Alberta announces new policy on transgender youth
January 31, 2024 8:14 PM Subscribe
CBC news article here
Here is a list of the changes, which she says are being implemented after discussions with her United Conservative caucus:
— For minors 17 and under, top and bottom gender reassignment surgeries are not permitted.
— For children 15 and under, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the purpose of gender reassignment or affirmation is not permitted, except for those who have already started those treatments. Those 16 and 17 can begin hormone treatment as long as they’re deemed mature enough and have parental, physician and psychologist approval.
— Province will work to attract one or more medical professionals who specialize in transgender surgery to ensure adults transitioning get the care they need. Build a private registry of medical professionals who work in this field.
— Classroom instruction on gender, sexuality and sexual orientation now requires parental notification and opt-in.
— Third-party resource materials on gender, sexuality and sexual orientation in K-12 schools need to be pre-approved by the ministry to make sure they’re age-appropriate.
— For children 15 and under, parental consent is needed to change names and pronouns at school. Notification is required for 16- and 17-year-olds to do so.
— Pilot project to provide counselling to support parents and youth identifying as transgender.
— Work with sporting groups to create a division for women and girls where they are not "forced to compete against biologically stronger transgender female athletes."
— Ensure transgender athletes can "meaningfully participate in the sport of their choice" through the expansion of gender-neutral or coed divisions.
The announcement was made on social media and a press conference is expected tomorrow afternoon.
Here is a list of the changes, which she says are being implemented after discussions with her United Conservative caucus:
— For minors 17 and under, top and bottom gender reassignment surgeries are not permitted.
— For children 15 and under, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the purpose of gender reassignment or affirmation is not permitted, except for those who have already started those treatments. Those 16 and 17 can begin hormone treatment as long as they’re deemed mature enough and have parental, physician and psychologist approval.
— Province will work to attract one or more medical professionals who specialize in transgender surgery to ensure adults transitioning get the care they need. Build a private registry of medical professionals who work in this field.
— Classroom instruction on gender, sexuality and sexual orientation now requires parental notification and opt-in.
— Third-party resource materials on gender, sexuality and sexual orientation in K-12 schools need to be pre-approved by the ministry to make sure they’re age-appropriate.
— For children 15 and under, parental consent is needed to change names and pronouns at school. Notification is required for 16- and 17-year-olds to do so.
— Pilot project to provide counselling to support parents and youth identifying as transgender.
— Work with sporting groups to create a division for women and girls where they are not "forced to compete against biologically stronger transgender female athletes."
— Ensure transgender athletes can "meaningfully participate in the sport of their choice" through the expansion of gender-neutral or coed divisions.
The announcement was made on social media and a press conference is expected tomorrow afternoon.
Dammit. I'm sorry the US is getting all it's culture-war-fascism all over you folks, Canada. I think one of the tells is that usually these laws have specific exceptions for things like "surgeries on intersex children" or other reasons one would do these surgeries - with or without the assent of the minor in question - EXCEPT for gender dysphoria. If the kid wants it, well, that's RIGHT OUT.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:26 PM on January 31 [19 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 8:26 PM on January 31 [19 favorites]
I don’t think “policy” is the right word. Try “ban.”
posted by fedward at 8:36 PM on January 31 [15 favorites]
posted by fedward at 8:36 PM on January 31 [15 favorites]
Danielle Smith so very desperately wants to be an American Republican.
posted by thecjm at 8:41 PM on January 31 [18 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 8:41 PM on January 31 [18 favorites]
forget it, Jake. It's Alberta.
posted by philip-random at 8:42 PM on January 31 [8 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 8:42 PM on January 31 [8 favorites]
For children 15 and under, puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the purpose of gender reassignment or affirmation is not permitted, except for those who have already started those treatments.
This is ridiculous - cisgender girls are regularly and routinely put on puberty blockers to delay too-early puberty.
If it's safe and reasonable to use puberty blockers for an 8/9 year old cisgender girl to avoid premature puberty,
it is safe and reasonable to use puberty blockers for trans kids.
Puberty blockers don't masculinise or feminise kids - they just DELAY puberty.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 8:45 PM on January 31 [98 favorites]
This is ridiculous - cisgender girls are regularly and routinely put on puberty blockers to delay too-early puberty.
If it's safe and reasonable to use puberty blockers for an 8/9 year old cisgender girl to avoid premature puberty,
it is safe and reasonable to use puberty blockers for trans kids.
Puberty blockers don't masculinise or feminise kids - they just DELAY puberty.
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 8:45 PM on January 31 [98 favorites]
To be clear, yes this is in Canada but it’s in the province of Alberta. The current government in Alberta is very conservative, secessionist and recently chose to have Tucker Carlson interview the Premiere. Chose this…
We have problems across the board with conservatism and fascism in Canada but Alberta seems to be the place that its gotten more of a toehold and I’m very worried that the next federal government is also going to be very similar. This is the way the world is going and it’s in evidence with the introduction of “policy” such as this. I have hope though - kids that can’t vote today will soon be adults who vote tomorrow and in my neck of the woods the kids are all about their right to be who they are. Conservative governments are going to have a fight on their hands, I think.
posted by ashbury at 8:46 PM on January 31 [14 favorites]
We have problems across the board with conservatism and fascism in Canada but Alberta seems to be the place that its gotten more of a toehold and I’m very worried that the next federal government is also going to be very similar. This is the way the world is going and it’s in evidence with the introduction of “policy” such as this. I have hope though - kids that can’t vote today will soon be adults who vote tomorrow and in my neck of the woods the kids are all about their right to be who they are. Conservative governments are going to have a fight on their hands, I think.
posted by ashbury at 8:46 PM on January 31 [14 favorites]
There's a solid chance there are Charter violations here, though they'll need to actually legislate or regulate probably before those can be played out. But unfortunately that could lead to the government invoking the notwithstanding clause to keep the legislation.
And in addition to the substantial harm to transgender children, there's a broader issue with access to sexual education:
Parents will have to opt students in to every lesson about sex education, sexual orientation or gender identity.
As well as teachers needing to approve the material, this seems bound to reduce the overall level of sex ed and thus further harm people.
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:10 PM on January 31 [12 favorites]
And in addition to the substantial harm to transgender children, there's a broader issue with access to sexual education:
Parents will have to opt students in to every lesson about sex education, sexual orientation or gender identity.
As well as teachers needing to approve the material, this seems bound to reduce the overall level of sex ed and thus further harm people.
posted by lookoutbelow at 9:10 PM on January 31 [12 favorites]
Canada has a long anti-trans history. I would argue that Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) was a world leader in anti-trans healthcare. . CAMH leader Kenneth J. Zucker published the primary anti-trans academic journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Under CAMH's director Ray Blanchard 90% of trans people seeking healthcare at the CAMH were simply rejected. Patiences that were "treated" were often diagnosed with fabricated diseases using frankly obscene methods like the genital plethysmograph.
That's a device that measures blood flow in the genitals, it was originally invented by Blanchard's mentor Kurt Freund to catch recruits trying to get out of military service by claiming to be gay.
It took several laws to get passed to force CAMH to completely replace its leadership, and that was only a decade ago.
Alberta is not an outlier. Saskatchewan's Scott Moe passed a "Parents’ Bill of Rights" that bans everyone from correctly gendering a student or using a student’s chosen name without the kids parents consent. Mope even invoked the notwithstanding clause to override these fundamental human rights granted by the Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And both New Brunswick and Ontario are just one step behind in all of this.
posted by zenon at 9:32 PM on January 31 [20 favorites]
That's a device that measures blood flow in the genitals, it was originally invented by Blanchard's mentor Kurt Freund to catch recruits trying to get out of military service by claiming to be gay.
It took several laws to get passed to force CAMH to completely replace its leadership, and that was only a decade ago.
Alberta is not an outlier. Saskatchewan's Scott Moe passed a "Parents’ Bill of Rights" that bans everyone from correctly gendering a student or using a student’s chosen name without the kids parents consent. Mope even invoked the notwithstanding clause to override these fundamental human rights granted by the Federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And both New Brunswick and Ontario are just one step behind in all of this.
posted by zenon at 9:32 PM on January 31 [20 favorites]
This new set of laws effectively puts an experimental (and likely flawed)buffer zone in place to slow down kids from making permanent changes to their bodies.
Teenagers can get breast augmentation or reduction surgery (permanent physical changes!). Teenagers can get bariatric surgery (a huge disruption to one's system).
This is being done to torment trans people and their families. It takes willful and shameful blindness to think otherwise.
posted by praemunire at 10:17 PM on January 31 [48 favorites]
Teenagers can get breast augmentation or reduction surgery (permanent physical changes!). Teenagers can get bariatric surgery (a huge disruption to one's system).
This is being done to torment trans people and their families. It takes willful and shameful blindness to think otherwise.
posted by praemunire at 10:17 PM on January 31 [48 favorites]
Anyone participating in this thread should do so with the knowledge that they are talking to people who are the victims of having been forced to wait until adulthood to do what they could to change their bodies to better fit their gender and presentation.
These policies are aimed at making sure that no trans person going forward can ever lead a care-free adult life free from harassment. The people responsible are deathly afraid that they might not be able to single us out for torment if they let us transition as children.
Say, how's mod coverage right about now?
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:28 PM on January 31 [62 favorites]
These policies are aimed at making sure that no trans person going forward can ever lead a care-free adult life free from harassment. The people responsible are deathly afraid that they might not be able to single us out for torment if they let us transition as children.
Say, how's mod coverage right about now?
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:28 PM on January 31 [62 favorites]
I can see no reason to disallow puberty blockers other than mere cruelty. This is so disgusting.
posted by ceramicspaniel at 10:47 PM on January 31 [24 favorites]
posted by ceramicspaniel at 10:47 PM on January 31 [24 favorites]
Mod note: One comment and several follow-ups removed: absolutely do not post your straight-up transphobia in here, it will be deleted.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 11:20 PM on January 31 [87 favorites]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 11:20 PM on January 31 [87 favorites]
I have some good friends in Alberta, and one of them does work related to homelessness, addiction, harm reduction, and safe supply. He was in town last fall and we had coffee together. He told me the that his organization had a meeting that Danielle Smith attended. He's sharp, very sharp, and his impression was that Smith was a flat out sociopath. He's not the only person to say this. A truly horrible human being, and crap like this bears it out.
As far as the American influence goes that comes with the territory, which is oil. The Kochs made a huge part of their fortune from Alberta oil and the Tar sands. That of course comes with all sorts of other things, like the massive impact conservative American culture has had on Alberta.
But, please don't make this thread about America, these horrible people have done are made in Canada, for the most part.
When Smith spent a year at the Fraser Institute, the libertarian think tank that was a model for so many of the right wing American think tanks, she co-authored a paper denying human caused climate change. Smith in a nutshell.
My heart goes out to the people affected by this.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 12:19 AM on February 1 [21 favorites]
As far as the American influence goes that comes with the territory, which is oil. The Kochs made a huge part of their fortune from Alberta oil and the Tar sands. That of course comes with all sorts of other things, like the massive impact conservative American culture has had on Alberta.
But, please don't make this thread about America, these horrible people have done are made in Canada, for the most part.
When Smith spent a year at the Fraser Institute, the libertarian think tank that was a model for so many of the right wing American think tanks, she co-authored a paper denying human caused climate change. Smith in a nutshell.
My heart goes out to the people affected by this.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 12:19 AM on February 1 [21 favorites]
Yah, just because the US has a very large influence on Canada does not mean that American trends are the proximate cause of all Canadian trends. It's not that it's irrelevant, but it'd be nice to have a discussion about Canadian politics (and its failures) without having to first talk about the United States.
Anyway, this is horrifying, yet sadly in line with trends across the country. I have a lot I would say, but I don't want to take up that much space here. Suffice to say, I'm deeply sorry for the people this directly harms, and I'm also sorry for the citizens of Alberta, many if not most of whom likely find these policies to be frighteningly draconian. You all deserve better.
posted by Alex404 at 1:25 AM on February 1 [16 favorites]
Anyway, this is horrifying, yet sadly in line with trends across the country. I have a lot I would say, but I don't want to take up that much space here. Suffice to say, I'm deeply sorry for the people this directly harms, and I'm also sorry for the citizens of Alberta, many if not most of whom likely find these policies to be frighteningly draconian. You all deserve better.
posted by Alex404 at 1:25 AM on February 1 [16 favorites]
Work with sporting groups to create a division for women and girls where they are not "forced to compete against biologically stronger transgender female athletes."
This fucking nonsense again
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:16 AM on February 1 [20 favorites]
This fucking nonsense again
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:16 AM on February 1 [20 favorites]
I know it will be a challenge for American posters, but do try to keep it on the province (and indeed, the country) where this bullshit is happening. Canada is not America Jr; we have our own problems, our own fucking nutters, and right now our focus is trying to stop PP and his cronies, Maxime Bernier and his cronies, from gaining majority in our next election.
Canada is not a safe place for trans people right now.
posted by Kitteh at 4:41 AM on February 1 [18 favorites]
Canada is not a safe place for trans people right now.
posted by Kitteh at 4:41 AM on February 1 [18 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments removed and several left for context. Do not make a story about Alberta, Canada about the United States, thank you
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:44 AM on February 1 [15 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 4:44 AM on February 1 [15 favorites]
The first thing that jumps out at me is the requirement to tell parents. This is to allow religious crazies to keep an iron grip on their kids, to not allow trans kids to find any supportive adults.
