Some asshat pulled out of a alley directly on to a bike path on Smith, I managed to stop before going over his hood. I only ran into him mangling my fender in the process.
He gave a meek apology.
On the upside, my brakes work...
Reports like this have gotten more sophisticated over time. The conclusions haven't changed, but the packaging has. What used to be argued from the pulpit now comes wrapped in footnotes, citations, and the language of science. It looks rigorous. It isn't.
I went through ARPA "Canada's Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Foundation Report" paragraph by paragraph and documented where it falls apart. The basic technique is what's called a Gish gallop: throw so many claims, studies, and anecdotes at the reader that the sheer volume feels overwhelming, even when the individual pieces don't hold up. Each footnote adds to the impression of evidence. Examined one at a time, most of them are cherry-picked, misrepresented, or simply wrong.
Here's how it works:
This is a faith-based policy document from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, a Christian advocacy organization. A critical review needs to distinguish between theological claims (which I'll note but not "fact-check"), empirical claims (which can be evaluated), rhetorical framing, and the quality of cited evidence. I'll go through systematically.
Before going section by section, three patterns recur throughout that are worth flagging up front:
Theology presented as fact. The document repeatedly slides from "the Bible says X" to "X is therefore objectively true," without acknowledging that millions of Christians (including biblical scholars) read the same texts very differently. Affirming denominations like the United Church of Canada, the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, and many Reformed scholars (e.g., James Brownson, Karen Keen) reach different conclusions from the same passages. The document treats one Reformed Protestant interpretation as "the Christian view."
Selective citation. Studies are consistently cited only when they support the thesis, with no engagement with the much larger body of contradicting research. Dissenting researchers within the cited works' own fields are not represented.
Slippage between sex, gender, and gender identity. The document's central rhetorical move is to (a) establish that biological sex is real and largely binary (true), then (b) treat that as if it settles questions about gender identity (it doesn't; these are separate empirical questions).
"For most of human history, people were defined by received identities..."
This is partially true but selectively framed. People in the past also had personal identity, conscience, vocation, and self-conception. Augustine's Confessions (4th c.) is essentially a treatise on the inner self. Charles Taylor's work on this (which Carl Trueman draws on) is more nuanced than the simple "received vs. chosen" dichotomy presented here. The framing primes the reader to view any modern identity claim as illegitimate self-invention.
"objective standards of biology and design have been cast aside"
This conflates two very different things: biological sex (which mainstream science continues to recognize as largely binary with well-documented exceptions) and gender identity (which is a separate phenomenon that the document treats as if it were a competing claim about biology). No mainstream gender researcher claims gender identity overrides chromosomes. The claim is that gender identity is a separate psychological reality, not that it replaces biology.
"impede the ability of those who experience same-sex sexual attraction or gender dysphoria to truly flourish"
This is an empirical claim presented without evidence. The actual research evidence runs the other direction: studies consistently show that acceptance (family, social, legal) is associated with better mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ people, not worse. The document later acknowledges the higher rates of suicide etc. but reframes them as caused by the conditions themselves rather than by rejection. I'll address this distortion in detail below.
Theological claims. The Genesis exegesis here is one mainstream Reformed reading, but it's contested. The Hebrew "ezer kenegdo" (helper fit for him) does not establish complementarian gender roles; it's used elsewhere of God Himself, as the document briefly notes. Egalitarian Christians read the same texts as establishing equality and partnership, not hierarchical complementarity. Presenting this as "the" biblical view is not neutral.
"Sex is innate, immutable, and integral to human flourishing"
"Innate" and "immutable" do a lot of work here. Chromosomes are immutable; secondary sex characteristics, hormone levels, and gender expression are demonstrably not. The document conflates these.
"From the moment of fertilization, every human being is designed to develop either as a male... or as a female"
This is mostly accurate but oversimplified. Sex differentiation depends on multiple genes (SRY on the Y chromosome being the most famous, but also SOX9, DAX1, WNT4, and others), hormonal signaling cascades, and tissue receptor responsiveness. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) include conditions like complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, where a person with XY chromosomes develops as phenotypically female. The document handles this in footnote 6:
"these are rare exceptions that prove the rule that sex is binary"
This is a misuse of the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" (which originally meant the stated exception implies a rule for non-stated cases, not that exceptions confirm rules). More importantly, the prevalence of intersex conditions is contested: Anne Fausto-Sterling's frequently-cited 1.7% figure is on the high end, while Leonard Sax's 0.018% is much narrower. Even the conservative figure means hundreds of thousands of people in a country of 40 million. Whether these "prove" a binary depends on what claim is being made. They certainly complicate the claim that sex is always unambiguously determined at conception.
