Commentary
The principle of “follow the science” remains crucial in uncovering the truth within the physical sciences, despite its recent criticism.
Science, as our trusted source, must be accurately defined and comprehended; it is an ongoing process of seeking truth that is never settled and is willing to discard old hypotheses when faced with new evidence.
In the honest light of science, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives regarding gender policy can be properly understood, despite the backlash they have received.
Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, aims to restrict the use of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for treating gender dysphoria in youths aged 15 and under. Minors aged 16 and 17 can only undergo puberty blockers and hormone therapies with parental, physician, and psychologist approval for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes. The bill also prohibits sex reassignment surgeries on minors by health professionals.
Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to affirm parents’ rights to be informed if their children change names/pronouns at school and allows parents to choose the type of gender and sex education their children receive.
Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, aims to protect female athletes by ensuring they compete in biological female-only divisions while also supporting co-ed opportunities for transgender athletes.
These initiatives are reasonable considering the scientific understanding of “gender care” and the advantages that biological males have in sports competitions due to their male physiology.
The idea that puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and surgery lead to good health was initially proposed by Dutch researchers to alleviate the discomfort of transgender adults. While it was a reasonable hypothesis, the UK’s Cass Review revealed its lack of evidence and the harm it caused to youth. Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a pioneer in gender care, stated that “Gender affirming care is dangerous.”
Several European countries, including Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK, have reconsidered the “gender affirming care” approach for youth. It is prudent for Canadians to exercise caution, inform parents about school teachings on these subjects, and ensure children are not subjected to unsupported premises.
Despite the medical establishment’s insistence on the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model, Premier Smith’s initiatives are sensible and aligned with European practices. They prioritize the well-being of children, women, and athletes.
The transgender discussion should not be a matter of partisanship, as seen in Canada. It is noteworthy that Britain’s Labour Party continued with a cautious approach following the Cass Review.
Premier Smith’s policies are not “anti-trans” but rather supportive of children, women, and athletes, echoing the stance of European counterparts.
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