For those of you who've gone through this, am I off-base to think that this will be as damaging as any of the rest of it?
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 AM on February 1 [14 favorites]
For those of you who've gone through this, am I off-base to think that this will be as damaging as any of the rest of it?
posted by clawsoon at 4:45 AM on February 1 [14 favorites]
It will affect trans kids with supportive parents less, but those in the closet are likely to stay there knowing that these policies are in place. So, yeah.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:04 AM on February 1 [12 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:04 AM on February 1 [12 favorites]
Pilot project to provide counselling to support parents and youth identifying as transgender.
Counselling to actually support parents and youth identifying as transgender already exists. Which means that this pilot project will be something else… and given the context, something with more of a conversion “therapy” approach seems not unlikely.
This all has been coming down the line for a couple years now (basically ever since Smith got elected in Alberta), but it is still infuriating and heartbreaking.
posted by eviemath at 5:23 AM on February 1 [12 favorites]
Counselling to actually support parents and youth identifying as transgender already exists. Which means that this pilot project will be something else… and given the context, something with more of a conversion “therapy” approach seems not unlikely.
This all has been coming down the line for a couple years now (basically ever since Smith got elected in Alberta), but it is still infuriating and heartbreaking.
posted by eviemath at 5:23 AM on February 1 [12 favorites]
I don't know a ton about Canada's constitution. Can someone explain what the "Notwithstanding clause" is?
posted by VTX at 5:49 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 5:49 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
You may read about the fucking bullshit notwithstanding clause here. It more or less renders the charter of human rights pointless in the face of a majority conservative government. Any law can be passed that violates the charter for a five year period by invoking the clause, and the clause can be re-invoked every five years. "You can't violate human rights unless you really want to," is how it boils down.
It is horseshit of the deepest degree.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:00 AM on February 1 [27 favorites]
It is horseshit of the deepest degree.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:00 AM on February 1 [27 favorites]
We don't have a constitution; we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A notwithstanding clause is generally the nuclear option provinces invoke--or rather, try not to invoke because it really is a nuclear option--to circumvent federal issues (I want to say laws, but that doesn't feel right). It's way of saying, "Hey Ottawa, butt out. We won't do that."
posted by Kitteh at 6:00 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 6:00 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
This is child abuse.
I underwent my first (natal, masculinizing) puberty at age 11. By the time I was 16, I had a bass singing voice and a full beard. What fucking good would puberty blockers have done me then?
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:30 AM on February 1 [40 favorites]
I underwent my first (natal, masculinizing) puberty at age 11. By the time I was 16, I had a bass singing voice and a full beard. What fucking good would puberty blockers have done me then?
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:30 AM on February 1 [40 favorites]
Also, and even more unpleasantly, Canada's Supreme Court has said it can do nothing about the Notwithstanding Clause nor any laws that invoke it. It is like John Matrix in Commando saying "Remember Sully when I promised not to violate your charter rights and freedoms?" "That's right, Matrix, you did!!" [ drops him off the roof ] "I lied."
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:39 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:39 AM on February 1 [7 favorites]
It's a mixture of fine, terrible and ostensibly positive. I'm suspicious about the ostensibly positive.
I think you should limit gender defining/affirming surgeries and hormones until the person taking those is old enough to consent to their own treatment. I don't think parents should be giving consent on behalf of children for those if that's at all possible. I prefer the UK's Gillick competence approach (which is at age 16 default competent, below 16 depends on the child in question) rather than a blanket age. There are also plenty of other medical procedures which I think work better if the child in question is able to meaningfully consent, and where they are capable of consenting or withholding consent it should only be their consent that matters.
Delaying puberty, insisting on parental consent for name changes, opt-in/out for sensible gender and sexuality ed, is all ok if you are thinking of sensible loving parents. Which of course means that it's a terrible, terrible law, because not all parents are sensible or loving.
Province will work to attract one or more medical professionals who specialize in transgender surgery to ensure adults transitioning get the care they need. Build a private registry of medical professionals who work in this field.
This appears to be positive. Is there a catch? It feels like there must be based on everything else.
posted by plonkee at 7:15 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
I think you should limit gender defining/affirming surgeries and hormones until the person taking those is old enough to consent to their own treatment. I don't think parents should be giving consent on behalf of children for those if that's at all possible. I prefer the UK's Gillick competence approach (which is at age 16 default competent, below 16 depends on the child in question) rather than a blanket age. There are also plenty of other medical procedures which I think work better if the child in question is able to meaningfully consent, and where they are capable of consenting or withholding consent it should only be their consent that matters.
Delaying puberty, insisting on parental consent for name changes, opt-in/out for sensible gender and sexuality ed, is all ok if you are thinking of sensible loving parents. Which of course means that it's a terrible, terrible law, because not all parents are sensible or loving.
Province will work to attract one or more medical professionals who specialize in transgender surgery to ensure adults transitioning get the care they need. Build a private registry of medical professionals who work in this field.
This appears to be positive. Is there a catch? It feels like there must be based on everything else.
posted by plonkee at 7:15 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
I think you should limit gender defining/affirming surgeries and hormones until the person taking those is old enough to consent to their own treatment. I don't think parents should be giving consent on behalf of children for those if that's at all possible.i'm sorry, are you implying that kids are getting trans care without their own consent? do you have any citations that this is happening?
Province will work to attract one or more medical professionals who specialize in transgender surgery to ensure adults transitioning get the care they need. Build a private registry of medical professionals who work in this field.because the first part strikes most trans people as a wholly empty statement, especially during a period when alberta is facing a crisis in all healthcare; does anyone really think that alberta will do anything but lip service in attracting trans care specialists, especially when it seems to be doing everything it can to drive medical providers away?
This appears to be positive. Is there a catch? It feels like there must be based on everything else.
and the phrasing of "private registry" definitely doesn't call to mind a list where any future conservative and bigoted (but i repeat myself) government could easily find targets to attack.
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:27 AM on February 1 [25 favorites]
plonkee, when I said:
It's designed to have a few provisions and be framed in such a way that it makes you nod along like "oh, that seems reasonable, kids should have time to make big decisions" or "of course parents want a say in their kids' educations
I think your comment demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. With respect, if you have a superficial amount of knowledge it can seem reasonable but the more information you have both about how trans care works and the more information you have about how transphobes operate the more you realize that these are not reasonable policies.
posted by an octopus IRL at 7:56 AM on February 1 [28 favorites]
It's designed to have a few provisions and be framed in such a way that it makes you nod along like "oh, that seems reasonable, kids should have time to make big decisions" or "of course parents want a say in their kids' educations
I think your comment demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. With respect, if you have a superficial amount of knowledge it can seem reasonable but the more information you have both about how trans care works and the more information you have about how transphobes operate the more you realize that these are not reasonable policies.
posted by an octopus IRL at 7:56 AM on February 1 [28 favorites]
I am very ignorant about all of this; I don't know what sort of medications or hormone treatments kids already have access to and in what situations they might be used. I'm sure there are medical situations unrelated to trans people where a child has been given hormonal treatments. I know what I'm about to say may be offensive, and I apologize in advance. I would just like to share my current perspective so that I can be more informed and hopefully change. It may be long winded and rambly because I want to explain myself but I'm not very good at it.
I could use some insight about how it feels to believe at a young age that your body isn't the same gender as your brain. I truly support trans adults and want everyone to feel comfortable in their bodies, but I've never considered that with children apparently. I guess by default I sort of align with the idea that kids shouldn't make changes to their bodies because they don't have the life experience or foresight to make an informed decision, the same way kids can't get tattoos. But I think my alignment and ignorance is because I've never had to wonder about my body or my sexuality, I'm a straight white man and I knew from a young age that I liked girls, even if I didn't know it was for sexual reasons. It's hard for me to pinpoint the age in which I felt like I was straight, so I guess it's hard to pinpoint an age where I feel kids should have the freedom to change their bodies. I've always sort of imagined that being anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum took a lot of time and experimentation to find out what you preferred and who you were; and that it didn't really become something you thought about until puberty. If a girl strongly feels like she should be a boy at a young age, is that certainty the same as my childhood understanding of being straight? And how can that be discussed or decided or sure that it won't change? I never had to talk with my parents about my sexuality and just went through life not second guessing any of it. I don't know when I would be at a point where I was responsible enough to make that kind of decision. I never wanted a tattoo or desired anything for my body outside of what I had. Even as an adult, I'm balding and it would be nice if I wasn't, but I wouldn't get surgery or anything. I'm 10 pounds heavier than I'd like to be, but I can exercise to change that, so I really don't have any useful perspective here. I don't think either of those are the equivalent of feeling like a whole other person.
I mean this as a genuine question, because I don't know the answer: What are the benefits of giving children access to hormone changing drugs at a younger age? I understand that people can take different hormone drugs later in life to sort of adjust their body to where they feel comfortable, and I support that. But would a young boy be given these drugs to prevent the growth and more body hair and muscles if he decides he'd rather be closer to the female side of the spectrum, making it easier for them to feel comfortable in their body as an adult? And I guess there's a lot of stress and depression that comes with going through puberty but with changes you don't want? How can a parent be sure that changes now will benefit the child in the long run instead of causing more issues? I'm not a doctor, but I imagine that making changes to a developing body can have more serious effects than changes as an adult?
I feel sometimes that I'm a permanent outsider to the LGBT+ community and that due to my sexuality, I'm limited in how I can think about these things. I don't think I'll ever understand it all completely, because I haven't experienced it myself. I would love to have more empathy though and I really do support anything you can think of as an adult, but I'm ignorant on why I have this opinion about children. At the moment, it's hard for me to imagine a child under 15 making any sort of big decisions like that, I guess unless they're safe and can be reversed if needed. If the trans community feels very strongly about why that is an oppressive policy, I'd really like to understand why so I can support them better. I know the world is regressing in a lot of terrible ways and I don't want to be a person who supports any of that.
posted by donuy at 7:59 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I could use some insight about how it feels to believe at a young age that your body isn't the same gender as your brain. I truly support trans adults and want everyone to feel comfortable in their bodies, but I've never considered that with children apparently. I guess by default I sort of align with the idea that kids shouldn't make changes to their bodies because they don't have the life experience or foresight to make an informed decision, the same way kids can't get tattoos. But I think my alignment and ignorance is because I've never had to wonder about my body or my sexuality, I'm a straight white man and I knew from a young age that I liked girls, even if I didn't know it was for sexual reasons. It's hard for me to pinpoint the age in which I felt like I was straight, so I guess it's hard to pinpoint an age where I feel kids should have the freedom to change their bodies. I've always sort of imagined that being anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum took a lot of time and experimentation to find out what you preferred and who you were; and that it didn't really become something you thought about until puberty. If a girl strongly feels like she should be a boy at a young age, is that certainty the same as my childhood understanding of being straight? And how can that be discussed or decided or sure that it won't change? I never had to talk with my parents about my sexuality and just went through life not second guessing any of it. I don't know when I would be at a point where I was responsible enough to make that kind of decision. I never wanted a tattoo or desired anything for my body outside of what I had. Even as an adult, I'm balding and it would be nice if I wasn't, but I wouldn't get surgery or anything. I'm 10 pounds heavier than I'd like to be, but I can exercise to change that, so I really don't have any useful perspective here. I don't think either of those are the equivalent of feeling like a whole other person.
I mean this as a genuine question, because I don't know the answer: What are the benefits of giving children access to hormone changing drugs at a younger age? I understand that people can take different hormone drugs later in life to sort of adjust their body to where they feel comfortable, and I support that. But would a young boy be given these drugs to prevent the growth and more body hair and muscles if he decides he'd rather be closer to the female side of the spectrum, making it easier for them to feel comfortable in their body as an adult? And I guess there's a lot of stress and depression that comes with going through puberty but with changes you don't want? How can a parent be sure that changes now will benefit the child in the long run instead of causing more issues? I'm not a doctor, but I imagine that making changes to a developing body can have more serious effects than changes as an adult?
I feel sometimes that I'm a permanent outsider to the LGBT+ community and that due to my sexuality, I'm limited in how I can think about these things. I don't think I'll ever understand it all completely, because I haven't experienced it myself. I would love to have more empathy though and I really do support anything you can think of as an adult, but I'm ignorant on why I have this opinion about children. At the moment, it's hard for me to imagine a child under 15 making any sort of big decisions like that, I guess unless they're safe and can be reversed if needed. If the trans community feels very strongly about why that is an oppressive policy, I'd really like to understand why so I can support them better. I know the world is regressing in a lot of terrible ways and I don't want to be a person who supports any of that.
posted by donuy at 7:59 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I am angry and sad here in Alberta this morning. I'm trying to battle online with my words, but I'll feel better when we protest on the weekend.
