You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Conversion Therapy’ tag.
Canada’s Bill C-4 was sold as a targeted ban on abusive “conversion therapy.” That goal of ending coercive, shame-based attempts to “pray the gay away”is legitimate, and the harms from such practices are well documented. (Library of Parliament)
But C-4 didn’t stop at prohibiting coercion. It built contested premises about “gender identity” into the Criminal Code—then wrapped ordinary clinical caution in legal risk. For children, that’s not a symbolic problem. It’s a downstream harm problem.
1) C-4 hard-codes a contested concept into criminal scope
The Criminal Code definition of “conversion therapy” includes any “practice, treatment or service designed to… change a person’s gender identity to cisgender,” or “repress… a person’s non-cisgender gender identity.” (Department of Justice Canada)
That’s not the same category as sexual orientation. Whatever one’s politics, “gender identity” is not measured like blood pressure. In real child psychotherapy, you do differential diagnosis: you test hypotheses, you treat comorbidities, you watch patterns over time, you revisit interpretations.
C-4 makes one interpretive direction toward “cisgender”a uniquely danger to be seen as the “design” of therapy. (Department of Justice Canada)
2) The preamble signals something stronger than “don’t abuse people”
The Act’s preamble denounces “myths and stereotypes,” including “the myth that… cisgender gender identity… [and] gender expression that conforms to the sex assigned… are to be preferred over other… gender identities.” (Parliament of Canada)
Supporters will say this is a dignity claim: no one should be pressured to “be cis.” Fine. But when Parliament declares a core premise a “myth,” it doesn’t just condemn abuse it pressures institutions to treat skepticism as suspect.
In therapy, that matters, because the clinician’s job is not to recite a moral slogan. It’s to find the causal engine of distress in a specific child.
3) “Exploration” is permitted—until it looks like exploration with a destination
C-4 includes a “for greater certainty” carve-out for “exploration or development of an integrated personal identity… such as… gender transition,” provided the service is not “based on an assumption that a particular… gender identity… is to be preferred over another.” (Department of Justice Canada)
Here’s the problem: in actual clinical practice, the line between exploration and influence is not a clean statutory boundary.
A careful therapist might say:
- “Let’s treat anxiety/OCD first and see what remains.”
- “Let’s explore trauma and dissociation before we interpret identity claims.”
- “Let’s reduce online reinforcement and stabilize sleep, mood, and social stress.”
- “Let’s slow down—puberty is a confounder, not an oracle.”
That’s not “conversion.” That’s normal clinical sequencing.
But under C-4’s language, a motivated complainant (or risk-averse administrator) can reframe caution as an attempt to “repress” a non-cis identity, or as therapy “designed” to steer toward “cisgender.” (Department of Justice Canada)
Even if a prosecution is unlikely, the chilling effect doesn’t require convictions. It only requires enough ambiguity that clinicians and clinics decide it’s not worth the exposure.
4) This isn’t “college policy.” It’s Criminal Code territory.
Bill C-4 received Royal Assent on December 8, 2021 and came into force in January 2022. (Parliament of Canada)
It created Criminal Code offences around causing someone to undergo conversion therapy, promoting/advertising it, and profiting from it. (Parliament of Canada)
So when therapists ask, “Can I safely do exploratory work with this child without being accused of ‘conversion’?” they are not being melodramatic. They are doing what professionals do when lawmakers write broad definitions: they assume the worst plausible reading—and they self-censor.
5) Why this hits children hardest
Adults can absorb bad ideology and still have time to course-correct. Kids often can’t.
Children need therapy that is:
- exploratory (many hypotheses, not one script),
- developmentally sober (puberty changes the picture),
- comorbidity-first (anxiety, depression, autism traits, trauma, dissociation),
- family-systems aware (parents are usually the safety net, not “the enemy”),
- outcome-humble (no foreclosed conclusions).
C-4 subtly tilts the playing field: it makes “don’t be seen as steering away from trans identity” the safest institutional posture regardless of whether that posture serves the child in front of you.
