Just days ago, an Alberta judge paused new restrictions on gender-related procedures for minors, claiming that denying access to puberty blockers or hormone therapy could result in “irreparable harm.” "Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth."In other words, allowing a child’s body to naturally develop into maturity — with functioning reproductive organs, stable hormones, and intact fertility — could now be considered a form of “irreparable harm.” Apparently, letting puberty run its course is now a form of punishment.George Orwell once warned, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”This is a textbook example..The reasoning behind the judge’s decision flows from the same ideology that gave us one of the most hollow yet powerful slogans in modern politics: “My body, my choice.”It was ignored during COVID, when personal autonomy was cast aside in the name of public health and collective social responsibility. But that same slogan — often used to justify abortion — is now used to defend the chemical and surgical alteration of healthy children, all in the name of freedom, autonomy, and care, of course.In abortion debates, “my body, my choice” is less about autonomy than it is a rhetorical sword — a way to justify ending another body’s life: the unborn child’s. It cloaks violence — whether by dismemberment, chemical starvation, or lethal injection — in the language of personal rights. It pretends there’s only one body involved when there are at least two. And it disguises the elimination of the most vulnerable as a private decision the public is still expected to fund..Now, that same argument of radical personal autonomy is applied to gender ideology. But here, the logic doesn’t merely collapse — it implodes.It is your body — but if you claim you have the wrong body, then surely you’ve already denied the very thing you claim is yours. And if you’re suffering from gender dysphoria — a serious psychological condition that distorts one’s sense of reality and identity — how can it truly be your choice? We don’t perform liposuction on anorexics or amputate healthy limbs for those with body dysmorphia — because we understand that the problem isn’t the body, but the mind..Curiously, too, is the use of the phrase “gender-affirming care” — as if affirming one’s gender identity (a subjective, socially constructed sense of self, we’re told) somehow requires the removal or destruction of biological sex characteristics (objective, physical realities.)Yet we call it “affirmation,” even though it begins with total rejection—rejection of one’s biology, one’s development, and one’s unchangeable sex.Remarkably, this rejection is framed as “freedom” — even when it leads to lifelong medication, infertility, and the carving up of healthy flesh.Orwell might have called it doublethink: harm relabeled as healing, and disfigurement rebranded as liberation. Whatever we call it, it is domination — dressed in the drag of affirmation, care, and compassion.And yet there lies another contradiction: the political one..Premier Danielle Smith has taken a courageous first step by restricting gender-related procedures for minors — a move that sparked outrage from activists, relief from many parents, and now pause from the court. But while welcome, this step also reveals the limits of her commitment to the very principle she invokes: child protection and parental involvement.Her position appears reactive — shaped more by the visibility and controversy surrounding transgender issues than by any consistent principle of child protection or parental authority. Smith rightly insists that parents be involved when minors seek irreversible medical interventions — like cross-sex hormones or surgery. But why stop there?If parental involvement is vital when a child wants to change genders, shouldn’t it also matter when a child wants to end a pregnancy?In Alberta today, a minor can undergo an abortion — an invasive, irreversible, and entirely elective procedure — without her parents ever being notified. Meanwhile, that same child needs parental consent for something as routine as a cavity filling or a flu shot..The inconsistency is glaring. It undermines the very principle the government claims to uphold: that children deserve protection, and that parents have a right to be involved in life-altering decisions.Abortion and gender transition differ in method — one ends life; the other disfigures it. But both spring from the same worldview: that the body has no intrinsic meaning unless reshaped by the will. Both treat nature as error. Both separate the body from its purpose, and choice from consequence. And both are sold as care.Like the emperor in the old tale, this ideology marches forward — clothed in illusion and euphemism — and dares anyone to speak the truth.Until the child says what others won’t… and the spell begins to break.
Just days ago, an Alberta judge paused new restrictions on gender-related procedures for minors, claiming that denying access to puberty blockers or hormone therapy could result in “irreparable harm.” "Intentionally or not, the ban will signal that there is something wrong with or suspect about having a gender identity that is different than the sex you were assigned at birth."In other words, allowing a child’s body to naturally develop into maturity — with functioning reproductive organs, stable hormones, and intact fertility — could now be considered a form of “irreparable harm.” Apparently, letting puberty run its course is now a form of punishment.George Orwell once warned, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”This is a textbook example..The reasoning behind the judge’s decision flows from the same ideology that gave us one of the most hollow yet powerful slogans in modern politics: “My body, my choice.”It was ignored during COVID, when personal autonomy was cast aside in the name of public health and collective social responsibility. But that same slogan — often used to justify abortion — is now used to defend the chemical and surgical alteration of healthy children, all in the name of freedom, autonomy, and care, of course.In abortion debates, “my body, my choice” is less about autonomy than it is a rhetorical sword — a way to justify ending another body’s life: the unborn child’s. It cloaks violence — whether by dismemberment, chemical starvation, or lethal injection — in the language of personal rights. It pretends there’s only one body involved when there are at least two. And it disguises the elimination of the most vulnerable as a private decision the public is still expected to fund..Now, that same argument of radical personal autonomy is applied to gender ideology. But here, the logic doesn’t merely collapse — it implodes.It is your body — but if you claim you have the wrong body, then surely you’ve already denied the very thing you claim is yours. And if you’re suffering from gender dysphoria — a serious psychological condition that distorts one’s sense of reality and identity — how can it truly be your choice? We don’t perform liposuction on anorexics or amputate healthy limbs for those with body dysmorphia — because we understand that the problem isn’t the body, but the mind..Curiously, too, is the use of the phrase “gender-affirming care” — as if affirming one’s gender identity (a subjective, socially constructed sense of self, we’re told) somehow requires the removal or destruction of biological sex characteristics (objective, physical realities.)Yet we call it “affirmation,” even though it begins with total rejection—rejection of one’s biology, one’s development, and one’s unchangeable sex.Remarkably, this rejection is framed as “freedom” — even when it leads to lifelong medication, infertility, and the carving up of healthy flesh.Orwell might have called it doublethink: harm relabeled as healing, and disfigurement rebranded as liberation. Whatever we call it, it is domination — dressed in the drag of affirmation, care, and compassion.And yet there lies another contradiction: the political one..Premier Danielle Smith has taken a courageous first step by restricting gender-related procedures for minors — a move that sparked outrage from activists, relief from many parents, and now pause from the court. But while welcome, this step also reveals the limits of her commitment to the very principle she invokes: child protection and parental involvement.Her position appears reactive — shaped more by the visibility and controversy surrounding transgender issues than by any consistent principle of child protection or parental authority. Smith rightly insists that parents be involved when minors seek irreversible medical interventions — like cross-sex hormones or surgery. But why stop there?If parental involvement is vital when a child wants to change genders, shouldn’t it also matter when a child wants to end a pregnancy?In Alberta today, a minor can undergo an abortion — an invasive, irreversible, and entirely elective procedure — without her parents ever being notified. Meanwhile, that same child needs parental consent for something as routine as a cavity filling or a flu shot..The inconsistency is glaring. It undermines the very principle the government claims to uphold: that children deserve protection, and that parents have a right to be involved in life-altering decisions.Abortion and gender transition differ in method — one ends life; the other disfigures it. But both spring from the same worldview: that the body has no intrinsic meaning unless reshaped by the will. Both treat nature as error. Both separate the body from its purpose, and choice from consequence. And both are sold as care.Like the emperor in the old tale, this ideology marches forward — clothed in illusion and euphemism — and dares anyone to speak the truth.Until the child says what others won’t… and the spell begins to break.
