THANK YOU so much for summarizing the Quebec report. 🙏🏼
Your extensive review reveals both the promising and the disappointing stances of a provincial body trying to grapple with a topic that is inherently contradictory.
Perhaps this Quebec panel caught a glimpse into the fact that “gender affirming care” *is* — in itself — a form of Conversion Therapy.
Ironically, BILL C-4 (2021) achieved legalization of conversion therapy even as it purported to make it a criminal act.
This is the conflict introduced by BILL C-16 (2017): adding “gender expression” and “gender identity” to the list of characteristics exempt from discrimination set up a legal impasse between sex-based rights and gender-identity rights.
There is no way for governments within Canada to resolve the conundrum without open and honest discourse - free of bullying by proponents on both sides of the issue.
Peter, you are 💯 correct that the very existence of this review marks the beginning of our ability as Canadians to engage in good faith.
The path to a resolution will be arduous and tedious.
But at least this is a strong step in that direction.
You are spot on with your comments on conversion therapy, the irony is that so-called “gender affirming care” is actually much closer to conversion therapy than the approaches typically given that label.
And regarding Bill C-16, I remember distinctly that this bill is what gave Jordan Peterson his first moment in the spotlight. He really missed the mark by harping on this bill as a potential threat to freedom of expression, which it hasn’t shown to be. Instead, the real harm has come through “gender identity” taking precedence over sex-based rights. I wish we were having a national conversation about appealing or amending that.
Peter, this is an excellent overview, thank you. As a former Anglo Quebecer I am used to unilingual French publications from the (ideological) Quebec government and bureaucracy but it is frustrating for everyone else that has to interface with them. Its unfortunate as you say that they endorse WPATH (which is clearly shown to be an ideological group) and that the reach of the report will be limited by its unilingual nature (which is maybe a mixed blessing, but as you do say at least it shows what a real debate looks like).
Thanks for this informative write-up. We are getting there, little by little. It can be frustrating for those of us who were at this "wait, what?" stage 10 years ago but it's a good sign that Canadian oversight bodies are arriving there now. They'll figure it out.
Do you think they will? I remain unsure. Just thinking of the CBC’s abysmal coverage of this topic. Most institutions are still heavily influenced by gender ideology and can’t seem to evaluate evidence or apply clear moral thinking on this issue.
I think detransitioners will make the whole thing unhideable. The CBC has been awful but everything they did is going to resurface no matter how many powerful people try to keep those cement shoes on it all. We are not where the UK is yet but we are on our way.
Well I’m glad you have faith. Though I see small cracks in the veneer, on the whole our media, academia, and government institutions seem wholly captured still. And the only government institution willing to speak sanely about it is Alberta’s premier, who, given all her other actions, demonstrates a clear lack of regard for everyday Albertans. Which makes it hard to sell that she is right on this issue. I still hear most progressives here in Alberta, even if they can discuss other issues with nuance and sense, call her bills “anti-trans.” It’s hard for me to believe that these institutions are capable of clear thinking on this topic. But I hope you are right!
“everyday Albertans” register majority support for her and these policy measures in particular are very widely supported. on this issue people in captured institutions are saying “ look at that ballroom! Look at those deluxe fixtures! Look at that carved staircase! No way I am giving up the big beautiful Titanic for that rickety lifeboat!”
It’s hard for me to understand the widespread support for her other policies (i.e. the lowest per student funding for education of any province; the breaking of AHS into 4 different institutions, which actually increases bureaucracy; the reopening of coal mining in the Rockies while stifling/blocking clean energy investment; the lack of initial willingness to coordinate a response to the threat of US tariffs; etc) but I am glad there is widespread support for a common sense approach to these particular issues.
This was an enormous undertaking, Peter!
THANK YOU so much for summarizing the Quebec report. 🙏🏼
Your extensive review reveals both the promising and the disappointing stances of a provincial body trying to grapple with a topic that is inherently contradictory.
Perhaps this Quebec panel caught a glimpse into the fact that “gender affirming care” *is* — in itself — a form of Conversion Therapy.
Ironically, BILL C-4 (2021) achieved legalization of conversion therapy even as it purported to make it a criminal act.
This is the conflict introduced by BILL C-16 (2017): adding “gender expression” and “gender identity” to the list of characteristics exempt from discrimination set up a legal impasse between sex-based rights and gender-identity rights.
There is no way for governments within Canada to resolve the conundrum without open and honest discourse - free of bullying by proponents on both sides of the issue.
Peter, you are 💯 correct that the very existence of this review marks the beginning of our ability as Canadians to engage in good faith.
The path to a resolution will be arduous and tedious.
But at least this is a strong step in that direction.
Thanks, again!
You are spot on with your comments on conversion therapy, the irony is that so-called “gender affirming care” is actually much closer to conversion therapy than the approaches typically given that label.
And regarding Bill C-16, I remember distinctly that this bill is what gave Jordan Peterson his first moment in the spotlight. He really missed the mark by harping on this bill as a potential threat to freedom of expression, which it hasn’t shown to be. Instead, the real harm has come through “gender identity” taking precedence over sex-based rights. I wish we were having a national conversation about appealing or amending that.
Peter, this is an excellent overview, thank you. As a former Anglo Quebecer I am used to unilingual French publications from the (ideological) Quebec government and bureaucracy but it is frustrating for everyone else that has to interface with them. Its unfortunate as you say that they endorse WPATH (which is clearly shown to be an ideological group) and that the reach of the report will be limited by its unilingual nature (which is maybe a mixed blessing, but as you do say at least it shows what a real debate looks like).
Thanks for this informative write-up. We are getting there, little by little. It can be frustrating for those of us who were at this "wait, what?" stage 10 years ago but it's a good sign that Canadian oversight bodies are arriving there now. They'll figure it out.
Do you think they will? I remain unsure. Just thinking of the CBC’s abysmal coverage of this topic. Most institutions are still heavily influenced by gender ideology and can’t seem to evaluate evidence or apply clear moral thinking on this issue.
I think detransitioners will make the whole thing unhideable. The CBC has been awful but everything they did is going to resurface no matter how many powerful people try to keep those cement shoes on it all. We are not where the UK is yet but we are on our way.
Well I’m glad you have faith. Though I see small cracks in the veneer, on the whole our media, academia, and government institutions seem wholly captured still. And the only government institution willing to speak sanely about it is Alberta’s premier, who, given all her other actions, demonstrates a clear lack of regard for everyday Albertans. Which makes it hard to sell that she is right on this issue. I still hear most progressives here in Alberta, even if they can discuss other issues with nuance and sense, call her bills “anti-trans.” It’s hard for me to believe that these institutions are capable of clear thinking on this topic. But I hope you are right!
“everyday Albertans” register majority support for her and these policy measures in particular are very widely supported. on this issue people in captured institutions are saying “ look at that ballroom! Look at those deluxe fixtures! Look at that carved staircase! No way I am giving up the big beautiful Titanic for that rickety lifeboat!”
Things are headed where they are headed.
It’s hard for me to understand the widespread support for her other policies (i.e. the lowest per student funding for education of any province; the breaking of AHS into 4 different institutions, which actually increases bureaucracy; the reopening of coal mining in the Rockies while stifling/blocking clean energy investment; the lack of initial willingness to coordinate a response to the threat of US tariffs; etc) but I am glad there is widespread support for a common sense approach to these particular issues.
Thank you.