By J. Edward Les, MD

Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.

But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.

And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.

Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.

Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.

And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.

Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.

The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.

But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”

It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.

Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.

Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:

“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”

Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”

As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.

The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.

Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.

Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

In 1956, Marian Tompson and six other women founded the La Leche League in Illinois to promote breastfeeding over bottle feeding formula. Now 94, Tompson has resigned following the ‘trans’ takeover of her once woman-oriented mission.

In 1956, Marian Tompson and six other women founded the La Leche League in Illinois. Their goal was to create an organization in which mothers could assist other mothers with breastfeeding at a time when most babies in the United States were bottle-fed with formula. The organization was, at the time, counter-cultural. It soon spread around the world. In recent years, however, the League is anything but—and Marian Tompson, now 94 years old and one of the last surviving founders, has published a letter announcing her resignation from La Leche League entirely: 

Dear Leaders of La Leche League,

I want to share some important news.

On November 6, 2024, I resigned from the LLLI Board of Directors and from LLL itself, an organization that has become a travesty of my original intent.

From an organization with the specific Mission of supporting biological women who want to give their babies the best start in life by breastfeeding them, LLL’s focus has subtly shifted to include men who, for whatever reason, want to have the experience of breastfeeding despite no careful long-term research on male lactation and how that may affect the baby.

This shift from following the norms of Nature, which is the core of mothering through breastfeeding, to indulging the fantasies of adults, is destroying our organization.

Despite my efforts these past two years as a Board member, it has become clear that there is nothing I can do to change this trajectory by staying involved.

Still, I leave the door open to come back when La Leche League returns to its original Mission and Purpose.

I thank each of you for your years of making this world a healthier and happier place by being there for all mothers needing help with breastfeeding their babies.

With much love,

Marian Tompson

Founder of La Leche League

Tompson’s resignation is, I suspect, a long time coming. La Leche League has been slowly taken over by trans activists for some time, and the international board recently directed its affiliates in the UK to permit trans-identifying males to attend meetings once restricted exclusively to mothers. Miriam Main, a Scottish breastfeeding advocate, also announced that she is leaving La Leche League this week for similar reasons. Main noted, in her resignation letter, that she has tried to get leaders to listen to her concerns, but that she has been entirely ignored: 

In LLL publications and materials I noticed ‘mother’ being replaced with ‘parent’, ‘breastfeed’ being replaced with ‘chestfeed’, and women constantly being referred to as ‘breastfeeding families’. But these language changes very quickly evolved into a complete departure from LLL’s philosophy and mission, led by a group of zealots from within the organization. Leaders who expressed concerns about clarity of language – for example for women for whom English is not their first language – were ridiculed and abused.

We began to be told that as an inclusive organization we would have to welcome trans identifying men who wished to breastfeed to our meetings. Leaders then began to raise legitimate concerns about safeguarding issues. For example, the physical safety of a baby being breastfed by a man; the social and physiological safety of a mother separated from her baby so a man can breastfeed; the psychological safety of women in the room where a man is present; the need for privacy for women with certain religious beliefs. In raising such concerns, we were told we were transphobic, and we were compared to racists and Nazis – by other Leaders!

LLL’s leaders, Main wrote, have “shown that theoretical male lactation trumps the needs of real women living in the U.K.,” adding that the “grief I feel at losing LLL from my life is huge.” Neither Tompson nor Main have thus far responded to media requests outlining their positions further, but a survey of LLL websites highlights how far the rot of gender ideology has spread within the organization.  

LLL International’s site has an entire section on “transgender and non-binary parents” that provides step-by-step instructions for how males might be able to produce milk. This is despite the fact that there is no medical evidence that this is safe for the child—but LLL, like so many other hijacked institutions, is placing the desires of gender dysphoric men over the needs of children. La Leche League Canada has a section featuring a giant rainbow flag and the question “What is Chestfeeding?” in which they explain: 

Chestfeeding is a term used by some parents who identify as transmasculine and non-binary to describe how they feed and nurture their children from their bodies. A person who uses the term chestfeeding may, or may not, have had any surgery on their breast tissue. Other words that may be used are: ‘nursing’, ‘feeding’, ‘breastfeeding.’

Once again, we see that when trans activists talk about “inclusion,” in practice their demands mean precisely the opposite. By including men in female-only spaces, women who no longer feel safe are excluded. By including an entirely new set of organizational premises, the organization excludes the original founders and champions of that organization who cannot support the new vision. LLL is not the first organization to fall to trans activists, and it won’t be the last—but I believe that the pushback by women like Tompson and Main is truly making a difference in this debate.  

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.