Alberta Premier Danielle Smith addresses United Conservative Party party members at their annual meeting in Red Deer, Alta., on Nov. 2.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
A political fight unlike any other in Canada will play out in Alberta this fall.
Alberta’s NDP and other critics say the United Conservative Party’s sweeping proposed laws on sex ed, pronouns and transgender youth – even banning some medical treatments with prescriptive rules – are an example of gross government overreach that could harm vulnerable kids. Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said in an interview that if his party forms government, they will repeal the whole package.
On the other side, Premier Danielle Smith is confident she has the backing of a significant swath of Albertans, and perhaps Canadians more broadly, who quietly support parts of her push. She is also acting with an understanding of the wider world, where the medical approach to gender dysphoria is evolving.
It’s a subject that many didn’t want to become central in Alberta. It drags the province into the politics of the U.S., where those under the age of 18 are now barred from accessing gender-affirming treatments, to some degree, in half of the 50 states.
But here we are. The UCP introduced a trio of bills on Oct. 31, kicking off a stunningly long and broad list of changes: limits on gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth, a ban on transgender participation in women’s and girls’ sports, and requiring parental consent for pronoun changes for children aged 15 and under at school, with notification once kids are 16 and 17. The Alberta government will also require parents to opt in for their children to receive instruction related to gender identity, sexual orientation or human sexuality.
Mr. Nenshi believes the real question is: what problem is Ms. Smith trying to solve? “I believe government should try to solve the biggest problems that affect the largest number of people.” Needless to say, it’s not what he thinks is happening here.
The change on sex ed might end up being the most consequential. Having parents opt in, instead of opt out, and requiring notification each time the class talks gender, might affect the largest number of kids, many of whom will be cut out by the omission of a permission slip.
Participating in organized sports is one of the thorniest issues. The Premier said she wants biological female-only divisions, and also wants to see the creation of new co-ed divisions inclusive of transgender athletes. In the clearest example of how detailed – or heavy-handed – her government’s rules are, schools or provincial sports organizations will be required to notify the government if they set up a mixed-sex league (it makes you wonder, where are the libertarian instincts Ms. Smith use to have?)
In other cases, it’s not clear what the new rules will change. For instance, in Canada doctors do not perform bottom gender-reassignment surgeries on people younger than 18. Top surgeries are relatively uncommon. Gender-affirming treatments that don’t involve surgery are, frankly, the bigger question. The Alberta legislation will ban puberty blockers for children aged 15 and under, and would allow for minors aged 16 and 17 to commence puberty blockers and hormone therapies with parental, physician and psychologist approval.
The argument in favour of temporarily delaying puberty is that it puts a pause on development, and allows time for teens to figure things out. Medical professionals and families say they have seen depression or suicidal thoughts in some youth ease. The medical effects are described as reversible.
But while the pros of treatment might outweigh the cons, there can be longer-term medical consequences such as bone density or fertility loss. Some European countries limited treatment for minors in recent years, citing uncertainty about outcomes. There is increasing pushback on a gender-affirming culture that sometimes posits that you must do this for your child or they might harm themselves. That’s a Hobson’s choice for parents.
Even research is fraught. Last month, The New York Times reported that an influential U.S. doctor hadn’t published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged political environment. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy has found that puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, because the children were already doing well when the study began. “I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said of the release of her study.
That’s somewhat understandable. There’s a culture war on in the U.S., with even the Supreme Court weighing in on gender treatments for youth. In Alberta, there’s no doubt the measures have helped affirm Ms. Smith’s much-desired position as the most unapologetic conservative in the country. It’s no coincidence her bills were introduced two days before she faced a crucial party leadership review.
Politicizing pronouns and medical treatments for troubled youth is still not a good path for the province. Even if practices are evolving, it’s better to let medical practitioners lead the way.