We would like to express our concerns about the reform of the Civil Code and, more particularly, about your announcement last week to assimilate gender identity and sex.
Following the Moore judgment rendered in February 2021 by the Superior Court of Quebec declaring the Civil Code discriminatory against trans and non-binary people (because of the words “sex”, “mother”, “father”), we expressed our fears that these essential personal characteristics will disappear from civil status or be diverted from their meaning. These fears unfortunately seem to be materializing. Indeed, despite the significant inclusion measures taken under Bill 2 (PL2) to respond to the complainants’ requests, it is the replacement of the words relating to biological sex by the concept of “gender” that now appears to be. be claimed. Your declaration to want to follow up on these requests, Minister, worries.
The PL2 plans to allow all those who wish to have the mention of a gender identity added to the birth certificate. In order to avoid stigma and intrusive questions, it is even foreseen that the mention of sex can be removed from civil status documents if it contradicts the mention of gender identity. Finally, the designation of sex could be changed for people who have undergone surgeries that modify the appearance of the genitals.
We welcome these measures to open up to trans and non-binary people. Allowing the addition of a gender identity statement is a great way to include all people who identify with a gender, without erasing the sex reference and without forcing an entire population to adhere to the concept of gender identity.
However, we question the fact that one can add a mention of gender on the birth certificate of a child, and even of a new baby. We see it as an attack on the freedom of conscience of the child.
Moreover, although we understand the objective of openness aimed at, allowing the change of the designation of sex following a surgical intervention is, in our opinion, a mistake. Besides the fact that it is materially impossible to change one’s gender, this can be seen as an incentive to undergo surgery, which is not the intended objective. It is also mainly on this aspect that the PL2 was violently attacked.
Sex and gender, two distinct concepts
As the Moore judgment clarified, gender is a notion relating to social feelings and stereotypes related to femininity and masculinity, while sex refers to the biological characteristics of people: gametes, chromosomes, sexual and reproductive organs, etc. It is essential not to confuse the two concepts. This is also a long-standing demand by defenders of the rights of transgender people. However, now that the PL2 proposes to add the mention of gender identity in the Civil Code, the same speakers declare that it would be “transphobic” to distinguish them! Isn’t it then the erasure of the notion of sex or, equivalently, its total dissolution in the notion of gender, that these activists are actually claiming?
Mr. Minister, after the virulent attacks and accusations of transphobia which immediately launched the PL2 filed, you declared that you wanted to “rectify the situation”. In doing so, do you not risk endorsing attacks on citizens who express legitimate disagreements with gender ideology, in addition to endorsing an unscientific conception of biological sex based on self-identification? To assert that a woman is a human female, or that only a woman can give birth to a child, is not transphobic. It is simply stating objective facts.
A violation of the rights of women and children
The consequences of assimilating the concepts of sex and gender are real. How to measure the differentiated effects of government policies on men and women, or ensure employment equity, if the gender designation is defined individually? How to ensure equity and safety in sport for girls? How to preserve single-sex spaces such as changing rooms, shelters for women, homes for immigrant women or homeless women? How can we continue to protect women and children from the preponderance of male violence, so often demonstrated by statistics? How can we prevent sex offenders from being admitted to women’s prisons if everyone can identify themselves as a “woman”?
At the same time, one cannot ignore the pressures on young people to adhere to the theory that they could be “born in the wrong body”.
Endorsing in law the idea that it is possible to change the sex can only help to confuse and promote social and medical transition – growth blockers, hormones of the opposite sex and surgical procedures – in order to ” align body with mind ”, despite the health consequences, including the risk of sterility.
Like you, Minister, we are concerned about having inclusive laws respecting the rights of all, including people who identify with a gender. However, this cannot be done to the detriment of the fundamental rights of the very large majority of citizens. Gender identity and expression were added to the charters of Quebec and Canada as prohibited grounds for discrimination, but they did not replace sex. It is not on the basis of gender but on the basis of sex that women have special needs for security and protection. Women’s rights in international conventions are based on gender.
Changes in marital status on issues as fundamental as sex, motherhood or fatherhood concern us all, not just LGBTQ + activists. We urge you, Mr. Minister, to listen to all your citizens and not to give in to requests that go against biological reality, and which can only lead to a decline in collective rights. , and in particular women’s rights.
* Co-signatories: Jocelyne Robert, Sylvie Payette, Johanne Seymour, Laïla Héloua, Nabila Ben Youssef, Leila Lesbet, Daniel Baril, and more than 200 other signatories.
See the full list What do you think? Express your opinion