Today, the Québec Comité de sages sur l’identité de genre — which roughly translates to “wisemen committee on gender identity” — presented its long-awaited report at a private press conference: a monolith of approximately 300 pages written about us, without us. Let’s not forget that this report was commissioned back in September 2023, after a wave of anti-trans protests across Canada and a moral panic about gender-neutral washrooms in schools.
Although the report does address some of the community’s issues and contains some positive recommendations that I believe are necessary to implement, it is nevertheless steeped in deep-rooted stereotypes about trans people, especially trans women, notably by claiming, contrary to science, that gender is a binary and immutable matter.
Here is a summary of the report, along with my personal analysis!
A critical summary of the report
Introduction and Chapter 1 (“Gender Identity: An Evolving Phenomenon”)
Let’s get started quickly. Even though the committee of experts acknowledges the upheavals in terms of 2SLGBTQ+ rights, it “compares” anti-trans groups to the other “extreme”: us, trans people advocating for our own civil rights. It immediately attempts to posit that there are only two binary sexes, without addressing the changeable (and fluid) nature of sex. It describes gender identity, equally pushing anti-trans talking points — most notably that it “reinforces sexist stereotypes”, all whilst citing the discredited theory of rapid onset gender dysphoria… going as far as arguing that pornography can encourage young girls to transition. Not a good start, eh?
In short, it argues that the theory of “social contamination” is a legitimate hypothesis to consider (vol. 1, § 1.2). Fucked up, isn’t it?
Most of the people involved here raise the importance of fighting discrimination, while placing disproportionate importance on “biological sex.” The Comité de sages heard from TERFs who say they are attracted only to people of the same sex, “who denounce the redefinition of homosexuality” — another anti-trans talking point. The report also relays the idea of “sex-based rights,” arguing for a need to talk more about “biological sex,” arguing that “intersectionality taken to the extreme has the effect of diluting [women’s place]” and limiting the rights of trans people based on this need.
Once again, there is no mention of the fluid nature of sex: you know, hormones change how your body works!
The Comité de sages once again relays the anti-trans idea that transitioning is “ideology” and that the inclusion of trans people in feminist circles sows “division.” One subsection is titled “Confusion between sex and gender in language.” These are points copied and pasted from anti-trans groups such as Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, a fringe group founded to support Islamophobic “secularism” and TERF discourse.
There is further discussion of “doctors” who argue that their comments are “transphobic,” that we are too militant, and that we automatically label doctors as transphobic: once again, this is more stereotype than reality.
To conclude this first chapter: it is filled with stereotypes from top to bottom, and unfortunately, could be used by the government to justify more anti-trans laws, similar to Bill 2 (2021). It’s arguably the worst one in this report.
Chapter 2 (“Human rights, discrimination, and privacy”)
This chapter begins with a historical review of the advancement of trans rights in Quebec. However, it presents “sex” as a protected ground that is completely separate and independent from transgender people, even though “transsexualism” (as it was then called) and the process of transitioning has been recognized as an integral part thereof since 1998 (CDPDJ (M.L.) v. Maison des jeunes À-Ma-Baie inc., 1998 CanLII 28). This section generally describes well the issues of discrimination faced by trans people in Quebec. However, it still comes back to pitting the rights of women against those of trans people — taking this as a fact, rather than a modus operandi for reimposing anti-trans discrimination throughout society. There is also talk of pitting the display of gender identity in data collection against an attachment to “biological sex.” This is concerning, but definitely less bad than Chapter 1.
Chapter 3 (“Gender-affirming Healthcare”)
This chapter begins by discussing the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)’s Standards of Care, while also granting airtime to the infamous Cass Review and other anti-trans arguments. Overall, this chapter is rooted in a strong emphasis on transmedicalism, equally talking about the importance of having a multidisciplinary team to provide follow-up care. In my opinion, there is a good chance that additional barriers to medical transition will be implemented, without however reaching the point of a total ban (as in the US/UK). Certain issues, such as post-transition fertility, are discussed fairly well. Others, not so much. Exhibit A: an instance where a psychologist is quoted talking about “mutilation” (as it pertains to gender-affirming surgeries).
