With U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order reaffirming that there are only two sexes — male and female — he guaranteed that gender ideology will be a prominent issue in the upcoming Canadian election. Canadian politicians are already being called on to respond.
For the last decade, Canadian LGBT activists have taken over our institutions almost entirely unopposed. Having redefined marriage, the LGBT movement now redefined biological sex. Progressive politicians were delighted to go along with this new iteration of the sexual revolution, and right-wing parties, gun-shy and jumpy after the victory of same-sex “marriage” and terrified of being accused of being social conservatives, either passively accepted these changes or, in many cases (such as the Trudeau government’s insidious “conversion therapy ban”) actively assisted them.
That began to change as several premiers, starting with New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs, endorsed parental rights policies as it became apparent that overnight, without any discussion, approval or even notification, the public school system had begun to “transition” children without the knowledge and frequently against the wishes of their parents. Last fall, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith went a step further, banning sex-change surgeries and puberty blockers for minors and legislating far more robust parental rights policies, the first such laws in the country.
LGBT activists insisted that these premiers were starting a “culture war”; the reality is that Canada has not yet had a “culture war” over transgender ideology, and it badly needs one. What trans activists mean by a “culture war” is that people are noticing the changes they have been imposing on Canadians from the top-down and have begun to object. When trans activists begin enshrining a new ideology into law without the consent of the governed, it is progress. When people disagree with them, it is a “culture war.” (Shut up, they explained.)
As I have noted before, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has read the country and begun to carefully pivot away from the LGBT movement’s increasingly unpopular agenda and toward the common-sense consensus. He endorsed parental rights protesters; he has resolutely refused to use the language of gender ideology, including nonsensical phrases like “transgender woman”; he has endorsed and defended a number of common-sense policies, including protecting female-only spaces, sports teams, and keeping men out of women’s prisons. In doing so, he has referred not to “transgender women” in female prisons but simply men. This rhetorical shift is significant because it rejects the fundamental premises of the LGBT movement.
A journalist promptly asked Poilievre if his government would adopt a similar position on gender. Poilievre responded, “Well, I don’t know. Do you have any other genders you’d like to name?” The reporter declined to answer that and reiterated the question. “I’m not aware of any other genders than men and women,” Poilievre replied. “If you have any others you’d like me to consider, you’re welcome to tell me right now.” The reporter observed that he “personally” is a man but asked Poilievre if he would recognize “gender-neutral” or “transgender.” For the third time, Poilievre affirmed that he was only aware of two genders. The reporter moved on.
For years, I have written in this space that the easiest way to debunk trans idealogues is to ask them to name the 72 (and counting!) genders they have wished into existence — and that the easiest way to prove that transgender premises are not accepted by most normal Canadians is to ask them to name, say five or 10 of the 72. Outside of activist circles, virtually nobody can. Poilievre gambled that the reporter, who was carrying water for the LGBT movement, would not be able to give him a list of genders other than the two sexes, male and female. He was right.
On other side of the spectrum, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is going all in. Asked by a reporter if Canada should amend the “safe third country” agreement to accept trans-identifying refugees fleeing America’s recognition of two biological sexes, Singh heartily agreed, stating that what was going in the United States is very terrifying:
Finally, we have two distinct positions on biological reality emerging in Canadian politics. On one side, sanity: There are two sexes, male and female. On the other, we have politicians who believe that merely articulating that fact constitutes a threat so grave that individuals who hear it might have to flee to another country. That debate will be front and center in this year’s election, and it’s about time.
