minister did by his trash comments on Ms. Smith being transphobic.
I have supported the right for people to transition and live their lives socially not in their genetic sex ever since I read of the transition of the man who became Christine Jorgensen in 1964.
I was 14 in 1964 when I read about it. Obviously I am not some raging anti trans fascist.
Smith’s proposals are in line with what is going on in the UK and Europe.
I would suggest those who are outraged by Smith read up on what is going on across the Atlantic.
Google The Tavistock Clinic in London ,England. You will be enlightened
Our media is sadly unwilling to report these changes.
There must be information on all aspects of the trans thing; it shouldn’t be all tilted to favour the trans activists.
Thing is this proposal by DS is very common sense and limited in scope. It may well be politically driven, but it does serve an actual problem of parental rights regarding minors. Go back a few weeks to see how many parents and children participated in a nationwide (or just BC?) walkout/absence to understand how popular these measures will be. In fact, my guess is this will become more popular than what the media thinks it will be.
Jen and I are in agreement with you on that part.
You have forgotten the second key element of luxury beliefs: it’s not just that they matter to people with more money than sense. It’s that the cost of their implementation is borne by people in the lower economic and social classes.
So 500 foster kids in BC are in a particular gender clinician’s service. (And may I note, foster kids are disproportionately Indigenous. Do we really need a “sterilizing First Nations kids” scandal?)
And so women in Fraser Valley Institution (also disproportionately Indigenous, but also disproportionately survivors of adult & childhood sexual & physical abuse) have to stay on constant alert as males — with no surgery, and with disturbingly high rates of sexual offence convictions (based on Corrections Canada’s own data) — are moved into the female prison population. And they’re on alert not only for their own safety, but for their young children, as “Madeline” Harks (60 victims by his own tally) or “Tara Desousa” (at 12, murdered a 3-year old; at 15, sexually assaulted a 3 month old baby boy who as a result required reconstructive surgery, the attack so terrible “Desousa” became the youngest dangerous offender in Canadian history) skulk about the Mother & Child cottage.
A lot of us are active in this issue NOT because we are socially conservative but because we are old-fashioned class-conscious lefties who want to protect the vulnerable from exploitation.
If some middle-class munchausen’s parent wants to sterilize their gender-addled kid, you know what, fine. Ruin your kid’s life for Twitter likes and Instagram clout, fill your boots. But they can pay the cost of flying to Thailand like Susie Green did with the son that she & her husband could not tolerate to grow up to be a gay man.
Oh but wait, no they can’t, because even Thailand —at urging of their own LGBT community —banned under-18 trans surgeries *15 years ago*, because they were horrified about gay kids taking irreverent steps before they had the maturity to understand what they were doing.
Consider that—we are 15 years behind Thailand, perhaps the trans-friendliest place in the world, on this issue.
I am appalled at your smug, dismissive attitude towards what is in reality one of the biggest medical scandals of our time. So called affirmative treatment guidelines have our medical practitioners accepting as gospel the TikTok influenced gender self assessment of troubled and often autistic young people who desperately need some guard rails so they can make it through to adulthood with bodies and minds intact.
Hundreds of under 18s are undergoing surgical and medical treatment that cause sterility, permanent sexual impairment and a lifetime of dependence on drugs to maintain the façade of being a different sex. If this isn’t a crisis that warrants government intervention then what does?
Kudos to Danielle Smith for having the courage to stand up for these vulnerable young people.
I appreciate your comments, but note that the national conversation is studiously avoiding any references to walk-backs in gender affirming care that is taking place in other countries. If Premier Smith made reference to this, I missed it. Some of these countries are socialist democracies that many Canadians admire, but hard research over long periods of time has shown some serious problems that required a course correction.
Trans activists and their allies want to drive a gender affirming care narrative around our emotions and feelings of abandonment of children that could lead to suicidal thoughts. Let’s not sweep that under the rug. However, proper medical care of minors should identify a serious spike in gender dysphoria, particularly among young girls, and wonder why that is, and what should be done about it. Premier Smith supports buying children some time to learn more about themselves so they can make good decisions. What is so bad about that?
I’d also note that relying on the Canadian Medical Association to deal with gender medicalization is a great idea. After all they established such a great record with lobotomies…
Oh wait, no, they were lobotomy cheerleaders starting in the 40s, only started to lose enthusiasm for them in the 60s and those procedures were still only stopped for good in Canada once legislation was passed to ban them in the late 70s.
But I’m sure the CMA will get it right this time! Institutions like that are famous for learning the lessons of history.
Hence the need for a systemic review, emphasis on 'systemic'. Show us the data.
Not the medical professions first stumble. Tommy Douglas famously wrote his thesis supportive of the eugenics movement and its policies. He was following the ideas very popular in the medical community of the time. Those policies were enthusiastically adopted by, and taken to their ultimate conclusion, by a popular political party in Germany at that time..
Found Jonathan Kay’s take on this more sensible and palatable.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jonkay/p/as-alberta-adopts-common-sense-rules?r=dvfy4&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I'd like to hear a discussion somewhere about why all of a sudden it's OK to tell a group of very troubled young people that everyone hates them and they're sure to be genocided/commit suicide. We've known about the dangers of glamorizing suicide since 'the Sorrows of Young Werther' (1774), and up until trans issues exploded about 10 years ago the media was careful to never suggest the suicide was inevitable or a solution, or that people who kill themselves are martyrs to a cause. Why is this now different and why is it being led by the people who supposedly want us to "be kind"? Expecially when the suicide data absolutely does not support this narrative? This is the very worst of the rhetoric and if this stopped it would go a long way toward letting people have a calmer and more helpful discussion. And yes, like our hosts, I blame the media and our institutions.
Jen I Love you. But...why are Denmark, Norway, Sweeden, France, the UK stopping the use of Puberty Blockers? Did David Parker tell them to as well? Look on my Twitter for a clip of Kemi Badenoch explaining what was happening : young gay kids, struggling with their identity (and often depression, anxiety, autism) were rushed into hormones and surgery because they were led to view their problems as resulting from "being born in the wrong body". Not in every case, but they realized it was akin to gay-to-trans conversion therapy.