One thing I am hearing people say a lot is "Why do you guys care so much about this small niche thing when we have all these other crisis to worry about? Why aren't you out there protesting about health care and housing and yadda yadda". If anyone here has a couple of sentences about this harkens the descent into christo-fascism I'd be grateful. These arguers need to hear about how this affects them, which is disappointing but I'm happy to oblige if it helps.
posted by kitcat at 7:59 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
One thing I am hearing people say a lot is "Why do you guys care so much about this small niche thing when we have all these other crisis to worry about? Why aren't you out there protesting about health care and housing and yadda yadda". If anyone here has a couple of sentences about this harkens the descent into christo-fascism I'd be grateful. These arguers need to hear about how this affects them, which is disappointing but I'm happy to oblige if it helps.
posted by kitcat at 7:59 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Hey donuy, part of your responsibility as a person who is concerned but who doesn't know anything and is outside of the group at risk is to go look things up on your own without asking for energy and effort to be expended by the group. Maybe someone will come along and post a link to some research for you, but I would prefer if you would just google it yourself. What you are doing right now is standard well-meaning but bumbling ally self-insertion into a crisis, derailing the discussion with a request that people "just explain it to me." You will be welcome when you have things to contribute that do not centre the conversation on your ignorance. Thank you and have a beautiful day.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:10 AM on February 1 [31 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:10 AM on February 1 [31 favorites]
I feel sometimes that I'm a permanent outsider to the LGBT+ community and that due to my sexuality, I'm limited in how I can think about these things. I don't think I'll ever understand it all completely, because I haven't experienced it myself. I would love to have more empathy though and I really do support anything you can think of as an adult, but I'm ignorant on why I have this opinion about children.
You kind of don't have to understand it to learn about it? I'd start here: HRC.org:Get the Facts on Gender-Affirming Care
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:11 AM on February 1 [10 favorites]
You kind of don't have to understand it to learn about it? I'd start here: HRC.org:Get the Facts on Gender-Affirming Care
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:11 AM on February 1 [10 favorites]
But would a young boy be given these drugs to prevent the growth and more body hair and muscles if he decides he'd rather be closer to the female side of the spectrum, making it easier for them to feel comfortable in their body as an adult? A
Like, I know from many of your comments that you're starting at zero. There's not a lot of "decision" about how one feels about your gender, made obvious by your own feelings on your own gender.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:13 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
Like, I know from many of your comments that you're starting at zero. There's not a lot of "decision" about how one feels about your gender, made obvious by your own feelings on your own gender.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:13 AM on February 1 [8 favorites]
@seanmpuckett
You're right. It was rude to demand answers spoon-fed to me instead of seeking them out myself. I don't know why I didn't consider that before, but your comment made it click in my brain; I can't be lazy and supportive. I appreciate the little kick in the ass. I've already found some answers to my previous questions so I could have avoided posting in the first place. Sorry for derailing things. Thank you @tiny frying pan for the source.
posted by donuy at 8:35 AM on February 1 [27 favorites]
You're right. It was rude to demand answers spoon-fed to me instead of seeking them out myself. I don't know why I didn't consider that before, but your comment made it click in my brain; I can't be lazy and supportive. I appreciate the little kick in the ass. I've already found some answers to my previous questions so I could have avoided posting in the first place. Sorry for derailing things. Thank you @tiny frying pan for the source.
posted by donuy at 8:35 AM on February 1 [27 favorites]
Geez, I remember when I thought Peter Lougheed and Don Getty were giant assholes. I need to recalibrate.
posted by aramaic at 8:41 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by aramaic at 8:41 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
I prefer the UK's Gillick competence approach
I mean, it's nice that you prefer it?
It's easy to find out what trans people who went through the wrong puberty have to say about it, although God knows a lot of us are easy to ignore, having all those gender non-conforming bodies and voices that look and sound to some of you like fucking parodies of who we actually are. Guess why that is?
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:53 AM on February 1 [20 favorites]
I mean, it's nice that you prefer it?
It's easy to find out what trans people who went through the wrong puberty have to say about it, although God knows a lot of us are easy to ignore, having all those gender non-conforming bodies and voices that look and sound to some of you like fucking parodies of who we actually are. Guess why that is?
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:53 AM on February 1 [20 favorites]
ugh, why did I read the title of this post and imagine it would be good policies? :(
posted by supermedusa at 8:54 AM on February 1 [10 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 8:54 AM on February 1 [10 favorites]
I know it shouldn't. I know it's the point of it all, but the casual cruelty of the whole anti-trans enterprise is astounding. The ones pushing for it cheer for it, obviously. The cynical ones love it for the power grab aspect of putting an outsider group under the thumb.
The insidious part is that all of those rules are dressed up to appear "fair and reasonable" to a person who's ignorant of the issues and importance of treatment (and for that matter, what treatments are done - the number of transphobic comments I've seen about surgery being done on kids like they're just ordering take out on a whim, ugh).
Like donuy, I'm the cishetist whitest dude out there. If I were religious, I'd be the target for this sort of bullshit window dressing. But I really can't wrap my head around being so damn cruel to / unthinking of folks who are in pain, telling me they're in pain, pointing to what resolves their pain and responding "no, you're about that and you deserve to continue to be in pain". (I have my blind spots, particularly as you get closer to home, but still...)
The world is cold and mean and happiness/joy fleeting enough that it doesn't need my help to pile on troubles.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:03 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
The insidious part is that all of those rules are dressed up to appear "fair and reasonable" to a person who's ignorant of the issues and importance of treatment (and for that matter, what treatments are done - the number of transphobic comments I've seen about surgery being done on kids like they're just ordering take out on a whim, ugh).
Like donuy, I'm the cishetist whitest dude out there. If I were religious, I'd be the target for this sort of bullshit window dressing. But I really can't wrap my head around being so damn cruel to / unthinking of folks who are in pain, telling me they're in pain, pointing to what resolves their pain and responding "no, you're about that and you deserve to continue to be in pain". (I have my blind spots, particularly as you get closer to home, but still...)
The world is cold and mean and happiness/joy fleeting enough that it doesn't need my help to pile on troubles.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:03 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
I find my tolerance for conservative "what about the children" anti-choice, pro-forced birth, anti-trans people to be zeroing out. this are the lives and well being of CHILDREN!!! I agree with drewbage1847 here, the cruelty seems to be part of the point.
posted by supermedusa at 9:11 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by supermedusa at 9:11 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
1st... that Alberta thing is hot garbage, and will harm people.
Hey donuy, part of your responsibility as a person who is concerned but who doesn't know anything and is outside of the group at risk is to go look things up on your own without asking for energy and effort to be expended by the group. Maybe someone will come along and post a link to some research for you, but I would prefer if you would just google it yourself. What you are doing right now is standard well-meaning but bumbling ally self-insertion into a crisis, derailing the discussion with a request that people "just explain it to me." You will be welcome when you have things to contribute that do not centre the conversation on your ignorance. Thank you and have a beautiful day.
This is the equivalent of 'RTFM!' for metafilter. This is an online asynchronous multi-user discussion , just don't answer if you don't want to or are too tired of repeating an answer you've given numerous times. This is a discussion site for all, not an an activist group meeting, this is not only for those already in possession of the answers. Nobody is owned an bespoke explanation, but others (in or out group) might feel like linking to a good explanation they know exist. Dissing on people for being at least curious/interested seems counter productive.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 9:20 AM on February 1 [15 favorites]
Hey donuy, part of your responsibility as a person who is concerned but who doesn't know anything and is outside of the group at risk is to go look things up on your own without asking for energy and effort to be expended by the group. Maybe someone will come along and post a link to some research for you, but I would prefer if you would just google it yourself. What you are doing right now is standard well-meaning but bumbling ally self-insertion into a crisis, derailing the discussion with a request that people "just explain it to me." You will be welcome when you have things to contribute that do not centre the conversation on your ignorance. Thank you and have a beautiful day.
This is the equivalent of 'RTFM!' for metafilter. This is an online asynchronous multi-user discussion , just don't answer if you don't want to or are too tired of repeating an answer you've given numerous times. This is a discussion site for all, not an an activist group meeting, this is not only for those already in possession of the answers. Nobody is owned an bespoke explanation, but others (in or out group) might feel like linking to a good explanation they know exist. Dissing on people for being at least curious/interested seems counter productive.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 9:20 AM on February 1 [15 favorites]
Yeah but when someone repeatedly states in their comment they know nothing about the subject, but ponder forth anyway...it is baffling. This instance was actually beautiful because of donuy's response indicating they got it and are now learning. Pitch perfect community response, in my opinion.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:24 AM on February 1 [25 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:24 AM on February 1 [25 favorites]
This is the equivalent of 'RTFM!' for metafilter.
Eh. There's a balance, and that comment was pretty friendly while landing on the side of frustration. Sometimes people who are victimized by bad politics lash out at well-meaning, yet ignorant people. Are the victims supposed to do the emotional labour, or are the ignorant supposed to do the research? In some sense, ideally both. If, however, you consider yourself neither a victim or ignorant, the best you can do is bring light rather than heat.
posted by Alex404 at 9:26 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Eh. There's a balance, and that comment was pretty friendly while landing on the side of frustration. Sometimes people who are victimized by bad politics lash out at well-meaning, yet ignorant people. Are the victims supposed to do the emotional labour, or are the ignorant supposed to do the research? In some sense, ideally both. If, however, you consider yourself neither a victim or ignorant, the best you can do is bring light rather than heat.
posted by Alex404 at 9:26 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
These evil assholes. I seem to be ashamed and embarrassed for my country on a daily basis lately.
the cruelty seems to be part of the point.
It certainly is. All part of the own the libs, fuck other peoples feeling, anti "woke", hypocritical bullshit the right in Canada has been shoveling for years and is gaining traction as the whole world falls into fascism. These people are school yard bullies elected by a bunch of other bullies.
What are the benefits of giving children access to hormone changing drugs at a younger age?
Generally they aren't hormone changing drugs but rather hormone suppressing drugs. They merely delay puberty and are widely used for just that purpose with cis children. A benefit is you don't force little girls to grow facial hair or little boys to develop breasts. I mean those are just two very obvious outward facing examples but it's a fair sound byte stand in for all the other effects.
posted by Mitheral at 9:37 AM on February 1 [21 favorites]
the cruelty seems to be part of the point.
It certainly is. All part of the own the libs, fuck other peoples feeling, anti "woke", hypocritical bullshit the right in Canada has been shoveling for years and is gaining traction as the whole world falls into fascism. These people are school yard bullies elected by a bunch of other bullies.
What are the benefits of giving children access to hormone changing drugs at a younger age?
Generally they aren't hormone changing drugs but rather hormone suppressing drugs. They merely delay puberty and are widely used for just that purpose with cis children. A benefit is you don't force little girls to grow facial hair or little boys to develop breasts. I mean those are just two very obvious outward facing examples but it's a fair sound byte stand in for all the other effects.
posted by Mitheral at 9:37 AM on February 1 [21 favorites]
I think your comment demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. With respect, if you have a superficial amount of knowledge it can seem reasonable but the more information you have both about how trans care works and the more information you have about how transphobes operate the more you realize that these are not reasonable policies.
Sorry I was much more equivocal in my comment than I intended.
Enough of the package is clearly a terrible idea, that even the things that appear to me to be positive must have a catch.
posted by plonkee at 9:47 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Sorry I was much more equivocal in my comment than I intended.
Enough of the package is clearly a terrible idea, that even the things that appear to me to be positive must have a catch.
posted by plonkee at 9:47 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
This is crushing, but part of a strategy and it’s just like…crushing in Ontario where the NDP seem half there and the Liberals, whatever.
Alberta does have very deep streaks of fundamentalist Christianity including FLDS communities. But this is a global populist movement moving towards even worse things. Get active. I ran into our Conservative MPP last night and expressed my desire that our Conservatives stay out of the business of caring what biological parts are under kids’ clothing of any kind.
Ed Broadbent’s last interview on CBC touched on this — he brought up Saskatchewan’s use of the notwithstanding clause and how he’d opposed its creation up until they realized they had to concede — and it was kinda crushing.
A few things - we do have a constitution, patriated in 1982. It includes but is not limited to the Charter. There are some Charter rights that cannot be removed by the notwithstanding clause.
Puberty blockers are safe, have been available a long time, and are perhaps most importantly a treatment supported by medical and pediatric regulating organizations. the reason this decision is devastating (along with everything else) is that 15 is too late to block puberty. There are reasons to prescribe them, including gender-affirming care. Banning - this bans them, to my enraged half understanding - is absolutely an attack on kids who need them. Like, guess what? Pretty much everyone who needs them is under 15! A kid who is, like people I know, starting to go through puberty at 7 is not mentally ready to menstruate! Someone going through puberty in the wrong body is hugely at risk for terrible mental health outcomes and substance abuse! Plus get the fuck out of trans kids’ decisions!
Anyways - I’m already at the “call to arms” stage politically but please, talk to people about this. My sort of go-to line is that I don’t get why politicians care what’s under kids’ clothing or what name they want…but there’s a reason they are going after them and it’s not For Good. It’s creepy.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:02 AM on February 1 [17 favorites]
Alberta does have very deep streaks of fundamentalist Christianity including FLDS communities. But this is a global populist movement moving towards even worse things. Get active. I ran into our Conservative MPP last night and expressed my desire that our Conservatives stay out of the business of caring what biological parts are under kids’ clothing of any kind.
Ed Broadbent’s last interview on CBC touched on this — he brought up Saskatchewan’s use of the notwithstanding clause and how he’d opposed its creation up until they realized they had to concede — and it was kinda crushing.
A few things - we do have a constitution, patriated in 1982. It includes but is not limited to the Charter. There are some Charter rights that cannot be removed by the notwithstanding clause.