"Thus, sex is not 'assigned' at birth. It is genetically determined at conception"
This is a rhetorical move, not a scientific correction. "Sex assigned at birth" is medical terminology that acknowledges (a) that there are rare cases where the assignment at birth is later revised (DSDs, for example), and (b) that birth assignment is based on observation of external genitalia, which is a process of human judgment, not direct genetic testing. Most births don't involve karyotyping. The phrase is technically accurate; the document's preferred "sex is determined at conception" is true for chromosomes but obscures the assignment-at-birth process that actually happens medically.
"People are able to identify an adult's sex with an astonishing degree of accuracy merely by observing his or her face"
The Bruce et al. (1993) study cited here is a 30+ year old paper on a very specific perception task. It does not bear on questions of gender identity at all. It's a study of facial perception, not metaphysics. Citing it here is filler that sounds scientific.
"No passage in scripture condones any other sexual behaviour"
This is a contested theological claim. The document lumps together adultery, rape, prostitution, and same-sex relationships as if all were uncontroversially condemned in identical ways. Affirming biblical scholars argue that the relevant Greek/Hebrew terms (e.g., arsenokoitai, malakoi in 1 Cor 6:9) refer to specific exploitative practices in the ancient world (pederasty, temple prostitution, master-slave sexual exploitation) rather than committed same-sex relationships, which weren't a recognized category in the ancient world. Romans 1 is similarly debated. Paul's argument is about idolatry leading to "exchange," which scholars like Brownson argue doesn't map onto orientation as understood today. The document gives no indication this debate exists.
"Romans 1:26-27 warns of 'dishonourable passions'..."
Quoting Paul as straightforward universal natural law obscures that Paul's "natural" (physis) language elsewhere in the same letter (Rom 11:24) is used to describe God acting "contrary to nature," suggesting Paul's "natural" doesn't always mean "creational design."
"In light of the profound importance of human sexuality, the Bible gives proscriptions and prescriptions about sexual behaviour"
A summary banner that frames the contested as settled.
"Sexual orientation and gender identity, on the other hand, are social constructs"
This is a key argumentative move and it's misleading. There's a difference between:
The document slides between these. Yes, the categorization scheme of "homosexual/heterosexual" was coined in the 19th century. No, that doesn't mean same-sex attraction itself is a 19th-century invention. Same-sex desire is documented in ancient Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, Chinese, Japanese, Arab, Indigenous American, and many other cultures, far predating Kertbeny.
"Internal feelings and individual choices, in a sinful world, are not the ultimate standard of morality."
This is theological. The empirical question of whether gender dysphoria is a stable, biologically-influenced condition is separate from whether one thinks acting on it is morally acceptable.
"A wealthy man in ancient Rome, for example, could (and often did) treat female and male slaves, adult or minor, as sexual objects for his own use. But this activity did not define a category of person or individual identity."
Historically debatable. While modern categories differ, ancient sources do recognize patterns of preference (Plato's Symposium, Sappho, the Roman satirists). The claim that "there were no sexual minorities" in any meaningful sense is overstated. More importantly, citing Roman slavery-era exploitation as the historical reference for "same-sex sexual relations" is a rhetorical sleight. It implicitly associates contemporary same-sex relationships with abuse rather than with the long history of consensual same-sex partnerships also documented across cultures.
This section is more measured. The distinction between attraction, identity, and behavior is genuinely useful and reflects real complexity in the field.
"To some extent, sexual interests and attractions are malleable and can be shaped by one's choices and habits"
True at the margins, but this is where the document edges toward conversion-therapy logic. Major medical organizations (APA, AAP, CPA, CMA, WHO) have rejected sexual orientation change efforts as ineffective and harmful based on substantial evidence. The footnote points to ARPA's own conversion therapy report, which is a circular self-citation.
"All of this is true because human beings are designed for sexual union with a person of the opposite sex within the context of a covenantal marriage"
A theological claim presented as the conclusion of an empirical argument.
