LYTLE: Smith's calm decision stands out amid clamour of transgender confusion

In 1996, Hillary Clinton wrote a book premised on an African proverb that, “It takes a village to raise a child.” At the time I thought, “If the village comprises parents and extended family, then I am all in with African wisdom. If the village is Ms. Clinton’s view of the overweening role of government “support,” then she had best keep her grasping fingers off my children.” The United Conservative Party government recently registered its position regarding Ms. Clinton’s village. Our premier has declared her policy and has come down hard as “pro-parent.” It is bound to give the vapours to some. As in, first Tucker Carlson, now this!But, let’s take a deep breath before we loudly proclaim our certitudes, “She didn’t go far enough!” Or, “She’s gone too far!” The premier has actually found a highly defensible middle ground on the fractious discussion of transgender and same sex issues and the role of the family in arbitrating such issues with their underage children. Every Albertan with whom I have discussed the topic thinks that gender reconstruction surgery for adults is properly the decision of those adults. I think we can safely assume they have spent hours considering the pros and cons of their choice and it is not for the rest of us to pass judgement. My choice might not be theirs but who cares? We all live with our choices.However, in the case of adolescents and teens, does it really make sense that suffering from gender dysphoria is alleviated by the removal of genitalia? Physiological death or serious disease does not follow from the want of sex change surgery. But what about suicide? Might the agony of unrequited gender dysphoria inevitably lead to such an outcome? The jury seems to be out on that determination with ambiguous data and no clear answer..Which brings me back to the prudence of the premier’s approach. In the absence of an answer, it is best to “do no harm” until the individual suffering from gender dysphoria is of age and mature enough to make irreversible medical decisions on their own. Until such a coming of age, the premier has promised counselling and support to confused children and their parents. That seems appropriate.In the absence of a clear clinical direction for the surgical treatment of adolescent gender dysphoria, I am persuaded by the counsel of those who have been caught up in the maelstrom of the trans movement.In late 2022, for example, Chloe Cole filed suit against Kaiser Permanente, the hospital that performed transgender surgery on her when she was 15 years old. Her confused and, no doubt frightened, parents were lectured, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a live son?”Is the decision really that binary? I should think that the precautionary principle can be formulated to have some application. Ms. Cole has since de-transitioned and greatly misses those parts of her body which would allow her to give birth and suckle a child. “At 15, I wasn’t really thinking. I was a kid, just trying to fit in — not thinking about the possibility of becoming a parent.”Ms. Cole is not the only person who has been caught up in the arrogance of a medical system that has forgotten the prudence of epistemological precaution and is suing the hospital for their “gender affirming care."In early 2023, self-described queer Jamie Reed publicly renounced the work of gender clinics in the US and quit her job as a case manager for gender transitioning patients at the St. Louis Children’s Hospital. After four years of this work, she concluded, “… we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care…. I am speaking out knowing how toxic the public conversation is around this highly contentious issue — and the ways that my testimony might be misused. I am doing so knowing that I am putting myself at serious personal and professional risk.”Ms. Reed is emotionally supportive of the trans movement. (She is married to a trans man.) She has also worked in the gender reassignment business for four years and anticipated an onslaught of hate for speaking out. Her conclusions are entirely supported by Dr. Kaltiala of Finland who pioneered gender affirming care in that country and has now concluded that it is dangerous. Neither of these practitioners accepts the argument that suicide inevitably is a risk of withholding surgery from the underaged. I am persuaded by the bona fides of these two practitioners.Premier Smith has reaffirmed a self-evident truth that is as old as humanity. Parents have primary care and responsibility for their children. That bond cannot be broken to introduce teachers or medical professionals as undisclosed intermediaries, except in rare instances covered by existing law. Therefore, I am pleased that Madam Premier has made such a clear statement. Someone needed to bring an end to the growing ambiguity of the parental role in child rearing.She has also dealt humanely with an issue that, while not widespread, is certainly difficult for those so affected. They deserve and will receive necessary supportive care in concert with the knowledge and approval of both child and parents. That seems eminently reasonable to me.

LYTLE: Smith's calm decision stands out amid clamour of transgender confusion

Related Stories