🇨🇦 You can follow the progress of #billc6 to ban 'conversion therapy' at this link. parl.ca/LegisInfo/Bill…
The bill is the same wording as Bill C8 from the last session with all the multiple drafting flaws. While Minister of Justice @MinJusticeEn David Lametti has been /2
that the bill is not intended to criminalize private conversations or expressions of opinions, he has not been very clear on what it does ban. Everyone is agreeing that certain forms of conversion therapy' very band and should be banned but nobody can say what they are. /3
This is not acceptable when you are talking about criminal laws which carry a maximum penalty of give years in prison. Is there anyone in the government who can give a concrete example of a practice that the bill will ban or an example of a practice that is permitted? /4
For example, would it be acceptable for a therapist to recommend that a teenager for cross sex hormones because he or she had autism spectrum issues which had not been explored. What about a blood condition that might make hormone treatment dangerous? genderreport.ca/gender-dysphor…
/5
Some of the drafting is just thoughtless. There is a blanket ban on any attempt to reduce or repress non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behavior. The plain meaning of these words would ban therapy for minor attracted person or someone with a harmful sexual fetish. /6
The bill defines conversion therapy as changing gender identity to "cisgender." How do non-binary, agender, gender fluid or any of the hundreds of other possible gender identities fit into this wording? How will this language impact therapy for detransitioners who want to /7
re-identify which their natal sex? Did anyone in the government consider these issues? Will anyone in Parliament consider them before the bill is passed?
Please note that I do not equate being LGBT with pedophilia. The bill fails to make this distinction. At minimum, it needs to be amended to permit therapy to repress or reduce sexual behaviuor which is harmful or unlawful.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ This has not been a good year for the World Professional Association for Transgender Health @WPATH. It began with the news that its membership had plummeted by 60% over a year. criticaltherapyantidote.org/2024/01/17/bre…
@wpath 2/ In March, the WPATH Files by Mia Hughes (@_CryMiaRiver) exposed internal discussions which showed WPATH members' disregard for science and medical ethics.
@wpath @_CryMiaRiver 3/ In April, the Cass Review concluded that the WPATH SOC8 was not reliable clinical guideline and could not recommend using it in the UK.
1/ A recent critique of the Cass Review exposes the real agenda of the activist clinicians supporting gender affirming care. They don't care about evidence based medicine because their case for GAC has nothing to do with promoting good health.
2/ This is made clear in this paragraph which argues that "evaluating the efficacy of GAC based on psycho social well-being is misguided." In the authors view, looking for mental health benefits from GAC involves pathologizing "transness."
3/ The article draws heavily on an argument by Florence Ashley, who is a co-author, that GAC should be treated in the same way as reproductive health. These arguments were refuted in a recent article by @GorinMoti onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ha…
1/ This excellent New York Times interview with Hilary Cass ends with a statement from the president of the @AmerAcadPeds about their so-called systematic review which shows that he does not understand evidence-based medicine. nytimes.com/2024/05/13/hea…
@AmerAcadPeds 2/ AAP president Dr. Benjamin Hoffman said that the group had considered the Cass Review and "added it to the evidence base undergoing a systematic review." This is not how systematic reviews work.
@AmerAcadPeds 3/ Systematic reviews consider primary research rather than government policy documents like the Cass Review. More importantly, the decision as to what is included in a systematic review is determined by pre-registered search criteria.
1/ I suppose it's good that the @globeandmail have featured this article by @RobynUrback on the front page but the kids the medical system is labelling as trans and sterilizing deserve better still.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…
@globeandmail @RobynUrback 2/ The article starts with a discussion of the Dutch approach to affirmative care but fails to note just how weak their research was. The whole model of care is based on a study of 55 subjects with a 1 year follow up period, and no control group. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
@globeandmail @RobynUrback 3/ The article discusses the increase in referrals to clinics and the fact that 79% of patients are now "born female" but does not give a good idea of the magnitude and potential significance of this change.
1/ It is two weeks since the Cass Review was published the The @globeandmail, which describes itself as Canada's national news organization has not printed a word about it. Why the silence?
@globeandmail 2/ The @globeandmail cannot claim that the Cass Review is not newsworthy. Its main competitor, the @Nationalpost has written on it extensively as has every other major newspaper in the English speaking world.
@globeandmail @nationalpost 3/ Coverage of the Cass Review has not been confined to the conservative press. Liberal leaning outlets like the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times and even The Toronto Star have given it balanced coverage. thestar.com/opinion/star-c…
1/ Another falsehood in the awful CBC coverage of the Cass Report which needs to be refuted in detail is the claim the puberty blockers are reversible. cbc.ca/news/health/pu…
2/ This issue did not receive a lot of attention in the Cass report because NHS England updated its website to remove a claim that puberty blockers are fully reversible back in 2020. However, the claim still persists in Canada in the face of the evidence. transgendertrend.com/nhs-no-longer-…
3/ The CBC story refers to the Canadian Paediatric Society position statement which in turn cites WPATH SOC8. This is what WPATH says. None of the references in the paragraph are to research that supports the claim that puberty blockers are reversible. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…