6) Why this question is sharper now
After the February 10, 2026 Tumbler Ridge shootings, public attention has turned—again—to institutional failure chains: mental health, gatekeeping, warning signs, and what “care” actually means when a young person is unstable. The BC RCMP’s Feb 13 update refers to autopsies for “eight victims and the suspect” (nine deceased total), and notes ongoing review of prior interactions with the suspect. (RCMP)
A tragedy doesn’t “prove” a policy critique. But it does remove the luxury of pretending that scripts are the same thing as safeguards.
A better standard (without reviving abusive conversion practices)
If Parliament’s aim is to ban coercion and fraud, it can do so cleanly without criminalizing clinical caution.
A fix would explicitly protect:
- Open-ended psychotherapy for gender distress, including differential diagnosis and comorbidity treatment.
- Neutral therapeutic goals (reducing distress, improving functioning, strengthening self-acceptance) without predetermining identity outcomes.
- The clinician’s ability to discuss biological sex reality, uncertainty, and developmental pathways without that being treated as “preference” or “myth.” (Parliament of Canada)
- Bright-line prohibitions aimed at the actual evils: coercion, aversive techniques, confinement, threats, and misrepresentation.
Canada can still denounce abuse and defend evidence-based exploration. Kids deserve therapists unbound by ideology—not just ideology unbound by evidence.
References
- Bill C-4 — First Reading (House of Commons) — Nov 29, 2021
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/first-reading
Source: (Parliament of Canada) - Bill C-4 — Third Reading (House of Commons) — Dec 1, 2021
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/third-reading
Source: (Parliament of Canada) - Bill C-4 — Royal Assent (Chapter 24) — Dec 8, 2021
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-4/royal-assent
Source: (Parliament of Canada)
Core legal text (Criminal Code, consolidated)
- Criminal Code — s. 320.101 (definition + exploration carve-out)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.101.html - Statutes of Canada 2021, c. 24 (Annual Statutes full text — includes preamble)
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/AnnualStatutes/2021_24/FullText.html
Official legislative record / metadata (timeline, status)
- LEGISinfo — Bill C-4 (44-1) (dates, stages, summary trail)
https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-4
Source: (Parliament of Canada)
Neutral institutional summary
- Library of Parliament — Legislative Summary (PDF)
https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/bdp-lop/ls/YM32-3-441-C4-eng.pdf
Source: (Government of Canada Publications)
Government explainer / enforcement framing
- Justice Canada — “Conversion therapy” page (in-force date, offences overview)
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ct-tc/p1.html
Context reference used in the essay (Tumbler Ridge)
- RCMP — Tumbler Ridge investigative update (Feb 13, 2026)
https://rcmp.ca/en/bc/tumbler-ridge/news/2026/02/4350292
Greetings my fellow Canadians. I need you to take action on the the bill that is before the Canadian Parliament :Bill C-8.
Why Bill C-8 will be harmful to children and parental rights –
“Under the guise of prohibiting “conversion therapy,” Bill C-8 would make it a criminal offence for parents to help their own gender-confused children find peace in accepting their biological gender.The Liberal government’s proposed legislation, introduced as a First Reading on March 9, defines “conversion therapy” as “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour.”
This proposed House of Commons legislation has the same major flaws that the Senate’s Bill S-202 had, as I argued in 2019. Under C-8, parents could spend up to five years in jail for trying to help their son accept himself as a boy, or for helping their daughter to accept herself as a girl. Bill C-8 also would impose prison terms up to five years for doctors, counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists and other paid professionals whose treatment for gender confusion departs from politically correct orthodoxy. Parents would be punished if they do anything other than encourage a confused child to “transition” to the opposite gender. Transitioning is an extreme form of intervention that includes taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergoing permanent surgical sterilization, including the removal of healthy organs such as breasts and testicles.
