Premier Danielle Smith’s gender policy reforms align closely with the approach adopted by her European counterparts

J. Edward Les

For interview requests, click here

Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.

But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is, at its essence, an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.

And it is in this light – the unforgiving glare of honest science – that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.

Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.

Recommended
The dark legacy of gender theory’s founding architect
Medical transitioning is the wrong treatment for gender dysphoria in minors
Top pediatrician exposes damning truths behind gender-affirming care practices

Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt-in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.

Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.

Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.

The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.

But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm to youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know because I helped pioneer it.”

It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well and that parents be notified if their children are being exposed to these theories in school. Parents should also be informed if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and if their kids are being influenced by their premises.

Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.

Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients, to which she replied. “I would say doctors aren’t always right.”

Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”

As physicians, we strongly advocate self-regulation and the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails, it can be very much in the interests of the public – and especially of patients – for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.

The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding government in light of the Cass Review.

Premier Smith’s new policies are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.

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.

Explore more on Gender dysphoria, Gender politics, Transgender, Genital mutilation 


The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

© Troy Media
Troy Media is committed to empowering Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in building an informed and engaged public by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections, enriches national conversations, and helps Canadians learn from and understand each other better.