Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
Transgender ideology is destructive, but its proponents fail to see the harm. In New Brunswick, there is a debate over a policy that requires parents to be informed if their child wants to be referred to with a name reflecting the opposite gender. Some people oppose this, suggesting that it violates the rights of the child. However, studies show that the best environment for a child is to be raised by two loving biological parents. Advocates for transgender care are misguided, as a recent report from the UK found no reliable evidence to support gender affirming care for youth. The transgender community's hardline stance can be harmful to children. Good afternoon. This is Thursday, April the 25th, and here is my commentary for the week. Transgender ideology, like all ideologies without facts, is destructive. But the ideologues are blind to the harm. They believe what they want. The adage my mind has made up, don't confuse me with the facts, certainly applies to the transgender discussion in New Brunswick. Sometime in the mid-2010s, a strange ideology exploded into the public consciousness. It was the idea that some men are women and some women are men. Caught off guard, many people, failing to see the harm, went along with it, thinking it was meant in a metaphorical sense. Here in the province of New Brunswick, the debate rages because the Higgs government changed policy 713 so that if a student does decide they want to be referred to with a name different from their own and more closely reflecting the opposite gender to which they feel they belong, has changed the wording so that for children under 16 years of age, before the school can accommodate such a request, parents must be informed. For some reason, many in the province have found that to be a bad move, and this I don't understand. When did the ideology that the state should have more control over the raising of children than parents happen? Every study that I've ever read says categorically the best environment for a child is to be raised in a home with two loving biological parents. Any deviation from that environment is less than ideal. That's not to suggest that the circumstances of life that mitigate against the ideal home environment results in malformed or maladjusted children, although that can be the case. But as loving parents and caring people, if we know that the ideal cannot be accommodated, then we try as hard as we can to compensate for it. To suggest that teachers withhold information from parents is nothing less than undermining the home. We move into a position where we say the state knows better than parents. The logical conclusion is that the state has unlimited control over what our children learn and how they are raised. If you have lived into adulthood and have paid attention, one of the things that becomes abundantly clear is that no one has enough knowledge or experience to be able to dictate to others how they should live their lives. That is the fundamental principle of living in a free and democratic society. For those who advocate the turning back of Policy 713 to its previous language and mandating teachers withhold information from parents, suggests that by not keeping the child secret, that it is a human rights violation of the child. Here again the logic escapes me. Essentially what is being said, that the fundamental protective environment, the home and parents, can be violated. It seems to me that the human rights issue regarding children is that their human rights are being violated with the previous policy. Transgender advocates have it all twisted up. So they are correct in that it is a human rights issue. But the human rights issue is not as they contend. The previous policy violated the child's human rights. The present policy affirms it. In the last few months a report has come from the United Kingdom that calls into question a number of the claims of those who advocate for child affirming care. The report was commissioned in 2020 and was led by pediatrician Hilary Cass. The report was published in the British Medical Journal. And the report found guidelines for the treatment of children with gender dysphoria ignored standards and are based on flimsy foundations. Pediatrician Hilary Cass' much anticipated report found no reliable evidence on which to base gender affirming care for youth. The rationale for blocking puberty in young children remains unclear and muddled and that the use of cross-sex hormones in those under 18 presents numerous unknowns. Prior to 2010, the statistics all pointed that the numbers were very low and they were almost always males who wished to be females. The fact that there were women who wanted to be men was almost non-existent. In the wake of this new information and the demonstrable harm for those children who actually proceed with transgender care this hardline stance taken by the transgender community is ill-advised at best and dangerously harmful at worst. Well that's my opinion for this Thursday, April 25th. My name is Gordon Wilson and if any of you have an opinion contrary to mine and I'm sure there are, you can send me your response to gawilsonatlive.ca That's gawilsonatlive.ca
