“This conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity in the context of conversion therapy must be rejected, because these markers of identity are completely distinct. Indeed, many of the same progressive activists who campaign for laws such as C-4 have been emphasizing that exact same distinction for years. And so it is disingenuous for them to conflate the two as a means to stigmatize (or, as in this Canadian case, possibly criminalize) parents, educators, therapists, or doctors who may have legitimate good-faith concerns when it comes to transition.”
The legislation is very clear that exceptions exist so this seems an unnecessary fear.
"Any effects that the offence may have on Charter rights are tailored to the objective of preventing the harms associated with conversion therapy, as described above. The proposed offence would be limited to “practices, treatments or services”, all of which imply an established or formalized intervention. It would not criminalize conversations in which a person expresses an opinion on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, unless that conversation forms part of an intervention designed to make a person heterosexual or cisgender. Interventions that support an individual’s exploration and development of their own identity would not be prohibited, provided that they are not based on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another."
“But I still disagreed with the approach reflected in the new law—combining sexual orientation and gender identity in one ban. Sexual orientation relates to same-sex versus opposite-sex attraction. Gender identity, we are told, describes an inner, subjective sense of gender that apparently supersedes biological sex. I expressed caution at this mixing of these two incompatible ideas.”
“Gay men and women also exist. And our reality is based on biological sex. Gay people are “same-sex” attracted. This is what it means to be gay. Even homophobes understand this: The conversion therapies that many of us have endured were clearly intended to change our attraction from same-sex to opposite-sex.”
The two maybe distinct concepts as being gay encompasses same sex attraction but that’s just as much an inner sense of feeling that maybe be subject to confusion as gender identity is. The fact that its based on an association to biological sex rather than identity is irrelevant.
I have never agreed with (or even properly understood) such slogans as “Trans women are real women,” or, for that matter, “Trans men are real men” (although, interestingly, it is telling how much more common the former type of slogan is, as compared to the latter). People who identify as “trans” exist, in the obvious sense of being as “real” as you and me. But trans women are not the same as biological females. And while I’m no biologist, the word “woman” has always been defined and understood as referring to natal females. Biological males who identify as trans women, and biological females who are women, are not the same. This is what’s called reality.
This slogan was never intended to suggest that trans identifying females are identical to biological females rather they are just as valid & legitimate as biological females & as such are a kind of woman that should be accepted under the umbrella hood of woman. Like most political slogans this isn’t meant to be understood in a purely literal or definitional sense but to provoke attention & consideration. If trans females actually believed they were biological females they wouldn’t bother with any modifications so it’s a preposterous but convenient misrepresentation often invoked to maintain the trans delusion trope.
Whilst it’s true the concept of woman traditionally was associated with biological females, common acceptance via usage has established a duel understanding of this term. Words & concepts routinely evolve over time usually to accommodate functionality via multiple interpretations depending on context & ‘woman’ is no different. The word & concept of “chair” has evolved to encompass both a seat & a position but no ‘confusion’ or ‘erasure’ of understanding arises because humans are cognitively capable of such sophistications.
“It is antithetical to healthy counselling to push a patient in any one direction—including the direction of “affirmation.” The best that any counsellor can do is bear witness to a patient’s process, their grief, confusion, anger, sadness, bewilderment, depression, or despair, even to their self-destruction, but then, hopefully, maybe their mourning, revelations, and healing.”
Although it can certainly be appreciated that therapists can & do overstep their boundaries the gender affirmation model was never intended to be prescriptive &/or coercive but rather a patient centred supportive approach. Whilst it’s true counsellors in general are supposed to bear witness they are also required to offer support/services where appropriate in accordance with accepted standards.