Stop censoring unpopular speech

Many residents of Hamilton drive the Lincoln Alexander Parkway daily. While billboards are not as ubiquitous along Canadian highways as they are along their American counterparts, there is a single digital one adjacent the “Linc,” allowing multiple advertisers to communicate their respective messages in quick succession to the public without unduly cluttering up the surrounding scenery.

In August, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) purchased space on this billboard with a single message: “Stop medical transitions for minors,” preceded by a link to a web address: LetKidsBe.ca. That was it. Nothing more.

However, the message didn’t stay up for long. In response to complaints from some quarters, Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath ordered the message removed, labelling it a “transphobic ad.” She ended her statement with this: “Love will always be louder.”

Unfortunately, the use of psychological language to censor unpopular speech has become commonplace as we near the second quarter of the century. A phobia is generally thought to be an irrational fear properly addressed by therapeutic means. In contemporary parlance, however, a phobia is something to be suppressed, often by political means. Accordingly, the term love is misused as a way of stifling needed discussion of an issue of obvious importance to families with minor children.

Life-altering decisions

Even if one denies the obvious sexual distinction between male and female, and accepts the possibility of transitioning from one to the other through medical means, there is good reason to delay such interventions for underage children. Our communities routinely deny children rights and responsibilities for which a certain level of maturity is appropriate. A citizen must be 18 years old to vote in elections. Driving a vehicle is permitted at age 16 in most provinces and territories. In Ontario, one must have attained 19 years of age to drink alcoholic beverages.

To transition from one gender to another requires life-altering medical and surgical interventions, some of which will be difficult to reverse. The euphemism “gender affirming care” masks the reality of radical artificial interference with the natural development of the human body. It is true, of course, that gender reassignment surgery is not permitted for minors. Yet nonsurgical options, such as hormone treatments and puberty blockers, are allowed.

ARPA’s message is by no means motivated by hate. Rather, it flows out of love for those who are still growing to maturity and require guidance from the adults in their lives. Those who would suppress discussion of something this important for the health and well-being of our children may be tacitly admitting that their own stance may not withstand such scrutiny. But it would be irresponsible not to have a wide-ranging conversation about the pros and cons of allowing sweeping medical interventions for vulnerable minors. Let us hope that Hamilton and other cities contemplating censoring ARPA’s message will permit it to be heard after all.