Puberty blockers are safe, have been available a long time, and are perhaps most importantly a treatment supported by medical and pediatric regulating organizations. the reason this decision is devastating (along with everything else) is that 15 is too late to block puberty. There are reasons to prescribe them, including gender-affirming care. Banning - this bans them, to my enraged half understanding - is absolutely an attack on kids who need them. Like, guess what? Pretty much everyone who needs them is under 15! A kid who is, like people I know, starting to go through puberty at 7 is not mentally ready to menstruate! Someone going through puberty in the wrong body is hugely at risk for terrible mental health outcomes and substance abuse! Plus get the fuck out of trans kids’ decisions!
Anyways - I’m already at the “call to arms” stage politically but please, talk to people about this. My sort of go-to line is that I don’t get why politicians care what’s under kids’ clothing or what name they want…but there’s a reason they are going after them and it’s not For Good. It’s creepy.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:02 AM on February 1 [17 favorites]
Build a private registry of medical professionals who work in this field.
This appears to be positive. Is there a catch? It feels like there must be based on everything else.
I am owning my reaction as knee-jerk, without data/citations and the like, but whenever I see the word “registry” along side a marginalized group I get very nervous.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:12 AM on February 1 [17 favorites]
This appears to be positive. Is there a catch? It feels like there must be based on everything else.
I am owning my reaction as knee-jerk, without data/citations and the like, but whenever I see the word “registry” along side a marginalized group I get very nervous.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:12 AM on February 1 [17 favorites]
Hey donuy, part of your responsibility as a person who is concerned but who doesn't know anything and is outside of the group at risk is to go look things up on your own without asking for energy and effort to be expended by the group
On the one hand, I understand this. On the other hand, the amount of bullshit that's thrown up by Google for any topic that reactionaries have decided to make controversial makes me want to ask questions on a well-moderated forum like this one where I trust people. Hopefully there's some room for both.
posted by clawsoon at 10:15 AM on February 1 [21 favorites]
On the one hand, I understand this. On the other hand, the amount of bullshit that's thrown up by Google for any topic that reactionaries have decided to make controversial makes me want to ask questions on a well-moderated forum like this one where I trust people. Hopefully there's some room for both.
posted by clawsoon at 10:15 AM on February 1 [21 favorites]
When I Googled "transgender kids" the HRC link I posted was the 1st link, and has good info. Google is doing ok on this one, thank goodness.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:19 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:19 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
I guess by default I sort of align with the idea that kids shouldn't make changes to their bodies because they don't have the life experience or foresight to make an informed decision, the same way kids can't get tattoos.
Something that I think is important as a matter of framing how you're looking at "making changes" to the body is that natal puberty makes changes itself, and that those changes are no less profound or affecting than those made by hormone treatments. Transphobes really, really love forcing trans kids through natal puberties both because going through a puberty that is inexorably making changes that you don't want is torturous and awful and also because going through medical transition as an adult after having been through a natal puberty is much, much more expensive, much higher-effort, and usually less effective, which both makes us easier to identify and causes ongoing dysphoria- both big wins from their perspectives.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:22 AM on February 1 [25 favorites]
Something that I think is important as a matter of framing how you're looking at "making changes" to the body is that natal puberty makes changes itself, and that those changes are no less profound or affecting than those made by hormone treatments. Transphobes really, really love forcing trans kids through natal puberties both because going through a puberty that is inexorably making changes that you don't want is torturous and awful and also because going through medical transition as an adult after having been through a natal puberty is much, much more expensive, much higher-effort, and usually less effective, which both makes us easier to identify and causes ongoing dysphoria- both big wins from their perspectives.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:22 AM on February 1 [25 favorites]
So there's a funny thing about the notwithstanding clause: It only applies to sections 2 and 7 through 15 of the Charter.
There's another clause with the word "notwithstanding" in it, which is section 28:
"Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."
Note that the regular old notwithstanding clause, section 33, does not apply to section 28.
Is there anything that a good constitutional lawyer could do with this fact?
posted by clawsoon at 10:22 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]
There's another clause with the word "notwithstanding" in it, which is section 28:
"Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."
Note that the regular old notwithstanding clause, section 33, does not apply to section 28.
Is there anything that a good constitutional lawyer could do with this fact?
posted by clawsoon at 10:22 AM on February 1 [3 favorites]
Transphobes really, really love forcing trans kids through natal puberties
Forced puberty advocates.
posted by clawsoon at 10:23 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Forced puberty advocates.
posted by clawsoon at 10:23 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
I'm a fan of tattoos, I wish I had the money to get some more, but I am pretty sure that tattoos are not *necessary* identity-affirming, nor do they qualify as healthcare, just sayin'.
posted by supermedusa at 10:36 AM on February 1
posted by supermedusa at 10:36 AM on February 1
My kid didn't come out till she was 13, and it took several months to get a blocker, and by then she was 6' 2" and had a deep voice. And that's a big big part of the dysphoria she still has. Just finding clothes and shoes that fit her gender is a huge challenge.
Hormones have helped, but they don't undo a deeper voice or bigger frame, and I have wished many times we could have put her on them sooner, if we'd known.
Blockers can do so much good, and no harm whatsoever (in the rare chance a kid changes their mind, hey presto, take it out, right back to original settings with no harm; we have DECADES of medical confirmation of this), except in the minds of these assholes. Fuck them.
posted by emjaybee at 10:46 AM on February 1 [34 favorites]
Hormones have helped, but they don't undo a deeper voice or bigger frame, and I have wished many times we could have put her on them sooner, if we'd known.
Blockers can do so much good, and no harm whatsoever (in the rare chance a kid changes their mind, hey presto, take it out, right back to original settings with no harm; we have DECADES of medical confirmation of this), except in the minds of these assholes. Fuck them.
posted by emjaybee at 10:46 AM on February 1 [34 favorites]
Is there anything that a good constitutional lawyer could do with this fact?
I wish, but hijab is still banned for civil servants (includes teachers) in Quebec, so.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:47 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
I wish, but hijab is still banned for civil servants (includes teachers) in Quebec, so.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:47 AM on February 1 [6 favorites]
I had a comment deleted due to it also answering a US vs Canada question.
The short of it is that I am unfortunately not surprised. Canadians have been and can still be small-c conservative. We think we're more progressive that we actually are. And those progressive wins like socialized health care are constantly being chipped away at.
Alberta in particular. They've got that painful combination of supposed frontier libertarianism combined with electing governments that want to legislate their values onto others. "You can't tell me what to do, but I sure as hell can tell you." They're a place that has repeatedly had successful spin-off parties pop up because their Conservatives just weren't conservative enough.
It's tough. I want to that we're better than this. But so often, despite our changing demographics and growing urbanization, Canadian provinces (and half the time the federal government but I'll rant about FPTP later) elect extremely conservative majority legislatures whose only check, thanks to the notwithstanding clause, is the next election.
posted by thecjm at 11:01 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
The short of it is that I am unfortunately not surprised. Canadians have been and can still be small-c conservative. We think we're more progressive that we actually are. And those progressive wins like socialized health care are constantly being chipped away at.
Alberta in particular. They've got that painful combination of supposed frontier libertarianism combined with electing governments that want to legislate their values onto others. "You can't tell me what to do, but I sure as hell can tell you." They're a place that has repeatedly had successful spin-off parties pop up because their Conservatives just weren't conservative enough.
It's tough. I want to that we're better than this. But so often, despite our changing demographics and growing urbanization, Canadian provinces (and half the time the federal government but I'll rant about FPTP later) elect extremely conservative majority legislatures whose only check, thanks to the notwithstanding clause, is the next election.
posted by thecjm at 11:01 AM on February 1 [4 favorites]
When you enact a policy that results in an increase in deaths due to suicide... you didn't just kill a bunch of people.
You made their suffering so unbearable that they finally, after holding off for a good long while, end up doing the deed for you.
This distinction is difficult for some people to conceptualize because we're so focused on preventing suicide in the moment, through means that do not actually meaningfully alleviate the underlying suffering, just buy more time with the person still alive, because it also theoretically buys a chance for treatment for those who have conditions that do respond to that (the rest are SOL but it's considered a worthwhile trade-off I guess). So we automatically think that anyone who is suicidal is also just plain wrong in their assessment of life and the world in general.
Like, no. You can torture someone to death, and policies like this do exactly that. And they work really well.
Gender-affirming care alleviates the underlying suffering. It's freaking fairy godmother magic that a good chunk of the population just can. not. countenance.
posted by tigrrrlily at 11:22 AM on February 1 [18 favorites]
You made their suffering so unbearable that they finally, after holding off for a good long while, end up doing the deed for you.
This distinction is difficult for some people to conceptualize because we're so focused on preventing suicide in the moment, through means that do not actually meaningfully alleviate the underlying suffering, just buy more time with the person still alive, because it also theoretically buys a chance for treatment for those who have conditions that do respond to that (the rest are SOL but it's considered a worthwhile trade-off I guess). So we automatically think that anyone who is suicidal is also just plain wrong in their assessment of life and the world in general.
Like, no. You can torture someone to death, and policies like this do exactly that. And they work really well.
Gender-affirming care alleviates the underlying suffering. It's freaking fairy godmother magic that a good chunk of the population just can. not. countenance.
posted by tigrrrlily at 11:22 AM on February 1 [18 favorites]
The short of it is that I am unfortunately not surprised. Canadians have been and can still be small-c conservative. We think we're more progressive that we actually are. And those progressive wins like socialized health care are constantly being chipped away at.
Agreed. How Canadians see themselves and how they actually are is something I have observed after nearly 15 years of living in this country. (See also: Canada welcomed runaway slaves with open arms! No. No they did not.) Don't get me wrong, I love this country and have no intention of ever living in the US ever again, but it is really interesting to see how Canadian self-perception can be at odds with what they say and do. But I would have more faith in Canadians living up to their ideals than I would Americans.
posted by Kitteh at 11:25 AM on February 1 [9 favorites]
Agreed. How Canadians see themselves and how they actually are is something I have observed after nearly 15 years of living in this country. (See also: Canada welcomed runaway slaves with open arms! No. No they did not.) Don't get me wrong, I love this country and have no intention of ever living in the US ever again, but it is really interesting to see how Canadian self-perception can be at odds with what they say and do. But I would have more faith in Canadians living up to their ideals than I would Americans.
posted by Kitteh at 11:25 AM on February 1 [9 favorites]
See also: Canada welcomed runaway slaves with open arms! No. No they did not.
Toronto in the early 1860s welcomed Confederate diplomats with open arms.
posted by thecjm at 11:28 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Toronto in the early 1860s welcomed Confederate diplomats with open arms.
posted by thecjm at 11:28 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
The notwithstanding clause is basically a cheat code that only asshole conservative governments use.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:41 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:41 AM on February 1 [2 favorites]
tiny frying pan: When I Googled "transgender kids" the HRC link I posted was the 1st link, and has good info. Google is doing ok on this one, thank goodness.
For your algorithm, maybe. I wouldn’t trust google to return the same result if you’ve got a search history/profile full of right wing derp.
posted by dr_dank at 11:53 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
For your algorithm, maybe. I wouldn’t trust google to return the same result if you’ve got a search history/profile full of right wing derp.
posted by dr_dank at 11:53 AM on February 1 [5 favorites]
it also doesn't help that for a good many people who don't have right-wing derp in their google algorithm may find themselves with articles about trans people from the new york times, the grauniad, the atlantic, or the bbc, and so end up with right-wing talking points anyway.
given that alberta's policies are right in line with the type of "questions" that the nytimes/grauniad/atlantic/etc consistently ask, too, as they're meant to sound "reasonable" to anyone who isn't trans.
posted by i used to be someone else at 12:00 PM on February 1 [15 favorites]
given that alberta's policies are right in line with the type of "questions" that the nytimes/grauniad/atlantic/etc consistently ask, too, as they're meant to sound "reasonable" to anyone who isn't trans.
posted by i used to be someone else at 12:00 PM on February 1 [15 favorites]
When I was a kid in BC, you could look out across the water and see the lights of little floating cabins where Vietnam draft dodgers had settled in the 70s. In recent years, I've hoped Canada could be the sort of place where American trans people could take shelter from their government and its savage supporters (again). I know people who are actually working on that as we speak.
BC is still something of a holdout against the conservative tide in Canada, but that's not really a sure thing either. The entire periphery outside of Vancouver and the Capital Region is basically redneck country, and the Fraser valley is just packed with Bible-beaters who make their living screaming about SOGI. The attitudes of large volumes of immigrants are something of a wildcard, but many of them are extremely conservative too.
I'm afraid that when PP takes the government, and especially if BC falls, it'll be a generation or more before sanity returns, if ever. This won't be something we can just sit back and wait for the next election to change. Once we lose it (to the extent that we have it), it's gone for a long time.
posted by klanawa at 12:14 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
BC is still something of a holdout against the conservative tide in Canada, but that's not really a sure thing either. The entire periphery outside of Vancouver and the Capital Region is basically redneck country, and the Fraser valley is just packed with Bible-beaters who make their living screaming about SOGI. The attitudes of large volumes of immigrants are something of a wildcard, but many of them are extremely conservative too.