Section 3.3 discusses certain issues related to the role of health professionals in providing gender-affirming healthcare. The main thing that concerns me here is how the report tries to distinguish between “exploratory therapies” — “gender exploration therapy,” another name for conversion therapies — and conversion therapies themselves. Let us remember that these “therapies” often aim to “let the trans go away”: it’s another name for “watchful waiting”, a discredited approach to treating trans people
Section 3.4.1 discusses the assessment of trans youth, including various approaches to “assessing” transness. According to the Comité de sages, “there is a consensus on the need for rigorous assessment, conducted by competent professionals in the field” [my translation]. Section 3.4.2, for its part, advocates greater involvement of parents when possible: “family support remains a major protective factor.”
The Comité de sages discusses pretty well the issues faced by older trans people. It also rightfully states that “[support for people who detransition] must be part of the continuum of psychosocial and medical services provided to trans people” [my translation].
It also raises the issues of access to gender-affirming healthcare, particularly in rural areas, and the urgent need to train healthcare personnel; though it does so while citing Trans Express (an episode of Radio-Canada’s «Enquête» (Investigations) where anti-trans healthcare professionals were extensively interviewed) to argue that more supervision is needed, rejecting a purely trans-affirmative approach in favor of a further medicalized approach to trans healthcare.
For short, even if respect for trans patients’ gender identity is emphasized, the approach advocated by the Comité de sages could nevertheless lead to longer waiting lists — unless action is taken by CISSS/CIUSSSes and individual healthcare institutions to address these and adequately train professionals.
Chapter 4 (Sex ed & transition at school)
The Comité de sages broadly addresses issues related to sex ed, and affirms the importance thereof. This marked divergence from the approach used in the U.S. and in Alberta is a positive step. Yet, the report still criticizes the “amalgamation of the concepts of gender and sex” — a frequently used anti-trans talking point. To quote the report: “[the notion of ‘gender’] must, however, be taught in conjunction with that of sex as a biological and reproductive characteristic observed at birth” (my translation). Once again, this obscures the realities of trans people, and is patently inaccurate for trans people who medically transition.
The report also discusses standardizing approaches to sex education, while recognizing the importance of addressing gender identity in such courses. It does recommend having government approval for sex ed materials: whether that’s a bad thing or an OK thing remains to be seen.
There are some good points—notably, the Comité de sages’ position to “refocus the content on core values such as tolerance and respect for diversity”—but there are also some very bad points, notably the promotion of certain demands made by anti-trans groups, such as claiming that sex is immutable.
The Comité de sages also addresses in length the challenges surrounding trans youth transitioning whilst at school, as well as the difficulties faced by teachers and academic staff in supporting them. It emphasizes the use of individualized support plans, while ensuring that their rights are respected.
In terms of parental involvement, the report incorrectly states that the anti-trans laws in Alberta and Saskatchewan allow for exceptions to the forced disclosure of trans youth’s trans identity. Fortunately, it returns to the key idea of the “best interests of the child”—a very good sign for their rights.
The report states: “[Legislative clarification is needed, and the changes made must meet the requirements of protecting the student’s physical or psychological safety, respect their progressive autonomy, and recognize the importance of parental support in the transition process” (my translation). The possibility of not informing parents is presented as an exception to the rule; the report suggests making it mandatory for schools to encourage students to disclose their gender identity to their parents, without, however, imposing forced outing. Whether this ends up having deleterious effects remains to be seen.
Is it possible that Quebec will implement anti-trans bills similar to those in Alberta and Saskatchewan in this regard? Possibly, given that the government is free to ignore this report. However, I think the chances of this happening are slim to none, at least for the time being.