Bill C-8’s preamble denounces as “myth” that a person’s “gender identity” can and ought to be changed. This ignores reality. Many people – especially some minors – do experience change in their gender identity. Confusion during puberty later resolves in favour of their biological sex. Bill C-8 ignores the leading work of Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, who for many years was psychologist-in-chief at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and headed up its Gender Identity Service. An international authority on gender dysphoria in children and adolescents, he and Dr. Susan Bradley helped hundreds of children integrate their gender identity with their biological reality, saving them from a lifetime of dependency on cross-sex hormones. Their work demonstrates that with appropriate therapy and encouragement, the vast majority of gender-confused children come to accept their bodies by the time they reach the age of 18.
“Transitioning” is not the panacea Bill C-8 makes it out to be. For example, a 2011 comprehensive study shows that post-surgery transgender people in Sweden commit suicide at a rate 19 times higher than the national average. Bill C-8 further ignores the rapidly growing number of deeply unhappy and disillusioned people who have “transitioned” genders and are now “detransitioning” back to their biological sex.
If Bill C-8 becomes law, it appears that the only legal treatment available to Canadian youth who struggle with their gender identity will be “transitioning” toward the opposite gender: puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormone injections, and eventually gender-reassignment surgery. The law’s definition of “conversion therapy” still allows for “a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development,” so there may be some wiggle room. But C-8’s clear prohibition on changing “gender identity” to conform to biological reality, combined with C-8’s preamble declaring that gender identity should never be changed, means that counselling to help a child accept biological reality becomes practically illegal.”
Contact your MP right away and outline your concerns. I’ve talked with my fellow blogger Tildeb and he has given me (and you permission) to use the form of his letter to raise your concerns to your MP. Thank you Tildeb for your contributions in the struggle for a rational approach to gender ideology and safeguarding female rights, boundaries, and safety.
“I am gravely concerned about the inclusion of gender in this proposed Bill [C-8] that criminalizes conversion therapy.
Gender-based scientific research is starkly insufficient and lacking biological knowledge compared to sex-based research. Sex-base research is currently under attack by gender identity ideologues driving researchers out of the field and closing facilities offered by universities. I have grounds to properly fear that this well-intended inclusion in this Bill will be successfully used by gender identity ideologues and activists to threaten those who criticize the role of gender identity as it now stands, criticism like questioning the safety of female inmates from sexual assault by fully intact male inmates – some who have killed children – identifying as women (a deplorable allowance that is currently in place by misguided federal policy), criticism of male encroachment into female spaces like rape centers and domestic abuse shelters whose public funding is stopped when they deny fully intact males from admission, criticism of the encroachment of fully intact males into dominating female sports and using a convenient switch in gender identity to gain the financial rewards and professional advancements from competition, criticism of fully intact males bullying and driving out of business those who provide female only services like waxing. And the list goes on and on and on. You’ve heard these cases. You stay silent in public but surely you must say something in caucus!
By inserting gender identity into outlawing conversion therapy – an unsuccessful therapy intended to alter biologically driven sexual preference for same sex to the opposite sex which sex-based research shows us is both harmful and ineffective – you are enabling ideologues of gender identity politics to not just displace females from female safe spaces with the permission of the legal code (gender advocates can threaten anyone who disagrees with legal censure under this proposed Bill) but gain special access to influence and direct prepubescent children to begin physiological and chemical therapy – in many jurisdictions without the consent or even knowledge of parents – whenever the child indicates any gender questioning – by threatening legal censure of anyone who dares to intervene… including parents!
This Bill is a green light for those who wish to advance gender identity over, and in place of, compelling sex-based scientific research and psychiatric best practices such as Watchful Waiting. The science is being driven underground while the ideology is becoming law!
Why so many politicians agree with these ideologues that biology magically ends at the neck and gender identity takes over, is a modern mystery but by enabling gender ideologues the legal power to suppress criticism in the name of either hate speech or partaking of illegal conversion therapy is a legal and ethical travesty waiting to happen, a travesty any academic who investigates this issue with an open mind and concern for what is true in reality should not endorse.
Please seriously reconsider the inclusion of gender in this Bill.”
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…