HANNAFORD: What's in a name? In this case, absolutely nothing at all

As an act of grace, I will not repeat the name of the Edmonton Journal reporter who last week tried to ‘catch’ Premier Danielle Smith, asking why she had chosen to use her middle name — Danielle — as opposed to her other given name — Marlaina — that precedes it on her birth certificate.The oily implication of hypocrisy was clear: Smith had just announced that in Alberta, children would not be able to choose gender reassignment surgery until they were 18. And so the reporter's question was, “I wonder why did you choose to go by a different name and why you would take steps to restrict the same freedom for others to do things?”I thought at the time what a bloody stupid question it was.Was this nitwit really conflating the premier’s choice of which given name a person might use, with deeply invasive surgery involving the removal of organs that define that same person’s sex?Surely not. Perhaps I mis-heard. But, I had not. Fatuity lives.I am happy to report however, that although the mainstream media tends to be sceptical of Smith, there is a limit to their toleration of smarty pants questions too. Glancing around the room, I saw a dozen pairs of eyeballs were returning from the ceiling and refocussing upon the premier at the podium, who explained with Job-like patience that it was her parents’ choice…And that was that. Or so I thought.However, during the weekend, Naheed Nenshi wondered on X — remarkably — whether ‘her parents consented and approved of this name change.’ (Yes they had, see above.) If one wishes to be taken seriously as a potential Alberta NDP leader, one must do what one must, I suppose. But really, are there no limits?For in the wake of Smith’s announcement, the sheer depth, height and breadth of asininity has been astounding. And the hate-meter is glowing red.What Smith actually said was that adults were welcome to transition, that the Government of Alberta would import the necessary resources so that people did not have to go to Quebec to for sex-change operations but that children should wait until they were 18.Why? “Making permanent and irreversible decisions regarding one’s biological sex while still a youth can severely limit that child’s choices in the future.”Well, it would, wouldn’t it? That actually sounds like a person-friendly, if not downright Solomonic thing to say.However, the prime minister quickly set the tone. “As a federal government, we will always be there to protect the most vulnerable, particularly vulnerable LGBT youth who need to know that there are people across the country there to fight for them…. Canadians need to know that the federal government and all Canadians will be there to protect youth.” The 'protection' these kids need, sir, is somebody to save them from what will be for some of them the most devastating mistake they could ever make.Meanwhile, the prime minister's special adviser on LGBT issues, Edmonton MP Randy Boissonnault, said an attack on Alberta’s teenage trans-kids was an attack upon the entire LGBT community that should evoke a NATO-like, all-for-one, one-for-all response. (Marco Navarro-Genie exposes the folly of it here.)Closer to home, the Alberta Union of Public Employees called it a ‘blatant attack on human rights.’ Really? A 13-year-old has a right to a sex-change operation? He doesn't even have the right to drive and before he can exercise his right to buy liquor at the age of 18, he will be asked for ID until he's 30.And Global TV argues that Smith is incorrect that trans-women — biological males — always have a built-in advantage over common-or-garden women un-qualified by an adjective.“The scientific literature disagrees, even with the existence of high-profile cases,” reports Global. Well, that's a new angle, at least. But it's a helluva stretch.The tv station bases its argument upon the unusual career of South African athlete Caster Semenya who despite competing as a woman, was in 2019 ruled to be “biologically a man” by international sporting bodies. (Semenya’s case is almost too singular to be useful. A man suffering from undescended testicles and therefore raised as a girl is not the necessary proof point.) Global might have argued more successfully that the very fastest, strongest women on the right-hand edge of the women’s bell curve may well exceed the least capable athlete trailing at the left-hand edge of the male bell curve. But it still would not alter the fact that in the middle of the bell curves, where most of us live, the average man will be faster, stronger and higher than the average woman and in physical contact sports, a danger to them. In the circumstances then, a win by a trans-woman proves nothing that athletic contest is supposed to establish.Elsewhere, an activist calls it ‘genocide.’ A U of A professor tweets that Alberta’s LGBTQ2S community should wear pink triangles. And according to Rachel Notley, as reported on the CBC, Smith is being "cruel" and "disingenuous."In other words, Smith's policies have generated a good deal of heat among her enemies. The light however, has yet to appear.O tempora, o mores!There is one 'catch' question that remains to be asked, however. How many Albertans are waiting for a new hip which if you need one at all, you need very badly, because the available funds have been allocated to gender reassignment? Changing sex is the ultimate in elective surgery; shouldn't it be treated like plastic surgery or the administration of Botox, and paid for privately?Maybe a follow up question, at the next opportunity. I'll let you know when I get an answer.

HANNAFORD: What's in a name? In this case, absolutely nothing at all

Related Stories