I'm afraid that when PP takes the government, and especially if BC falls, it'll be a generation or more before sanity returns, if ever. This won't be something we can just sit back and wait for the next election to change. Once we lose it (to the extent that we have it), it's gone for a long time.
posted by klanawa at 12:14 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
Sure that's fair. I think this was handled fairly and kindly here too.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:16 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:16 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Society seems to be throwing the towel in on itself everywhere.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:16 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:16 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
(My goal is to be the bot-like-thing that says "hey, you sound uninformed!" And sends an appropriate link for education, for those who don't have the spoons)
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:38 PM on February 1 [12 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:38 PM on February 1 [12 favorites]
— Work with sporting groups to create a division for women and girls where they are not "forced to compete against biologically stronger transgender female athletes."i've been told that in the 2024 prism meeting (pediatric research in sports medicine), prelim results were presented about trans kids in youth sports. these results show that every single trans kid pre-hrt failed norms for athletic performance for both their gender and sex assigned at birth.
— Ensure transgender athletes can "meaningfully participate in the sport of their choice" through the expansion of gender-neutral or coed divisions
the thing with even these seemingly "positive" policy points is that they're not--because no matter how many studies and much data you throw at them showing otherwise, there's this unshakable belief that the female sex is inferior in every way to the male sex when it comes to sport and physical activity, and that hrt and trans care will never change this. and these policies create a milieu that drives trans kids away from things that would help them maintain physical fitness and health, which then leads to poorer health outcomes in general beyond merely physiological, including psychological.
and since there are so few of us in the first place, what "meaningful" participation exists when these divisions shut down because there aren't enough people to even participate (both links are to archive.is versions because both publications regularly platform anti-trans bigotry). this was for the swimming world cup, too; how many participants will you find in any division for any sport within the same age in a province with less than 5 million?
let's say the percentage is above average and estimate around 15,000. that's 15,000 of all ages. how many of them do you think will be 12-16, identify as girls/femme-of-centre and who play hockey? do we think it's enough to field more than two teams? or is it more likely that you're going to get maybe enough for a trans team to field enough of a line for the other side to have a power play for all three periods, if the other side even chooses to play because they believe trans girls are inherently, monstrously, "biologically stronger"?
is the "meaningful participation" to just funnel trans girls to play against cis boys? for trans boys to play against cis girls? for trans boys to play with trans girls against cis boys?
posted by i used to be someone else at 12:51 PM on February 1 [13 favorites]
i mean, this is from 2022.
it's not like alberta was knocking it out of the park providing trans care in the first place. yet we're supposed to think these policies have trans people's best interests in mind?
if grown adults are facing 2 years wait time before a referral for any kind of hormones, how long do you think trans kids are waiting? especially with how careful people already try to be? add in two more years for surgery, and that means a child who comes out in their teens may already be an adult by the time that even becomes a possibility.
these new policies are rubbing salt into the wound that is the lack of availability for trans care, and then beating, spitting, and pissing on trans people's souls just for good measure.
posted by i used to be someone else at 1:03 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
it's not like alberta was knocking it out of the park providing trans care in the first place. yet we're supposed to think these policies have trans people's best interests in mind?
if grown adults are facing 2 years wait time before a referral for any kind of hormones, how long do you think trans kids are waiting? especially with how careful people already try to be? add in two more years for surgery, and that means a child who comes out in their teens may already be an adult by the time that even becomes a possibility.
these new policies are rubbing salt into the wound that is the lack of availability for trans care, and then beating, spitting, and pissing on trans people's souls just for good measure.
posted by i used to be someone else at 1:03 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
_
/ )
thanks |||| / /
tiny ||||/ /
frying \__(_/
pan ||//
||/
||
(||
""posted by tigrrrlily at 1:05 PM on February 1 [10 favorites] As a straight cis white dude who also happens to be the parent of a nonbinary teen, I'm willing to engage a little with some of donuy's questions. Totally agree with the commentary above and with tiny frying pan's comment that it was a "pitch perfect community response" - the thoughts below aren't intended as a substitute for folks educating themselves and I don't pretend to be speaking for anyone but myself. I'm not trying to educate you, I'm just relating some of my own experiences here, and how they shaped my reaction to your comment.
I don't know what sort of medications or hormone treatments kids already have access to and in what situations they might be used.
Me neither! That's why I let board-certified medical professionals and other qualified science people develop recommendations, and get pissed off when lay-folk (like me, you, and most elected or appointed policy-makers) second-guess those recommendations and prohibit their implementation! Like, why do we trust physicians to tell us when it would probably be a good idea remove our kids' tonsils, but not to help us develop a supportive care plan for gender-related matters? If professional medical associations recommend gender-affirming care (and they do), why should the fact that I don't know what sorts of medications or hormones are available lead me to feel like my opinion should be substituted for the professionals'? If anything, it emphasizes that they know more than me! (And as a side note, let's remember that "gender affirming care" for children typically focuses on therapy first, with medication or surgical intervention only used as necessary and appropriate - this isn't a matter of "oh, you're gender non-conforming? Let's get you drugged up!")
I think my alignment and ignorance is because I've never had to wonder about my body or my sexuality [...] It's hard for me to pinpoint the age in which I felt like I was straight, so I guess it's hard to pinpoint an age where I feel kids should have the freedom to change their bodies. I've always sort of imagined that being anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum took a lot of time and experimentation to find out what you preferred and who you were; and that it didn't really become something you thought about until puberty.
There's some interesting stuff here, but I'd suggest it's worth reconsidering your underlying assumption: why would it be only the folks who are "anywhere else" on the sexuality spectrum who need time and experimentation to find out what they prefer and who they are?
As it turns out, I had an experience at about age 13 where I very consciously and specifically decided that I was straight. There was some news story about gay kids who had been rejected by their families (I really don't remember the detail) and it prompted me to wonder if my parents would maybe react that way if I turned out to be gay. Which in turn prompted me to wonder if maybe I were gay, although I didn't think I was and wasn't certain how I'd know. But then I thought, OK, well, I guess if I'm gay I'll probably get turned on by thoughts of sex with a man, and if I'm straight I'll get turned on by thoughts of sex with a woman? So I spent some time imagining each of those things, and it was pretty obvious which one I found more interesting, and that settled that question.
But that experience also tripped me up a little as a parent, because when one of my kids told me they were gay at around age 8 or 9, one of my reactions (in my head, not to my child!) was "how do you know you're sexually attracted to one thing or another if you've never experienced sexual attraction?" But of course that's bogus, because it's not like I had no idea I was straight before that little thought experiment. That was kind of the conclusive thing that made me stop wondering if maybe I would "grow up to be gay," but I had always basically known I was attracted to girls, even if most of my friends in elementary school were boys. And so reflecting on that made it a little easier for me to believe my kids when they told me who they were.
If a girl strongly feels like she should be a boy at a young age, is that certainty the same as my childhood understanding of being straight? And how can that be discussed or decided or sure that it won't change? I never had to talk with my parents about my sexuality and just went through life not second guessing any of it.
Never having to talk to parents about it is of course a privilege that comes with happening to fit with the "default acceptable" gender/sexuality/etc, and that's worth remembering. But if anything, that should make us more ready to listen to our kids when they finally manage to squinch up the courage to talk to us and tell us they're not who we assumed they were. That's a big scary thing for a child (or anyone!) to do, and most kids I've met aren't going to rush into it without a lot of certainty and consideration! And there are a lot of things that change as we grow up, sometimes including our sexuality or gender identity. But again, that's why gender-affirming care emphasizes therapy first! The "do no harm," "least-invasive successful approach" philosophy prompts doctors to treat strep throat with antibiotics first and tonsilectomy as a later option if there's a need. Same idea in dealing with kids' gender identity: we don't rush to hormones and surgery; we start with using the preferred pronouns/name/gender presentation and see how things go, so that when we are at a point of discussing larger interventions, we have plenty of experience, consideration, and confidence that this is the right decision for this person. The whole "what if the kid changes their mind later" thing is really a bullshit bad faith talking point that assumes a lot of adults are not working as professionals with the best interest of the patient in mind, and also (as above) that the questions borne of our lack of expertise should be prioritized over the experience, research, and recommendations of actual professional experts. Not to mention the interests of the child in question.
All of this is coming, of course, from the perspective of a supportive parent living in a state where it's (mostly) safe to be a supportive parent. As such, it's pretty highly idealized in terms of what good, supportive care should look like. My gender non-conforming kid has definitely had experiences that don't fit into the picture I'm painting - that sucks, and I wish it weren't true. But we really need to keep that picture in mind as the goal for what we should be providing our kids, and "what if" type questions are almost always presented as bad faith arguments that deny both the lived experience of the child and the professional experience of medical experts.
TLDR: Fuck these fuckers; believe your kids; love and protect your marginalized communities.
posted by nickmark at 1:45 PM on February 1 [16 favorites]
I don't know what sort of medications or hormone treatments kids already have access to and in what situations they might be used.
Me neither! That's why I let board-certified medical professionals and other qualified science people develop recommendations, and get pissed off when lay-folk (like me, you, and most elected or appointed policy-makers) second-guess those recommendations and prohibit their implementation! Like, why do we trust physicians to tell us when it would probably be a good idea remove our kids' tonsils, but not to help us develop a supportive care plan for gender-related matters? If professional medical associations recommend gender-affirming care (and they do), why should the fact that I don't know what sorts of medications or hormones are available lead me to feel like my opinion should be substituted for the professionals'? If anything, it emphasizes that they know more than me! (And as a side note, let's remember that "gender affirming care" for children typically focuses on therapy first, with medication or surgical intervention only used as necessary and appropriate - this isn't a matter of "oh, you're gender non-conforming? Let's get you drugged up!")
I think my alignment and ignorance is because I've never had to wonder about my body or my sexuality [...] It's hard for me to pinpoint the age in which I felt like I was straight, so I guess it's hard to pinpoint an age where I feel kids should have the freedom to change their bodies. I've always sort of imagined that being anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum took a lot of time and experimentation to find out what you preferred and who you were; and that it didn't really become something you thought about until puberty.
There's some interesting stuff here, but I'd suggest it's worth reconsidering your underlying assumption: why would it be only the folks who are "anywhere else" on the sexuality spectrum who need time and experimentation to find out what they prefer and who they are?
As it turns out, I had an experience at about age 13 where I very consciously and specifically decided that I was straight. There was some news story about gay kids who had been rejected by their families (I really don't remember the detail) and it prompted me to wonder if my parents would maybe react that way if I turned out to be gay. Which in turn prompted me to wonder if maybe I were gay, although I didn't think I was and wasn't certain how I'd know. But then I thought, OK, well, I guess if I'm gay I'll probably get turned on by thoughts of sex with a man, and if I'm straight I'll get turned on by thoughts of sex with a woman? So I spent some time imagining each of those things, and it was pretty obvious which one I found more interesting, and that settled that question.
But that experience also tripped me up a little as a parent, because when one of my kids told me they were gay at around age 8 or 9, one of my reactions (in my head, not to my child!) was "how do you know you're sexually attracted to one thing or another if you've never experienced sexual attraction?" But of course that's bogus, because it's not like I had no idea I was straight before that little thought experiment. That was kind of the conclusive thing that made me stop wondering if maybe I would "grow up to be gay," but I had always basically known I was attracted to girls, even if most of my friends in elementary school were boys. And so reflecting on that made it a little easier for me to believe my kids when they told me who they were.
If a girl strongly feels like she should be a boy at a young age, is that certainty the same as my childhood understanding of being straight? And how can that be discussed or decided or sure that it won't change? I never had to talk with my parents about my sexuality and just went through life not second guessing any of it.
Never having to talk to parents about it is of course a privilege that comes with happening to fit with the "default acceptable" gender/sexuality/etc, and that's worth remembering. But if anything, that should make us more ready to listen to our kids when they finally manage to squinch up the courage to talk to us and tell us they're not who we assumed they were. That's a big scary thing for a child (or anyone!) to do, and most kids I've met aren't going to rush into it without a lot of certainty and consideration! And there are a lot of things that change as we grow up, sometimes including our sexuality or gender identity. But again, that's why gender-affirming care emphasizes therapy first! The "do no harm," "least-invasive successful approach" philosophy prompts doctors to treat strep throat with antibiotics first and tonsilectomy as a later option if there's a need. Same idea in dealing with kids' gender identity: we don't rush to hormones and surgery; we start with using the preferred pronouns/name/gender presentation and see how things go, so that when we are at a point of discussing larger interventions, we have plenty of experience, consideration, and confidence that this is the right decision for this person. The whole "what if the kid changes their mind later" thing is really a bullshit bad faith talking point that assumes a lot of adults are not working as professionals with the best interest of the patient in mind, and also (as above) that the questions borne of our lack of expertise should be prioritized over the experience, research, and recommendations of actual professional experts. Not to mention the interests of the child in question.
All of this is coming, of course, from the perspective of a supportive parent living in a state where it's (mostly) safe to be a supportive parent. As such, it's pretty highly idealized in terms of what good, supportive care should look like. My gender non-conforming kid has definitely had experiences that don't fit into the picture I'm painting - that sucks, and I wish it weren't true. But we really need to keep that picture in mind as the goal for what we should be providing our kids, and "what if" type questions are almost always presented as bad faith arguments that deny both the lived experience of the child and the professional experience of medical experts.
TLDR: Fuck these fuckers; believe your kids; love and protect your marginalized communities.
posted by nickmark at 1:45 PM on February 1 [16 favorites]
I am now slightly more educated than I was a few hours ago, and I'd like to check in with some things I digested from my reading. I'm hoping for some criticism on what I learned in order to make sure I'm actually growing in the right direction; that's something Google can't help me with and I hope I can participate in the community a little more this time. Please let me know if I'm not understanding properly, I don't want to spread misinformation. And I'm sorry if this is derailing things once again, I think I need the engagement this time so I can support better in the future.