"In one study, over 80% of teens who first reported same-sex attraction and sexual activity reported exclusively heterosexual attraction and sexual activity within 6 years"
This is the Savin-Williams & Ream (2007) study. Critical context the document omits:
"In another longitudinal cohort study, young females who identified as lesbian averaged 3 orientation changes over 8 years"
This is Berona et al. (2018). The study is about sexual orientation labels and self-identification fluidity in young women, not about whether attractions can be "changed." Female sexual fluidity is a documented phenomenon (Lisa Diamond's work, also cited here), but the document weaponizes it to suggest orientation is voluntary, which is not what the research shows.
"there is a strong correlation between same-sex attraction and childhood sexual abuse"
This is a serious misuse. The Sweet & Welles (2012) study found correlations, but:
"In a 2021 Gallup survey, the proportion of Americans who self-identified as LGBTQ varied starkly by generation"
The document presents this as evidence of social contagion. Alternative (and more widely accepted) explanations include:
The document doesn't engage with these explanations.
"Reinforcing gender stereotypes... may cause a child who enjoys activities that are typically associated with the opposite sex to experience confusion about his gender identity."
This is presented as common sense but is empirically contested. Research on gender-nonconforming children shows that most don't develop gender dysphoria. They just become gender-nonconforming adults (often gay or lesbian). The claim that broader gender role categories cause gender dysphoria is not supported by the developmental literature.
"This is based on an irrational belief in a disembodied (yet somehow gendered) self"
This is a philosophical caricature. Researchers don't claim gender identity is "disembodied." Much of the research points to neurological and embodied aspects of gender identity (e.g., studies showing neural sex differentiation, body schema, etc.). The document sets up a strawman ("dualism") to knock down.
"As former transgender and now Christian speaker Walt Heyer said..."
Walt Heyer is one detransitioner whose story is widely cited in conservative literature. Detransitioners exist and their experiences matter, but:
"the explanation given when it comes to identifying young children as 'transgender' is often shockingly shallow, such as noting that a boy prefers (stereotypically) feminine toys, colours, and clothes."
This is not how clinical gender dysphoria is diagnosed. The DSM-5 criteria for childhood gender dysphoria require multiple persistent indicators over at least 6 months, including a stated cross-gender identification and "marked incongruence" between expressed/experienced gender and assigned sex. Reducing diagnosis to toy preferences is a strawman.
"Gender dysphoria in children and adolescents rarely persists into adulthood. Several studies have found that about 80% of children experiencing gender dysphoria 'desist'"
This is one of the most contested claims in the document. The methodological issues with the cited "desistance studies" (Steensma, Drummond, Wallien, Singh, Zucker) are substantial:
Diagnostic criteria changed. The studies used DSM-III/IV criteria for "Gender Identity Disorder," which were much broader than current DSM-5 gender dysphoria criteria. Under the older criteria, a child could be classified as GID based on gender-nonconforming behavior alone, without expressing a cross-gender identity. Many of these "desisters" would not meet current GD criteria.
Sample composition. Many participants were referred for gender-nonconforming behavior, not for cross-gender identification. The "desistance" rate among children with persistent, insistent, consistent cross-gender identity is very different.
Lost to follow-up coding. Several of these studies coded participants who couldn't be located as "desisters" by default, a serious methodological problem.
Newer research with current criteria (e.g., Olson et al. 2022 in Pediatrics) found that >90% of socially transitioned children continued to identify as transgender 5 years later.
The document presents 80% as established fact when it's actively contested in the field.
"the Cass Report, which investigated the treatment of gender dysphoria at the UK's Tavistock gender clinic"
The Cass Review (final report 2024) is itself controversial. Critiques from Yale's Integrity Project and other academic groups have argued the review:
The document presents Cass as authoritative without acknowledging this debate.
"researchers to conclude that rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a social contagion"
ROGD is not recognized as a clinical entity by any major medical body (APA, AAP, CPA, AMA, WPATH, Endocrine Society). Lisa Littman's original (2018) study had serious methodological problems:
"Abigail Shrier" is a journalist, not a researcher. Her book has been criticized by clinicians and researchers in the field.
"Dr. Paul McHugh"
McHugh is a religious conservative whose views are not mainstream psychiatric consensus. He shut down the Johns Hopkins gender clinic in the 1970s on ideological grounds; Johns Hopkins later reopened gender-affirming services explicitly distancing from his views. Citing him as if he represents psychiatric authority is misleading.
"61% of patients exhibiting gender dysphoria experienced comorbidities"
The à Campo et al. (2003) study is over 20 years old, from a single Dutch clinic, with a small sample. The comorbidity findings are real but the direction of causation is precisely what's at issue. Living with chronic, unaddressed gender dysphoria causes psychological distress; this doesn't mean the dysphoria is itself a symptom of other disorders.