Chapter 5 (Single-sex spaces and sports)
The Comité de sages has stated multiple concerning things on single-sex spaces. First, it states that “changing rooms and toilets are divided on the basis of sex.” In light of the bioessentialist findings on sex and gender reported in chapter 1 of the report, this greatly concerns me. There is equally talk of “protecting women” by keeping them separate from trans people in single-sex spaces based on what I can only infer is sex assigned at birth. The report cites the views of anti-trans women’s groups, once again pitting women’s rights against trans rights, while presenting allowing trans women to use women’s spaces as the exception, not the rule.
For the report, “the objective is clear: to provide access to reserved spaces that are adapted to a pluralistic society” (my translation). But… I have to wonder whether exclusion, as advocated here, will lead to inclusion. Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Yet, if we take the Comité de sages’ words at face value, it won’t be like that in practice.
The Comité de sages does note correctly that because of anti-trans discrimination, trans people often exclude themselves from emergency shelter services (including shelters for victims of domestic violence), which are gendered. However, it defends maintaining spaces for women based on their assigned sex —it maintains that it is necessary to “support both centers that prioritize maintaining spaces reserved for cisgender women and those that attempt to expand their offerings to trans women.” Separate but equal, amirite?
The issues faced by trans people in prison are also discussed, and their right to dignity is affirmed, but with caveats. In this regard, its recommendations are similar to federal guidelines on trans prisoners: an individualized assessment (on a case-by-case basis), incorporating a new criterion of the “sincerity” of their gender identity. A criterion that, in my opinion, could become quite violent in practice.
On the subject of sports, the Comité de sages distinguishes between recreational sports and competitive sports, while emphasizing the idea of “safety” (clearly inspired by anti-trans stereotypes) and ‘fairness’ (which I find easier to understand). The overarching recommendation, though, is to have ‘flexible solutions adapted to each discipline.’ The committee beckoned the Québec government introduce guidelines in this regard. It remains to be seen how this will be implemented in practice.
The report’s conclusion
The Comité de sages concludes its report with a list of “key ingredients” for integrating trans people into society: better understanding, resisting polarization, an individualized approach, respect for rights, and conceptual clarity (🚩). This last point greatly concerns me, as once again, there is an attempt to distinguish and place disproportionate importance on “biological sex” (sex assigned at birth), which could violate the rights of trans people in Quebec.
So, where are we now?
There are some good points in this report. It discusses at length the challenges faced by transgender people in society. Discrimination is discussed thoroughly. But… the bad… it’s very, very, very bad.
This report echoes many common talking points made by anti-trans groups. This is particularly evident in the sections on “single-sex spaces”, where it’s apparent that TERF groups have been able to make their voices heard, reducing “sex” to a simple binary concept, determined at birth and immutable. The report also, too often, pits the rights of women and trans people against each other, not recognizing that these rights are symbiotic and work to build a more equal society for all.
In my opinion, all of this leads me to believe that this report is, first and foremost, transmisogynistic and misogynistic. It attempts to “simplify” a concept that cannot be simplified in this way, separating the rights of trans women (in particular) from those of other women. In this respect, it is a massive failure.
Now, the elephant in the room… could this lead to anti-trans bills in Québec in the near future?
In my opinion, yes.
The very fact that the report makes legislative and policy recommendations suggests that a bill is likely to be introduced — probably in the fall — on the subject of trans people.
The chances of gender-affirming healthcare being banned in Quebec are, in my opinion, virtually nonexistent. As for “forced outing,” I don’t think that’s likely either. However, the transphobic comments in the Comité de sages’ report may resurface, particularly by creating an exception to Quebec’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms allowing for exemptions to the protected ground of gender identity for certain spaces deemed to be single-sex (such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters) — and, in the worst case, an explicit redefinition of the protected ground of sex to exclude transness and transitioning, thus overturning a 1998 precedent.
The future remains to be seen. But… in the meantime, let’s hope things won’t be too horrible.
To read the report, you can consult the Government of Québec’s website (French only).
** Update, June 3 2025: I’ve published a commentary on Québec Minister of Families Suzanne Roy’s reaction to the report. You may read it here!