I learned that puberty blocking can be a healthy thing, and can be reversed. It's not a huge health risk. This is agreed upon by a lot of scientists. Any issues that result from puberty blocking seem to have pretty good solutions as well. The benefits of stopping someone's growth into a body they don't want can be very helpful. It looks like most people who did have their puberty blocked are happier in the long run. If they aren't they always have the option to reverse it. My idea of this being a one time life-changing effect, like a tattoo (if they couldn't be removed), was incorrect. I no longer think this is as risky as it sounds, and it could have a great life-changing effect on someone who really needs it.
I also learned that children aren't forced into puberty blocking by parents who want their children to be a different gender. I don't think these things are done willy nilly. There likely aren't many parents who would do this against their child's will, and there likely aren't any doctors who would go through with it. Parents who support their child this way are probably top tier parents, listening and taking their child's feelings seriously.
Lots of people are as sure about their gender dysphoria as you are me are in our assigned gender. It's rough enough going through puberty in your preferred gender, it must feel pretty bad to have to go through puberty in a body you don't like.
The benefits of all of this are to allow someone to achieve the standard mental health that someone comfortable in their body feels. This is called gender affirmation, and it's a very good thing. I want people to feel comfortable in their body, and if the first step is taking action during puberty, then it's probably a pretty good idea, especially because it's not permanent.
I am still uneducated on the politics of this, but I don't think politicians do anything to actually benefit others so I would not be surprised if these policies are incredibly destructive.
I hope I'm approaching the standard understanding for being supportive. I promise I'm not trying to center this on my ignorance, but I might be doing it again or doing something similar and not noticing, so please give me another kick in the ass if needed.
posted by donuy at 1:46 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I learned that puberty blocking can be a healthy thing, and can be reversed. It's not a huge health risk. This is agreed upon by a lot of scientists. Any issues that result from puberty blocking seem to have pretty good solutions as well. The benefits of stopping someone's growth into a body they don't want can be very helpful. It looks like most people who did have their puberty blocked are happier in the long run. If they aren't they always have the option to reverse it. My idea of this being a one time life-changing effect, like a tattoo (if they couldn't be removed), was incorrect. I no longer think this is as risky as it sounds, and it could have a great life-changing effect on someone who really needs it.
I also learned that children aren't forced into puberty blocking by parents who want their children to be a different gender. I don't think these things are done willy nilly. There likely aren't many parents who would do this against their child's will, and there likely aren't any doctors who would go through with it. Parents who support their child this way are probably top tier parents, listening and taking their child's feelings seriously.
Lots of people are as sure about their gender dysphoria as you are me are in our assigned gender. It's rough enough going through puberty in your preferred gender, it must feel pretty bad to have to go through puberty in a body you don't like.
The benefits of all of this are to allow someone to achieve the standard mental health that someone comfortable in their body feels. This is called gender affirmation, and it's a very good thing. I want people to feel comfortable in their body, and if the first step is taking action during puberty, then it's probably a pretty good idea, especially because it's not permanent.
I am still uneducated on the politics of this, but I don't think politicians do anything to actually benefit others so I would not be surprised if these policies are incredibly destructive.
I hope I'm approaching the standard understanding for being supportive. I promise I'm not trying to center this on my ignorance, but I might be doing it again or doing something similar and not noticing, so please give me another kick in the ass if needed.
posted by donuy at 1:46 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
@nickmark
Thank you for your insight. I appreciate your patience and time for doing a deep dive on my comment.
posted by donuy at 2:06 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
Thank you for your insight. I appreciate your patience and time for doing a deep dive on my comment.
posted by donuy at 2:06 PM on February 1 [3 favorites]
the first three paragraphs you've got it right. anybody who tells you that trans care is as easy to obtain as manna from heaven during a short 40-year walkabout is, at best, misinformed, and more likely disinformed or a mendacious bigot.
the fourth paragraph, it depends. for some, what you've written is an understatement: it is unceasing agony. for others, such as myself, lacking the framework to understand who we are, it was fine, if by fine you mean "disassociated and kept disassociating until it was easy to feel nothing at all because the body is merely a grotesque biological shell that is to be disposed of when the first real opportunity arises". there isn't really a set experience for dysphoria; but for those who experience it, it's at the very least unpleasant.
if it helps, two cis friends of mine both experienced an inkling of it with, of all things, hairstyles: one grew his hair out over the pandemic and realized that it started making his reflection feel so unlike him in an uncomfortable way; the other, being a masc-presenting lesbian, unintentionally got a much more butch pixie cut and felt that it made her too... boyish, and so ended up wearing more makeup for a while.
as far as the benefits: i am but one datapoint, but hrt accomplished in 3 months what ssris could not in ten years. of course, it led to a brief spike in dysphoria, but it's remarkable what one is capable of doing when one has a reason to live rather than merely waiting to die.
as far as the politics: conservatives generally are finding trans people an easy target because it's so easy to promulgate mis/disinfo about a population that is a fraction of a fraction, when there already exists a general disdain and hostility to people who don't fit neatly into common conceptions of gender. when you can get people to look down on others, it's easier for you to fleece the distracted majority. it happens with race, with gender, with queerness, with immigrants, with class, with minority faiths.
alberta making trans care harder to obtain makes it easier for everyone else to ignore the actual problems with albertan health care.
posted by i used to be someone else at 2:08 PM on February 1 [11 favorites]
the fourth paragraph, it depends. for some, what you've written is an understatement: it is unceasing agony. for others, such as myself, lacking the framework to understand who we are, it was fine, if by fine you mean "disassociated and kept disassociating until it was easy to feel nothing at all because the body is merely a grotesque biological shell that is to be disposed of when the first real opportunity arises". there isn't really a set experience for dysphoria; but for those who experience it, it's at the very least unpleasant.
if it helps, two cis friends of mine both experienced an inkling of it with, of all things, hairstyles: one grew his hair out over the pandemic and realized that it started making his reflection feel so unlike him in an uncomfortable way; the other, being a masc-presenting lesbian, unintentionally got a much more butch pixie cut and felt that it made her too... boyish, and so ended up wearing more makeup for a while.
as far as the benefits: i am but one datapoint, but hrt accomplished in 3 months what ssris could not in ten years. of course, it led to a brief spike in dysphoria, but it's remarkable what one is capable of doing when one has a reason to live rather than merely waiting to die.
as far as the politics: conservatives generally are finding trans people an easy target because it's so easy to promulgate mis/disinfo about a population that is a fraction of a fraction, when there already exists a general disdain and hostility to people who don't fit neatly into common conceptions of gender. when you can get people to look down on others, it's easier for you to fleece the distracted majority. it happens with race, with gender, with queerness, with immigrants, with class, with minority faiths.
alberta making trans care harder to obtain makes it easier for everyone else to ignore the actual problems with albertan health care.
posted by i used to be someone else at 2:08 PM on February 1 [11 favorites]
Though I'm appalled and not surprised, I thought LGBTQ issues were possibly the one area Smith was not abysmally terrible on.
It was less than a year ago that CBC quoted her saying:
So much for not fitting into "critics' right wing caricatures on this score."
posted by house-goblin at 2:44 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
It was less than a year ago that CBC quoted her saying:
- "I have a non-binary family member, and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public"
- "We shouldn't be making any child feel like the issues they're struggling with are something that's a political football"
- "I think it's very damaging for kids to have this playing out in the public realm"
So much for not fitting into "critics' right wing caricatures on this score."
posted by house-goblin at 2:44 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
The notwithstanding clause is basically a cheat code that only asshole conservative governments use.
It's really only in the last few years that right wing provincial governments have started to use the notwithstanding clause like this. Previously, it was mostly Quebec, starting right from day one, and not necessarily conservative governments (most of it was language and education related). It wasn't that long ago that the notwithstanding clause was thought of as a nuclear option that made the government invoking it look very bad (outside of Quebec), but they tried it and of course no one really cared, so they'll keep doing it.
posted by ssg at 2:55 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
It's really only in the last few years that right wing provincial governments have started to use the notwithstanding clause like this. Previously, it was mostly Quebec, starting right from day one, and not necessarily conservative governments (most of it was language and education related). It wasn't that long ago that the notwithstanding clause was thought of as a nuclear option that made the government invoking it look very bad (outside of Quebec), but they tried it and of course no one really cared, so they'll keep doing it.
posted by ssg at 2:55 PM on February 1 [7 favorites]
Is there anything that a good constitutional lawyer could do with this fact?
Presumably not, because this isn't really an issue of equality between males and females (whatever Smith is proposing legally would apply equally to both).
posted by ssg at 3:02 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
Presumably not, because this isn't really an issue of equality between males and females (whatever Smith is proposing legally would apply equally to both).
posted by ssg at 3:02 PM on February 1 [2 favorites]
There's a table listing times the notwithstanding clause has been invoked on Wikipedia.
It has increased a lot lately. Unfortunately previous norms against it have declined.
But without it, there are definite constitutional problems here. Withdrawing previously available health care can raise s 7 issues ("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."). Even though it has been held not to grant positive rights, it can prevent withdrawing services at least for individual cases.
Then for s 15(1) equality rights, this is denying one group medically necessary care on the basis of a protected ground. Non-trans people can receive medically necessary hormone blockers, for example, but trans people cannot. It's challenging to bring these cases, but I'm sure someone will.
But again, all of that painstaking and expensive work can be made irrelevant by the notwithstanding clause, and political norms against it don't have significant consequences in Alberta.
posted by lookoutbelow at 3:34 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
It has increased a lot lately. Unfortunately previous norms against it have declined.
But without it, there are definite constitutional problems here. Withdrawing previously available health care can raise s 7 issues ("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."). Even though it has been held not to grant positive rights, it can prevent withdrawing services at least for individual cases.
Then for s 15(1) equality rights, this is denying one group medically necessary care on the basis of a protected ground. Non-trans people can receive medically necessary hormone blockers, for example, but trans people cannot. It's challenging to bring these cases, but I'm sure someone will.
But again, all of that painstaking and expensive work can be made irrelevant by the notwithstanding clause, and political norms against it don't have significant consequences in Alberta.
posted by lookoutbelow at 3:34 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
Late to the party here, but while I was yelling into the void with my adult trans child earlier today I shared this:
The UCP and Danielle Smith need to fuck right off.
I agree with the assessment that even the innocuously worded things on that list are surely with evil intent:
"Registry" - lists of people doing things we disapprove of, that ends well.
"Counselling" - in the same way that 'crisis pregnancy centers' work. Provided by evangelical clergy, I bet.
"Meaningfully Participate" - this could have a tiny chance of helping, I suppose. More coed sports where there was never a good reason for the binary split would be beneficial, but given who is implementing it, probably used for evil too.
posted by bcd at 6:11 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
Once again I would like to suggest that any cis kids or parents of cis kids who have an issue with this (which should be all parents) start doing malicious compliance when this becomes law by 'registering' even your cis kids' nicknames with the school. Make up a new one every week even. Make this policy intolerable.It was from someone on Mastodon, but sadly the stream has moved on and I don't remember who to credit.
The UCP and Danielle Smith need to fuck right off.
I agree with the assessment that even the innocuously worded things on that list are surely with evil intent:
"Registry" - lists of people doing things we disapprove of, that ends well.
"Counselling" - in the same way that 'crisis pregnancy centers' work. Provided by evangelical clergy, I bet.
"Meaningfully Participate" - this could have a tiny chance of helping, I suppose. More coed sports where there was never a good reason for the binary split would be beneficial, but given who is implementing it, probably used for evil too.
posted by bcd at 6:11 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
I'm a straight white man and I knew from a young age that I liked girls, even if I didn't know it was for sexual reasons.
Yeah!
I've always sort of imagined that being anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum took a lot of time and experimentation to find out what you preferred and who you were
Girl what
posted by rhymedirective at 6:52 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Yeah!
I've always sort of imagined that being anywhere else on the sexuality spectrum took a lot of time and experimentation to find out what you preferred and who you were
Girl what
posted by rhymedirective at 6:52 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Yes, the parents of the cis kids will be right along to back us up.
posted by tigrrrlily at 6:56 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 6:56 PM on February 1 [4 favorites]
Possibly the ultimate thing that sounds good (maybe, to the uninitiated) but is actually a red flag: "parents rights".
Because generally good policies can be captured by "children's rights". Even if the parents are the ones invoking those rights on the child's behalf.
But if you have to say "parent's rights", usually it means parents rights to control their child. So, inherently suspicious and requiring close examination.
One more constitutional law point actually, that avoids the notwithstanding clause issue, is federalism. In abortion cases, provinces struggled to regulate in a way that was consistent with their health jurisdiction while not impinging on federal criminal law jurisdiction. The province will have to come up with a law whose "pith and substance" fits within an area in its jurisdiction, such as health or property and civil rights (they could argue about family). The issue of provincial jurisdiction to impede abortion hasn't been litigated in a while, but there's a paper here talking about it that might apply also to restricting health care for trans people. And where the effects (e.g. worsening health) diverge substantially from the stated aims (e.g. promoting responsible health care), this may impact the pith and substance.
So in R v Morgentaler (1993), in which the New Brunswick government banned abortions outside of hospitals, this was found to be in pith and substance an attempt to prevent abortion as a perceived social ill, not actually aimed at health care. Arguably the same would apply to legislation prohibiting certain health care for minors even where a licensed doctor deems it medically appropriate.
