IN SHORT, THIS WAS AN OB­VI­OUS CALL FOR OB­VI­OUS REA­SONS.

ARE MPS THE WEAK LINK WHEN IT COMES TO SAFE­GUARD­ING CANADA? CLI­MATE FEARS ARE REAL, SO OIL­SANDS MUST CLOSE DON’T BE­LIEVE TRUMP’S HYPE ON HIS SUM­MIT WITH CHINA’S XI

StarMetro Toronto - - BIG OPINIONS - Su­san Dela­court Thomas Walkom Wen­ran Jiang

records to van­ish from the reg­is­ter of births, deaths, mar­riages and reg­is­tered part­ner­ships. This would have a va­ri­ety of un­de­sir­able le­gal and so­ci­etal im­pli­ca­tions.”

In short, this was an ob­vi­ous call for ob­vi­ous rea­sons. But the court made the right call for an­other less ob­vi­ous rea­son: had it granted Ratel­band’s wish to change his age, the world would most likely be an even harsher place for trans­gen­der peo­ple.

If you don’t be­lieve me, con­sider Ratel­band’s core ar­gu­ment — re­peated through­out the me­dia — about why he should be al­lowed to change his age. He is quoted in ma­jor pub­li­ca­tions say­ing, “We live in a time when you can change your name and change your gen­der. Why can't I de­cide my own age?”

If Bruce can legally be­come Cait­lyn, in other words, why can’t a 69-year-old legally trans­form into a 49-year-old to af­firm how sprightly he feels in­side? For that mat­ter, why can’t any­one be­come any­thing un­der the law?

Trans­gen­der rights cam­paigner Jane Fae tried to an­swer this ques­tion when she ap­peared on the BBC with Ratel­band last month. Be­ing trans­gen­der, she told him, is “not just an iden­tity. It’s a med­i­cal con­di­tion that has been un­der­stood for 50 years. What you are ac­tu­ally do­ing is try­ing to make a com­par­i­son that is re­ally quite taste­less.”

THES­TAR.COM/OPIN­IONS

Starmetro’s Pub­lic Ed­i­tor wel­comes reader com­ments and in­for­ma­tion about fac­tual er­rors. If you see a pos­si­ble er­ror, please email pub­[email protected]­tar.ca, tele­phone: 416-869-4949

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.