WPATH itself is a major medical organization. The document selectively quotes WPATH's acknowledgment that comorbidities exist (which they do) while opposing WPATH's actual recommendations (gender-affirming care). This is cherry-picking.
This is one of the most rhetorically loaded sections.
"transgender Ontarians were 9.5 times more likely to seriously consider suicide and 18 times more likely to actually attempt suicide"
These statistics are real and tragic. The document's framing is the issue:
"Bränström et al (2022) found that minority stress is a relatively minor factor behind these poor outcomes, finding that only 13-15% of suicidal ideation and attempts are attributable to minority stress"
This is a substantial misrepresentation. The Bränström et al. (2022) paper tested specific operationalizations of multiple theoretical models (psychiatric, psychosocial, minority stress, etc.) and found that no single model fully accounted for outcomes, not that minority stress is "minor." The same research group has produced extensive evidence that gender-affirming care reduces suicidality and that anti-trans discrimination predicts poor outcomes. Pulling one figure out of context to say "minority stress is minor" inverts the broader findings.
"Little attention has been paid to the possibility that same-sex orientation or gender dysphoria themselves... directly contribute to these poor outcomes"
This is empirically false. Substantial research has examined this question. Findings consistently show:
The "it's the condition, not the discrimination" hypothesis has been tested extensively and is not supported.
"Simply creating a culture that is more accepting of sexual and gender minorities will not eliminate these disparities."
A sentence presented as a finding that is actually the document's contested thesis.
"This ideological revolution has no objective boundary. If personal feelings and attractions can determine one's core identity when it comes to sex or gender, there is no rationally consistent way to insist that an individual's ethnicity, age, or even species are not subjective as well."
This is a textbook slippery slope fallacy. The argument that "if X is allowed, then Y, Z, and ridiculous outcome will follow" is not a logical argument. It requires showing the actual causal mechanism. There are obvious, principled distinctions:
"Paul Wolscht is a middle-aged Canadian father of seven children. But he now identifies not only as female, but as a six-year-old girl..."
This is rhetorical manipulation. Citing one extreme, unusual case (originally reported in the Daily Mail, a tabloid) and treating it as representative of an entire category is a classic ad hominem-by-association. Mainstream trans advocacy explicitly does not endorse age identity claims like this. Using one outlier to discredit a population of millions is not honest argumentation.
"Gender ideology itself is a form of religious belief. Claiming a gender identity apart from biological sex is in effect claiming a metaphysical identity (e.g. a soul) beyond one's physical body."
This is philosophical sleight-of-hand. Almost all major philosophical traditions, including Christianity, posit some non-reducibility of mind/self/soul to body. The document elsewhere affirms that humans are "an inseparable unity of body and soul." But it's the soul part that's metaphysical too. The objection here applies to most theistic anthropologies, including the document's own.
"Sean Doherty." One conversion narrative is offered as illustration. Counter-narratives (people who tried to suppress same-sex attraction and experienced harm, or trans people who flourished after transition) are not provided. This is the same one-sided storytelling the document deploys throughout.
I'll address these as policy claims:
1. Remove "sex assigned at birth" from law. As discussed above, this is medically accurate terminology, not ideological. The campaign to remove it is itself political.
2. Protect freedom to debate. This recommendation is largely uncontroversial in principle. In Canadian law, robust debate on these topics is already protected; the cases the document likely has in mind (e.g., Bill C-4 on conversion therapy) target specific practices, not speech.
3. Remove "sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression" from law. This would remove protections that LGBTQ+ Canadians have under the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial codes. The argument relies on the slippery slope critiqued above.
4. Cease funding LGBTQ+ programs. A policy preference presented as a corrective.
5. Sex-segregated facilities by biological sex. The document cites one case (Christopher Hambrook) to imply systemic risk. Comprehensive reviews (e.g., Hasenbush et al. 2019, Sexuality Research and Social Policy) have not found evidence that trans-inclusive facility policies increase safety incidents. The "danger" framing is empirically weak.
6. Sports by biological sex. This is a contested empirical and policy question with legitimate concerns on multiple sides; presenting it as obvious oversimplifies.
7. Schools must notify parents. Policy debate exists here, but the document doesn't engage with the safeguarding concerns (LGBTQ+ youth in unsupportive homes face elevated abuse and homelessness rates) that have shaped current policies.