Whoops I accidentally wrote an essay. Anyway, long story short, the fight will go on and I am certain that the many social justice oriented lawyers in Alberta will fight this. Yes, Alberta's politics is dominated by conservatives for various reasons, but Alberta's social culture is not, by and large, as hostile to trans people as places in the US where comparable legislation has been passed.
posted by lookoutbelow at 7:00 PM on February 1 [10 favorites]
Because generally good policies can be captured by "children's rights". Even if the parents are the ones invoking those rights on the child's behalf.
But if you have to say "parent's rights", usually it means parents rights to control their child. So, inherently suspicious and requiring close examination.
One more constitutional law point actually, that avoids the notwithstanding clause issue, is federalism. In abortion cases, provinces struggled to regulate in a way that was consistent with their health jurisdiction while not impinging on federal criminal law jurisdiction. The province will have to come up with a law whose "pith and substance" fits within an area in its jurisdiction, such as health or property and civil rights (they could argue about family). The issue of provincial jurisdiction to impede abortion hasn't been litigated in a while, but there's a paper here talking about it that might apply also to restricting health care for trans people. And where the effects (e.g. worsening health) diverge substantially from the stated aims (e.g. promoting responsible health care), this may impact the pith and substance.
So in R v Morgentaler (1993), in which the New Brunswick government banned abortions outside of hospitals, this was found to be in pith and substance an attempt to prevent abortion as a perceived social ill, not actually aimed at health care. Arguably the same would apply to legislation prohibiting certain health care for minors even where a licensed doctor deems it medically appropriate.
Whoops I accidentally wrote an essay. Anyway, long story short, the fight will go on and I am certain that the many social justice oriented lawyers in Alberta will fight this. Yes, Alberta's politics is dominated by conservatives for various reasons, but Alberta's social culture is not, by and large, as hostile to trans people as places in the US where comparable legislation has been passed.
posted by lookoutbelow at 7:00 PM on February 1 [10 favorites]
I have written an actual essay, sorry y'all. This was written before @donuy latest response, so I didn't add to it. These issues keep coming up here, and I mostly lurk, so this a stored response to many posts, not just yours, donuy. Thanks for continuing to try :)
@donuy, I think there are several important points, some of which have been made above, so forgive me for being a bit repetitive. I also have simplified things a bit in this post because I think it's a reasonable starting place. Apologies to especially nonbinary people, but also anyone else who feels less represented than you and/or I would like.
Your understanding of this issue is not a requirement of your support on the issue. I, a white trans man, will never fully understand what it means to experience racism. So, I trust Black authors when they tell me what they need. I trust Black friends when they tell me how I can be supportive. I have to use judgment to help me discern which, among the many competing Back voices, to believe, prioritize, and follow, be it Clarence Thomas or Ibram X. Kendi. But at the base of the issue is a faith and belief in someone else to articulate their needs, rather than me expecting to fully understand the issue. (and as such, I am just one trans voice, with one trans experience which will be different from other trans people's experience).
On the other hand, one form of support is to learn as much as I can about the issue, to read the many many written works on racism, rather than asking friends (or internet strangers). Some in this thread are asking you to do the same. That is, trans authors, in this thread, and elsewhere are telling you that to be supportive means doing some of the research yourself.
Trans authors, in this thread and elsewhere, are telling you that to deny gender-affirming care is inhumane. We are telling you that we need the support of many, many cis people if we are going to survive this current cultural moment. That to deny gender-affirming care is denying life-saving medical treatment. That trans kids really do know what they want and that puberty blockers and gender-affirming care can be administered safely. As an aside, sexual identity does come much later than gender identity for many people, depending in part on whether they are in a supportive environment.
The attack on trans care is not rational, is not reasonable, is not okay. The attack on trans people is a form of hate-based dehumanization. Hate-based dehumanization has proceeded most (if not all) of the really truly horrible moments in history. It is a prerequisite for genocide, it was a prerequisite for the holocaust. One of the Nazi's first targets were what we would now call queer people. The first concentration camps were filled not with Jews but with gay men. It was their testing grounds. The question many of us are starting to ask is whether trans people are serving that role now. Once we are not worthy of life-saving medical care, is it okay to just kill those of us who have survived without it?
Once the right has practiced dehumanizing/harming/killing us all, will they dehumanize/harm/kill you too? Certainly, poor people with uteruses are also being dehumanized and killed in the US. Certainly, people of color, especially those in poor communities, are being killed by incarceration/gun violence/pollution/lack of medical care/lack of sustaining food right now. Certainly, people with disabilities have been dehumanized already to the extent that we allow their absolutely atrocious treatment (including death). What's next? Will they deprive you of antidepressants, which have just as much medical support and validity as gender-affirming care? Will they remove the feeble anti-discrimination laws and financial support for people with disabilities?
What would it take to imagine a broad coalition supporting trans people today because support for trans people is what is right, and is we need to protect everyone. Not because every person in that coalition has a trans friend to make this feel important, or who has finally read enough books to understand all the details. (ditto disability rights, abortion access, racial injustice, native sovereignty).
And finally, I have the great privilege of being a trans parent to a trans kid who is surrounded by a reasonably supportive community (including other trans kids!). If you ever doubt that gender affirming care (both medical and social transition) is good for kids, I want you to imagine a hallmark card with blissful carefree kids just playing as kids on it. If you saw kids I know playing on the playground, you would have no idea those kids were trans. You would only see their smiles. Now I want you to imagine the most awkward, body hating, insecure person you've met. Perhaps a suicidal 8 year old would work. That is what being asked to live discordant with ones gender could do to these kids. Not that insecurity or suicidality doesn't arise from many causes, not that there isn't a whole mess in between. But rather, that being forced by society to do the completely and totally unnatural thing of assuming the wrong gender is painful and horrible. They are not preferred pronouns and chosen genders, they are pronouns and genders. They are what they are. Trans kids and adults without support may live many years in their "assigned" gender. However, the options are not happy kids who have transitioned or happy kids who have not transitioned. The options are kids who have the support of their family and society, or feel profound hurt. I know kids who have consistently expressed their transgender identities since they could point to clothes. There is no universe in which they are confused about their gender identities. Don't ever believe anyone who tells you that they might know better than these kids what is best for themselves.
posted by lab.beetle at 7:36 PM on February 1 [14 favorites]
@donuy, I think there are several important points, some of which have been made above, so forgive me for being a bit repetitive. I also have simplified things a bit in this post because I think it's a reasonable starting place. Apologies to especially nonbinary people, but also anyone else who feels less represented than you and/or I would like.
Your understanding of this issue is not a requirement of your support on the issue. I, a white trans man, will never fully understand what it means to experience racism. So, I trust Black authors when they tell me what they need. I trust Black friends when they tell me how I can be supportive. I have to use judgment to help me discern which, among the many competing Back voices, to believe, prioritize, and follow, be it Clarence Thomas or Ibram X. Kendi. But at the base of the issue is a faith and belief in someone else to articulate their needs, rather than me expecting to fully understand the issue. (and as such, I am just one trans voice, with one trans experience which will be different from other trans people's experience).
On the other hand, one form of support is to learn as much as I can about the issue, to read the many many written works on racism, rather than asking friends (or internet strangers). Some in this thread are asking you to do the same. That is, trans authors, in this thread, and elsewhere are telling you that to be supportive means doing some of the research yourself.
Trans authors, in this thread and elsewhere, are telling you that to deny gender-affirming care is inhumane. We are telling you that we need the support of many, many cis people if we are going to survive this current cultural moment. That to deny gender-affirming care is denying life-saving medical treatment. That trans kids really do know what they want and that puberty blockers and gender-affirming care can be administered safely. As an aside, sexual identity does come much later than gender identity for many people, depending in part on whether they are in a supportive environment.
The attack on trans care is not rational, is not reasonable, is not okay. The attack on trans people is a form of hate-based dehumanization. Hate-based dehumanization has proceeded most (if not all) of the really truly horrible moments in history. It is a prerequisite for genocide, it was a prerequisite for the holocaust. One of the Nazi's first targets were what we would now call queer people. The first concentration camps were filled not with Jews but with gay men. It was their testing grounds. The question many of us are starting to ask is whether trans people are serving that role now. Once we are not worthy of life-saving medical care, is it okay to just kill those of us who have survived without it?
Once the right has practiced dehumanizing/harming/killing us all, will they dehumanize/harm/kill you too? Certainly, poor people with uteruses are also being dehumanized and killed in the US. Certainly, people of color, especially those in poor communities, are being killed by incarceration/gun violence/pollution/lack of medical care/lack of sustaining food right now. Certainly, people with disabilities have been dehumanized already to the extent that we allow their absolutely atrocious treatment (including death). What's next? Will they deprive you of antidepressants, which have just as much medical support and validity as gender-affirming care? Will they remove the feeble anti-discrimination laws and financial support for people with disabilities?
What would it take to imagine a broad coalition supporting trans people today because support for trans people is what is right, and is we need to protect everyone. Not because every person in that coalition has a trans friend to make this feel important, or who has finally read enough books to understand all the details. (ditto disability rights, abortion access, racial injustice, native sovereignty).
And finally, I have the great privilege of being a trans parent to a trans kid who is surrounded by a reasonably supportive community (including other trans kids!). If you ever doubt that gender affirming care (both medical and social transition) is good for kids, I want you to imagine a hallmark card with blissful carefree kids just playing as kids on it. If you saw kids I know playing on the playground, you would have no idea those kids were trans. You would only see their smiles. Now I want you to imagine the most awkward, body hating, insecure person you've met. Perhaps a suicidal 8 year old would work. That is what being asked to live discordant with ones gender could do to these kids. Not that insecurity or suicidality doesn't arise from many causes, not that there isn't a whole mess in between. But rather, that being forced by society to do the completely and totally unnatural thing of assuming the wrong gender is painful and horrible. They are not preferred pronouns and chosen genders, they are pronouns and genders. They are what they are. Trans kids and adults without support may live many years in their "assigned" gender. However, the options are not happy kids who have transitioned or happy kids who have not transitioned. The options are kids who have the support of their family and society, or feel profound hurt. I know kids who have consistently expressed their transgender identities since they could point to clothes. There is no universe in which they are confused about their gender identities. Don't ever believe anyone who tells you that they might know better than these kids what is best for themselves.
posted by lab.beetle at 7:36 PM on February 1 [14 favorites]
I'm not going to tell anyone that they should be educating people about trans ssues. If you don't have the energy, time, skill or resources, that's fine.
However, this is one thing that the right wing, especially alt-right, are very good at. Patient explanation. Their expansion is one of "it's not your fault, it's the fault of the groomers/bankers/elites".
It's a hearts and minds issue. Someone is just as likely to get an education from Dr. Jordan B Peterson the frog, as they are from Skipping Stone.
Sure, your Google results are good, but everyone's is different. That's how it works. You don't have to go very far right at all to get some bad takes. If I recall, even the New York Times is bad.
If we can help, I think it's worth it to do so.
posted by jonnay at 10:27 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
However, this is one thing that the right wing, especially alt-right, are very good at. Patient explanation. Their expansion is one of "it's not your fault, it's the fault of the groomers/bankers/elites".
It's a hearts and minds issue. Someone is just as likely to get an education from Dr. Jordan B Peterson the frog, as they are from Skipping Stone.
Sure, your Google results are good, but everyone's is different. That's how it works. You don't have to go very far right at all to get some bad takes. If I recall, even the New York Times is bad.
If we can help, I think it's worth it to do so.
posted by jonnay at 10:27 PM on February 1 [5 favorites]
Worrying about kids making a mistake and not letting children get healthcare in case someone regrets it is transphobic, is cis-supremacist, in arguing that cis kids matter more than trans kids. It's saying that a hypothetical cis kid who thinks they're trans is so valuable, so important to save, that it's worth throwing every single trans kid under the bus, denying them all treatment, for the sake of a hypothetical confused cis kid.
There is no clearer way to communicate that trans people, trans kids, and trans lives just matter less than cis ones, than to wring your hands about "but what if they regret it/make a mistake???"
posted by Dysk at 12:08 AM on February 2 [19 favorites]
There is no clearer way to communicate that trans people, trans kids, and trans lives just matter less than cis ones, than to wring your hands about "but what if they regret it/make a mistake???"
posted by Dysk at 12:08 AM on February 2 [19 favorites]
Look, this is a moral panic. Like bullying, none of the facts are going to explain the relationship between right-wing politicians and this issue.
As I’m probably very annoyingly repetitive about, there is simply no reason for random adults to care what biological parts are under kids’ clothing or what names and pronouns they want to use. When it comes to “parental rights,” removing treatment options is not adding a right. Additionally, when treatments are supported and recommended by medical associations, I don’t think governments should ban them.
What is going on is not in the realm of health. It’s in the realm of (some people’s ideas of) morality, and it should be confined to churches, not provincial politics. Why are politicians doing this?
1. It gets them support from the Christian and Muslim right, in Canada.
2. It supports the narrative that liberal education is ruining kids and families, which allows them to defund tertiary education in particular as well as keep the populace ignorant and angry. Also limit health care. Smith is dismantling what was one of the best provincial health care systems when the Alberta Fund was pouring $$ into it in I think the 90s, could be off on the dates.
3. The perception is that they won’t lose too many votes.it feeds into the worldwide Rupert Murdoch anger at the other trend.
