 |
Smith's history supporting queer rights isn't stellar. Just 12 years ago, she didn't think it was a big deal for one of her
then-Wildrose candidates to have called for all queer people to burn in a
"lake of fire". Her judgment has been questioned for some time. I think she's just gotten better at looking the part of premier lately.
Except last week when Smith announced new legislation she plans to introduce this fall in the Alberta legislature that would, among other things, ban gender-affirming health care of any kind for Alberta youth 15 years old or younger, even puberty blockers and hormones.
Smith's paternalistic rationale given to justify this ban is that youth must be prevented from making decisions they may regret later in life.
It's the same sort of paternalistic, nonsensical thinking that surrounded the debate over sexual orientation and gay people in decades past in Canada. Back then, many conservatives like Smith also believed being gay was somehow a "phase" or something you fell into by choice, and could easily be "converted" out of through some old-fashioned Christian deprogramming. Of course, they were wrong then about gay people, just as they're wrong today about trans people. I knew I was gay when I was 13, and it definitely wasn't some "phase."
The end result of this particular provision in Smith's proposed law today will be that more trans youth - who typically experience higher rates of depression, self harm and suicide after the onset of puberty - will have to suffer in painful silence until they're 16 before they can do anything about it. Many more of them won’t make it to 16 if this law passes.
Smith is also promising to ban trans girls from competing in
sports against cisgender girls. It's not clear at all that this is a
problem in Alberta or anywhere else. It's not like there are armies of
highly athletic and muscular trans girls demanding to get into girls'
soccer leagues or swim teams. This is a solution in search of a problem.
In addition, Smith announced that should trans kids under 16 want to at least be called a name or a pronoun that conforms with their gender at school, they will be outed to their parents, who will then be able to veto this freedom. If those parents then become violent toward those kids or kick them out of their homes, Smith doesn't seem to care.
Furthermore, Smith announced if 16 or 17-year-olds want to change their names or pronouns at school, they will also be outed to their parents (who at least won't have a veto over that choice). If those same parents then become violent toward those young people or kick them out of their homes, Smith again doesn't seem to care.
The end results of all of these policies will be more suicides, more self harm, and more violence.
Smith's plans also call for bans on any types of gender-affirming surgeries for those under 18.So why ban something that isn't even happening?
The answer is simple: Smith's priority is playing politics and further inciting cultural wars, and she seems happy to sacrifice the well-being and safety of queer youth to do it. Rabid right-wing zealots have latched onto the issue of transgendered peoples as a wedge issue to try to spread hate, divide societies and win more political power.
Smith is a part of that problem, as evidenced by her recent appearance with American right-wing liar Tucker Carlson, Canadian asshole extraordinaire Jordan Peterson and convicted criminal Conrad Black.
Even more awful was Smith's duplicitous presentation last week, speaking in soft tones (what an accomplished actor she is), pretending to "care" about the well-being of queer youth. While in truth, she stabbed them in both the face and the back.
Tucked away in the announcement is the pledge to now remove "sexual orientation" education, as well as "gender identity" education and even sex education from school lessons for all Alberta youth unless their parents "opt in" and consent to their kids receiving these lessons. Yes, Alberta students won't be allowed to learn anything about LGBTQ+ people unless parents are okay with it.
In the 80s and early 90s, my high school was a hotbed of homophobia and violent harassment mostly thanks to my fellow heterosexual students. I suffered in great silence and isolation in my Catholic public school, but I don't think my experiences were much different from those who attended public schools in Ontario. Rampant, repulsive homophobia was completely mainstream then. It was hard to live through.
Today, sadly, I suspect if you walk down typical high school hallways in Ontario, Alberta, or anywhere, I'm sure there's little difference: verbal assaults using the word "faggot" I hear are still common, as is vicious bullying, as we know.
Schools, school boards and governments are obliged to try to provide safe learning environments for all children, not just heterosexual children.
The introduction of mandatory education into the truths around sexual orientation - including that LGBTQ+ people don't choose their orientations, and that homosexuality exists in roughly the same percentages (about 3 to 5%) across all demographics in society and has for centuries (since we've been able to record these histories) - is essential to combating homophobia in schools and promoting the safety of queer youth in our care.
To make this essential education now optional, with the likelihood the most homophobic will now be free to continue their homophobic bullying, even encouraged to do so implicitly by Smith's draconian law, will make Alberta schools more dangerous for queer youth and queer people in general.
Even to target LGBTQ+ peoples for this special mistreatment sends a message of anti-queer disrespect, that there is something wrong about learning these truths. Why else would you be required to opt in to receive them?
Merely teaching children that LGBTQ+ people exist is not indoctrinating children. It's teaching them the truth about the real world. For the queer children in schools, learning you’re not alone saves lives.
It has long been clear that when it comes to laws governing children or youth in our care - such as in our public schools, or in other laws impacting on children - those laws must always be in the "best interests of the children." Courts have struck down numerous laws that violated the "best interests of children."
Of course, "best interests of the children" doesn't mean "doing whatever the kids want." In fact, many children might disagree often with what is determined to be in their best interests.
I do sympathize with parents who feel they have a right to know if their kid is using a different pronoun or name at school. I also sympathize with queer youth who have a right to privacy and safety as they struggle to figure out who they are and where they fit in this scary world.
As we struggle to find the right balance on this issue, I think one thing is clear: our laws should always be written with the best interests of children in mind.
The proposed laws announced last week by Danielle Smith are anything but. When or if Smith actually introduces this legislation in the Alberta legislature, we'll see if she includes the Charter of Rights' notwithstanding clause in it, which would exempt the legislation from Charter challenges for five years.
But I’m not sure even the notwithstanding clause would protect these laws from being challenged and struck down. They are clearly written in violation of the best interests of children or youth. They clearly put children and youth in danger and subject them to considerable harm. I expect the courts would agree and strike them down given the chance.
This is not an area in which provincial governments should be legislating. One-size-fits-all policies will lead to inevitable harm. We ought to leave these difficult, deeply personal and medical issues up to the individuals involved: the parents, the medical professionals, the educators, and most importantly, the children and youth in our care. Not overreaching, misguided politicians trying to win more political power for themselves.
2 comments:
What are "queer youth?" You seem to be using queer as a synonym for trans or gay, but if that's the case, why have a separate letter in the 2SLGBTQIA+ alphanumeric soup?
When I was in school in the '80s and '90s, queer was an insult thrown at gays and lesbians. For that reason, gays of our age tend to strongly reject that label. Now, as far as I can tell, queer is a lifestyle adjacent to homosexuality but actually practiced mostly by heterosexuals. It's what the kids these days might call appropriation. If that's not how you're using the term, let's at least be clear on how you're using it. Because Smith's measures seem to be aimed squarely at the T, and not at the other rainbow letters.
I have used "queer" since I started this blog in 2007 as a sort of generic, catch-all word to include gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans folks, and folks in between, etc. Anyone on the queer spectrum without having to use the alphanumeric soup of letters, as you call it, because it's hard to keep track of which letters are being used & when.
Yes, it was an insult in the 80s. We've reclaimed the word for our own. I don't consider it adjacent to homosexuality, I consider myself queer. I consider myself gay. I normally use the latter word as it's more specific.
And like I said, Smith's measures are not just aimed to trans kids. She's using this opportunity to make education about all LGBTQ+ / gay / queer folks less accessible. Because the only constituents she is worried about making happy are the social conservatives pushing all sorts of anti-LGBTQ+ / anti-queer policies.
Post a Comment