You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Gender Dysphoria’ 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
“So, what is the takeaway from this analysis? The single biggest observation is that, contrary to what has been asserted by advocates of youth transition, most adolescents with a GD diagnosis will not have this diagnosis within as few as seven years, during the period of rapid identity development. The single most important implication is that there is no empirical basis for assuming that most adolescents presenting with GD are destined to live as gender-transitioned adults. This further suggests that the GD diagnosis presents a dubious basis for offering teens life-altering interventions with permanent impacts on health and functioning.”
You can always tell in a argument with the gender religious when you are about to hit one of the many contradictions inherent in the ideology, it’s when the accusations of being a bigot or being transphobic or the slur ‘terf’ is leveled at you.
Here’s a big ‘ole controversial issue: Is being transgendered a mental health condition?
Actually it is, and often presents with a host of serious comorbidities that can drastically affect an individuals well being. But often, we’re not allowed to even get this far, as the word ‘transgender’ is almost always defined vaguely and uniquely in the moment and framing ‘trans’ in terms of the mental disorder literature is met with cries “bigotry & transphobia”. It shuts down conversation because who wants to be called a bigoted transphobe? Just imagine if people who have anorexia pulled the same evasive denial bullshit – you’d be a body-shaming bigot in seconds for rightly pointing out an obvious discontinuity between reality and the anorexic’s self image. The tactic is bullshit in both cases.
This returns to another one of the fundamental problems with transgender ideology – the absolute lack of definitional clarity. The terms “trans” and “gender-identity” are nebulous. Who qualifies as an authentic transgender person? Who the fuck knows? The person in question often doesn’t know. Does being trans require having gender dysphoria (sometimes)? Is it autogynephilia (in many cases)? It is a crap-shoot, but almost always you never get to the point to where you can nail down what being ‘trans’ is.
The evasiveness isn’t helping anyone, especially the people who call themselves trans as said earlier being trans comes with a host of linked conditions that can severely impact an individuals mental health. Yet here we are stuck arguing over definitions while people are injured.
Why? Because a small subset of the trans community demands that society renounce the physical reality we all share and adopt gender religious mantra’s like ‘trans women are women’. If you respect science, and material reality, then the previous mantra must be regarded as patently false.
Human beings cannot change sex. Men, cannot become women, no matter how much genderfeelings-magic they invoke. But rather than have a real conversation about how trans people fit into society the low road is taken and any questions or concerns with transgender ideology are shouted down and the person making the inquiries personally attacked.
A lose/lose situation for everyone involved.
A recent study from Denmark looked at 359 transgender patients. In 75% of them, cross-gender identification was interpreted as a byproduct of other psychiatric illnesses, notably personality, mood, dissociative, and psychotic disorders. Major mood disorders, dissociative disorders and psychotic disorders were reported in 79% of transgenders.
Likewise in Sweden, a separate study found that “Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior”
In fact, 30% of transgenders commit suicide. Suicide.org says that 90% of all suicides are the direct result of untreated mental illness. A 2013 U.S.-based study showed 90% of transgenders have mental disorders consisting of depression and anxiety–known causes of suicide.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states that transgender people often experience disproportionately high levels of mental health conditions.
The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (USTS) is the largest survey specifically looking at the experiences of transgender people in America. 27,715 people responded from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and U.S. military bases overseas. 39% reported serious psychological distress. Only 5% of the general United States population reports the same. Alarmingly, 40% of the transgender survey respondents indicated they had attempted suicide at some point in their lifetime.
The 2019 Trevor Project National Survey was the largest survey of LGBTQ youth mental health ever conducted. It had more than 34,000 respondents. The results indicate more than half of transgender youth have seriously considered suicide and that nearly 70% of transgender youth show symptoms of a major depressive disorder.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, says that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment. He also says that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder, rather than treating it. Dr. McHugh is no casual observer. He is the author of at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles and six books.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines transgenderism as a mental disorder.
The American College of Pediatricians joins other experts in condemning gender reclassification in children. They mince no words, making the bold statement that transgenderism in children amounts to child abuse.
As a result, ThinkProgress, a left-wing activist group, labeled The American College of Pediatricians as a hate group. They aren’t a hate group. They are medical doctors who treat and speak with children every day. Their opinion, like this column, is not transphobic; they don’t fear transgender individuals.
I certainly don’t advocate bullying transgender individuals or anyone for that matter, and I’m sure the American College of Pediatricians doesn’t either, but as a society, we can’t look at a group of folks clearly exhibiting mental illness and ignore it. We can’t pretend it’s normal. It’s not. Any condition with sky-high incidents of suicide must be given care and concern, must be treated and must be corrected. Not bullied, not dismissed but most certainly not ignored under the pretense they are just fine.”
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…