4. The “parental rights” wedge has that fuzzy logic that works in so many people “well…protecting kids is important I guess…” and since most people aren’t deep thinkers, it makes these policies palatable. :(
It has nothing to do with trans kids’ experiences. They are just the boogeyman in this morality play (which is horrible and results in human tragedy.)
posted by warriorqueen at 6:39 AM on February 2 [19 favorites]
As I’m probably very annoyingly repetitive about, there is simply no reason for random adults to care what biological parts are under kids’ clothing or what names and pronouns they want to use. When it comes to “parental rights,” removing treatment options is not adding a right. Additionally, when treatments are supported and recommended by medical associations, I don’t think governments should ban them.
What is going on is not in the realm of health. It’s in the realm of (some people’s ideas of) morality, and it should be confined to churches, not provincial politics. Why are politicians doing this?
1. It gets them support from the Christian and Muslim right, in Canada.
2. It supports the narrative that liberal education is ruining kids and families, which allows them to defund tertiary education in particular as well as keep the populace ignorant and angry. Also limit health care. Smith is dismantling what was one of the best provincial health care systems when the Alberta Fund was pouring $$ into it in I think the 90s, could be off on the dates.
3. The perception is that they won’t lose too many votes.it feeds into the worldwide Rupert Murdoch anger at the other trend.
4. The “parental rights” wedge has that fuzzy logic that works in so many people “well…protecting kids is important I guess…” and since most people aren’t deep thinkers, it makes these policies palatable. :(
It has nothing to do with trans kids’ experiences. They are just the boogeyman in this morality play (which is horrible and results in human tragedy.)
posted by warriorqueen at 6:39 AM on February 2 [19 favorites]
However, this is one thing that the right wing, especially alt-right, are very good at. Patient explanation. Their expansion is one of "it's not your fault, it's the fault of the groomers/bankers/elites".
You seem to be confusing “firehouse of baseless accusations” with “patient explanation”. There’s no explanation going on in the right wing accusations. What I see shared around most or referenced most by far right followers are soundbites that they feel are good zingers. There is not the depth or coherence that “explanation” (or “patient”!) implies.
posted by eviemath at 7:59 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
You seem to be confusing “firehouse of baseless accusations” with “patient explanation”. There’s no explanation going on in the right wing accusations. What I see shared around most or referenced most by far right followers are soundbites that they feel are good zingers. There is not the depth or coherence that “explanation” (or “patient”!) implies.
posted by eviemath at 7:59 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
echoing others in just recognizing that this is what bullies do
1) motivated to identify a target. They are cowards, so they will go for the most vulnerable
2) further motivated politically (see warriorqueen): this will mobilize the base and it will help them connect to people who might not see themselves as bullies, but it will connect with deep-rooted and often unexamined beliefs (boy/girl, gender and sexuality is a decided binary thing, people get married and have kids and worship god)
what to do: be visible in your support, be visible and loud in explaining that this is not acceptable, talk to people and make sure they understand where you are coming from. Municipal leaders, teachers, provincial and federal politicians
at the end of the day, this never ends with one targeted group. If for no other reason, this should make all of us angry as hell because this is just probing.. they will always keep bullying and outing some other group, that is how fascism works. this is early fascism, folks. they'll pretend they are a political party until they don't have to
posted by elkevelvet at 8:30 AM on February 2 [9 favorites]
1) motivated to identify a target. They are cowards, so they will go for the most vulnerable
2) further motivated politically (see warriorqueen): this will mobilize the base and it will help them connect to people who might not see themselves as bullies, but it will connect with deep-rooted and often unexamined beliefs (boy/girl, gender and sexuality is a decided binary thing, people get married and have kids and worship god)
what to do: be visible in your support, be visible and loud in explaining that this is not acceptable, talk to people and make sure they understand where you are coming from. Municipal leaders, teachers, provincial and federal politicians
at the end of the day, this never ends with one targeted group. If for no other reason, this should make all of us angry as hell because this is just probing.. they will always keep bullying and outing some other group, that is how fascism works. this is early fascism, folks. they'll pretend they are a political party until they don't have to
posted by elkevelvet at 8:30 AM on February 2 [9 favorites]
what to do: be visible in your support, be visible and loud in explaining that this is not acceptable, talk to people and make sure they understand where you are coming from. Municipal leaders, teachers, provincial and federal politicians
I have attended at least one rally against the Parental Rights people here in Kingston. (It's always the trucker convoy people who organize these things.) It's disheartening to see Muslim parents joining in because as soon their support is no longer useful, those jerks will turn on them in a heartbeat, if they haven't already.
posted by Kitteh at 8:35 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
I have attended at least one rally against the Parental Rights people here in Kingston. (It's always the trucker convoy people who organize these things.) It's disheartening to see Muslim parents joining in because as soon their support is no longer useful, those jerks will turn on them in a heartbeat, if they haven't already.
posted by Kitteh at 8:35 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
CBC has a good overview of the parental rights movement (contains transphobic quotes) and the Edmonton Journal has a piece on some Muslim communities and the movement.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:44 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 8:44 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
warriorqueen, the Muslim link only worked for me when I (gasp!) cut the /amp off the end of it. #HACK #I'MIN
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:31 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:31 AM on February 2 [1 favorite]
Sorry! Phone link issues.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:44 AM on February 2
posted by warriorqueen at 9:44 AM on February 2
Oh no it's great, made me feel like an elite hacker. You know. Not like, an elite cis hacker, but in the trans division. There's almost dozens of us here, busy competing against one another.
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:59 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:59 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
tigrrrlily: you are joking but nearly every single one of the best hackers i'm aware of, like, in the world, is trans and/or a furry. We would all be using tin-cans and string to communicate without them.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:16 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:16 AM on February 2 [5 favorites]
(Oh yes. And forget about electronic music. And a bunch of open source projects. And everyone else would get to still think they're really pretty OK at platformer games)
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:24 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 10:24 AM on February 2 [7 favorites]
tigrrrlily: you are joking but nearly every single one of the best hackers i'm aware of, like, in the world, is trans and/or a furry.
(for instance, maia arson crimew, who leaked the us no fly list
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:51 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
(for instance, maia arson crimew, who leaked the us no fly list
posted by i used to be someone else at 10:51 AM on February 2 [2 favorites]
In case anyone cis is still reading down here, I've been joking about this stuff for most of my life. So have a bunch of other trans women of my cohort. You turn your terror into an in-joke and then you can almost pretend things are all right.
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:05 PM on February 2 [7 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 12:05 PM on February 2 [7 favorites]
Alberta Premier Marlaina Smith bans kids from going by their preferred name.
posted by bcd at 12:05 PM on February 2 [5 favorites]
posted by bcd at 12:05 PM on February 2 [5 favorites]
bcd, that is too perfect for this world
posted by elkevelvet at 12:23 PM on February 2 [1 favorite]
posted by elkevelvet at 12:23 PM on February 2 [1 favorite]
I knew it was The Beaverton before I clicked.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:31 PM on February 2 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 12:31 PM on February 2 [2 favorites]
the statement in my church's bulletin this week: Please think about gender diverse Albertans in your community and life today, because the policies or legislation announced on Thursday are frightening for them. A request has already been made to the Northern Spirit Executive for a statement, and Chinook Winds Executive will also be discussing this. A meeting of all Affirming and supportive ministries and people will likely be called soon. Thank you to media who actually took the time to seek comment from the people targeted by this.
posted by elkevelvet at 1:11 PM on February 2 [12 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 1:11 PM on February 2 [12 favorites]
You seem to be confusing “firehouse of baseless accusations” with “patient explanation”. There’s no explanation going on in the right wing accusations. What I see shared around most or referenced most by far right followers are soundbites that they feel are good zingers. There is not the depth or coherence that “explanation” (or “patient”!) implies.
That's because you're not listening to the recruitment. The accusations are the public side. In private, the answer to "tell me more about how the trans are grooming children?" isn't "just google it. It's not up to me to educate you."
It doesn't need to be that coherent. Just so long as it doesn't ask any extra work of the asker, and it's just plausible enough to be believable. In fact, with a genuinely curious audience, you'll find they can be quite talkative.
posted by jonnay at 11:36 PM on February 2 [1 favorite]
That's because you're not listening to the recruitment. The accusations are the public side. In private, the answer to "tell me more about how the trans are grooming children?" isn't "just google it. It's not up to me to educate you."
It doesn't need to be that coherent. Just so long as it doesn't ask any extra work of the asker, and it's just plausible enough to be believable. In fact, with a genuinely curious audience, you'll find they can be quite talkative.
posted by jonnay at 11:36 PM on February 2 [1 favorite]
That Smith is a wrecking ball swinging at the vulnerable was evident since her leadership of, and betrayal of, the Wildrose Party. She enjoys the same inexplicable political levitation as does Trump. It's still shocking to see her score points off of non-binary people, but people outside Canada should know that Smith specialises in picking spectacular fights and acting as if the other side is being unreasonable. Her second rise to fame (after headlining the news for betraying her own party to get a promotion) was to broadcast anti-vax speaking points.
On the constitutional matter, the notwithstanding clause is getting trashed here. It is treated as a cheat code to get illegitimate goodies. You can also look at the use of the notwithstanding clause in these recent cases as symptoms of a system malfunctioning. The notwithstanding clause is the formal expression of Parliamentary sovereignty, which is the basic concept of Canadian constitutionalism. Another basic concept is the heritage of England's unwritten constitution. The idea is that black letter rules mean nothing unless people agree to behave within norms of conduct that allow the black letter rules to work properly.
The notwithstanding clause is supposed to work as a safety valve. Who can say what measures will have to be taken in some unforeseen circumstance? If COVID had proven far more deadly, would we have needed to take draconian measures - contrary to the Charter - to ensure some people survived?
But the notwithstanding clause is supposed to be used within the unwritten norms of constitutional conduct. The legal doctrine on the notwithstanding clause expects that politicians will hesitate to invoke the notwithstanding clause because the politicians fear the wrath of voters who fear the authoritarianism of any politician who dares to impose the notwithstanding clause.
But what do you do when almost half the voters are begging anyone, anyone at all, to plant a jackboot on their necks and start grinding in the heel? Don't look at me, I'm just as astounded by this as you.
posted by SnowRottie at 7:51 AM on February 3 [6 favorites]
On the constitutional matter, the notwithstanding clause is getting trashed here. It is treated as a cheat code to get illegitimate goodies. You can also look at the use of the notwithstanding clause in these recent cases as symptoms of a system malfunctioning. The notwithstanding clause is the formal expression of Parliamentary sovereignty, which is the basic concept of Canadian constitutionalism. Another basic concept is the heritage of England's unwritten constitution. The idea is that black letter rules mean nothing unless people agree to behave within norms of conduct that allow the black letter rules to work properly.
The notwithstanding clause is supposed to work as a safety valve. Who can say what measures will have to be taken in some unforeseen circumstance? If COVID had proven far more deadly, would we have needed to take draconian measures - contrary to the Charter - to ensure some people survived?
But the notwithstanding clause is supposed to be used within the unwritten norms of constitutional conduct. The legal doctrine on the notwithstanding clause expects that politicians will hesitate to invoke the notwithstanding clause because the politicians fear the wrath of voters who fear the authoritarianism of any politician who dares to impose the notwithstanding clause.
But what do you do when almost half the voters are begging anyone, anyone at all, to plant a jackboot on their necks and start grinding in the heel? Don't look at me, I'm just as astounded by this as you.
posted by SnowRottie at 7:51 AM on February 3 [6 favorites]
The notwithstanding clause is supposed to work as a safety valve.
The notwithstanding clause was an agreement between Chrétien and a couple provinces, hammered out in a backroom (literally in a kitchen), that got the provinces to agree to the Charter rather than scuppering the whole thing. It wasn't some cohesive, high-minded part of the Charter based on constitutional concepts; it was just a carve-out so that the provinces wouldn't lose their power.
posted by ssg at 8:39 AM on February 3 [6 favorites]
The notwithstanding clause was an agreement between Chrétien and a couple provinces, hammered out in a backroom (literally in a kitchen), that got the provinces to agree to the Charter rather than scuppering the whole thing. It wasn't some cohesive, high-minded part of the Charter based on constitutional concepts; it was just a carve-out so that the provinces wouldn't lose their power.
posted by ssg at 8:39 AM on February 3 [6 favorites]
NDP, Plains Cree doctor slam Alberta premier’s transgender policy changes
“I want to affirm to my patients, my Indigenous patients, my non-Indigenous patients, my gender diverse patients, my trans patients that I will continue to practice trans and gender affirming care on the reserve in a place where we have our own jurisdiction and continue to prescribe these life-saving medications that absolutely make a difference,” he said.
posted by house-goblin at 11:51 AM on February 3 [9 favorites]
“I want to affirm to my patients, my Indigenous patients, my non-Indigenous patients, my gender diverse patients, my trans patients that I will continue to practice trans and gender affirming care on the reserve in a place where we have our own jurisdiction and continue to prescribe these life-saving medications that absolutely make a difference,” he said.
posted by house-goblin at 11:51 AM on February 3 [9 favorites]
Well, the guy aiming to be our next PM has chimed in and it's about what you'd expect.
posted by Kitteh at 4:41 PM on February 6 [3 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 4:41 PM on February 6 [3 favorites]
« Older Dogsandsnow | A reminder of the relative silence of our material... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by an octopus IRL at 8:22 PM on January 31 [90 favorites]