Beyond specific factual issues, several rhetorical techniques appear throughout:
Loaded vocabulary. "Disordered," "disordered sexual desire," "denial of bodily identity," "irrational belief," "shockingly shallow," "newly invented." These are not neutral descriptors. They prime negative emotional responses while presenting as analysis.
Asymmetric burden of proof. Heteronormative claims are assumed and don't require evidence; non-heteronormative claims must overcome high evidentiary bars.
Strawmanning. "Disembodied self," "boys liking pink toys = trans," "social contagion." These caricatures don't reflect actual clinical practice or trans people's self-reports.
Anecdote as evidence. Walt Heyer, Sean Doherty, Paul Wolscht, Stalking Cat (Daniel Avner). Individual extreme or atypical stories are repeatedly substituted for population-level evidence.
Innuendo by association. Same-sex relationships are repeatedly listed alongside polygamy, adultery, bestiality, prostitution, and pedophilia (footnote 14, footnote 21). This is rhetorically effective and substantively misleading.
"Compassion" framing. The document repeatedly says it shows "compassion" while advocating policies that LGBTQ+ people consistently report as harmful to them. Compassion that the recipients reject as harm is worth scrutinizing.
Appeal to "real" identity. Phrases like the person "never was a woman" or that someone "only copied what he saw women do" claim privileged access to others' inner reality.
The document's citation pattern is notable:
This isn't accidental. It represents a parallel epistemic structure where the conclusions are predetermined by theological commitment and sources are selected to support them.
To be fair:
A more honest version of this document could engage with the strongest versions of opposing arguments, acknowledge the empirical evidence that contradicts its preferred conclusions, and present its theological commitments transparently as theology rather than as the inevitable conclusion of "the science."
This is a faith-based advocacy document that presents one Reformed Protestant theological position as empirically and rationally inevitable. Where it makes empirical claims, it consistently selects evidence supporting its conclusions, mischaracterizes contested findings as settled, ignores the much larger body of contradicting research, and uses extreme cases and slippery-slope arguments rather than engaging the steel-manned versions of opposing views. The "compassion" rhetoric coexists with policy recommendations that LGBTQ+ Canadians and the medical organizations that serve them consistently identify as harmful.
Read as theology, it's a legitimate (if contested) Reformed position. Read as policy analysis or science journalism, it falls well short of the standards it implicitly claims for itself.
I want UBI to work. I really do. I think the moral argument for it is strong, especially as automation threatens to reduce the number of stable, meaningful jobs available to ordinary people.
But I keep running into the same problem: the theory of UBI assumes a level of political commitment that I’m not convinced actually exists.
I live in a progressive country with universal healthcare. We also have income supports for people with disabilities, which is about as morally straightforward a case for public support as you can get. People with disabilities are an obviously vulnerable group. Many cannot participate in the workforce in the same way others can, through no fault of their own.
And yet, even here, disability supports are not enough. Many disabled people still live below the poverty line. Many struggle to afford food, housing, medication, transportation, and basic dignity.
That’s what worries me about UBI.
Even when the public broadly agrees that a vulnerable group deserves support, governments still underfund the program. Why? Because every social program exists inside political pressure. Governments are afraid of being seen as fiscally irresponsible. “Government waste” is always part of the conversation. If progressive governments spend too much, conservatives can campaign on cutting costs, get elected, and then weaken or dismantle the program.
So my concern is this:
UBI may sound transformative in theory, but in practice, it could easily become just another underfunded survival benefit.
Enough to say people are being helped. Not enough to let them live with dignity.
This is where The Expanse feels like a disturbing glimpse of one possible future. In that world, there are not enough jobs or opportunities to go around, so much of Earth’s population lives on Basic. But Basic does not mean freedom. It means poverty, stagnation, and waiting. People spend their lives hoping to be approved for education, training, or a chance at meaningful work.
Education becomes a lottery. Purpose becomes rationed. Meaningful contribution becomes something available only to the lucky or the elite.
That is my fear with UBI.
Not that the idea is morally wrong. Not that people should be forced into poverty to prove they deserve help. But that the political system will never fund UBI at the level required to make it liberating.
Instead, it may become a way to manage mass unemployment without solving the deeper problem: people still need dignity, opportunity, purpose, and a real ability to participate in society.
So please find the flaw in my argument, because I want to be wrong.
I want UBI to work.
I just don’t see how it survives contact with political reality.