Talking About Mark Carney’s Trans Daughter Is Fair — And Necessary

Canadian Twitter erupted this week after Juno News reported that Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has a transgender daughter. Sasha Carney, née Sophia, attended the UK’s now-defunct Tavistock gender clinic as a teen. The reaction was swift and polarized. Some argued that dragging a politician’s child into public debate crosses a moral line — that it’s invasive, cruel even, to make a child’s private battles with gender a part of the national conversation.

I understand that instinct. There’s a natural urge to draw a protective boundary around family. Politics is ugly enough without pulling someone’s child into the muck slinging on social media. Sasha Carney has not, as far as anyone can tell, chosen to stand in her father’s political spotlight. But she is an adult now, with a prolific public presence in her own right. Even so, the deeply personal nature of gender transition makes this feel especially intrusive.

I wrestled with this myself. I’m a parent. I know what it feels like to imagine your child dissected by strangers. But there’s a problem with leaving this conversation there — because it’s not just about Sasha. It’s about what Canadian families have been living through for years under the Trudeau government, and what Mark Carney represents if he steps into the same shoes.

The truth is, gender ideology has become one of the most divisive and emotive issues facing Canadian parents. For many, like Carney, it meant consenting to their child’s social or medical transition. So many parents have heard the brutal framing: “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?” But for other parents who hesitated, it meant something else entirely — accusations of being hateful, bad parents, even abusers, simply for asking questions or applying caution.

Across Canada, school boards embraced policies that treated parents as potential threats. Teachers were instructed to keep a child’s gender transition secret from their family on the child’s say so. “Confidentiality” became the buzzword — a polite euphemism for shutting loving mothers and fathers out of potentially permanent life and health-altering decisions that would affect their children.

None of the gender debate happened in a vacuum. It happened while coalition party leaders, Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, aggressively championed the most radical edges of gender ideology. When tens of thousands of parents, representing every ethnicity, religion, and political background, marched in the 1 Million March for Children to demand a say in their children’s education, they were smeared as hateful bigots. Trudeau called them “transphobic.” Jagmeet Singh showed up in Ottawa to counter-protest — a sitting party leader standing against ordinary parents, branding them as dangerous for daring to refuse state mandated gender affirmation.

It didn’t stop there. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) labeled concerned parents a hate movement — implying that to question the dogma of gender identity is akin to domestic extremism. The message from our political class was crystal clear: affirm, or else.

For years, parents have lived under that threat. Many started in the same place — loving, open, supportive. But when affirmation meant affirming fantasy, experimental drugs, irreversible surgeries to remove healthy body parts, and sterility, some said no. And when they did, they found their children pulled away by a system that sees “non-affirming” parents as enemies.

Schools kept secrets. Imagine sending your child to school trusting teachers to act in good faith — only to find out they don’t. Teachers began treating children as fully autonomous mini-adults, capable of managing life-altering decisions without their parents. Kids socially transitioned at school, complete with new names and pronouns, while parents were kept in the dark — not because they were abusive, but because the system assumed they might be.

Family was redefined as dangerous. School became the “safe space.” Most if not all schools now have policies to hide pronoun changes and social transitions from parents unless the child gives explicit permission. You can imagine that many children, repeatedly told that families often reject trans kids, might be fearful and chose secrecy. Teachers and online forums shared horror stories of abusive parents painted a deeply skewed picture of the average family.

In reality, I’ve met hundreds of parents of trans-identified kids. Few are perfect — who is? — but they certainly aren’t abusive. Many were fine with their child’s identity — until they learned about the harms of medicalization.

Last year, I learned of a deeply cynical effort to further cut parents out. Ottawa’s Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) now accepts referrals for under-16s directly from teachers and school counselors — the very same schools with secrecy policies. Parents never even know it’s happening. A leaked documents HWDSB went as far as training Positive Space Club staff on how to run “confidentiality scenario” drills with student attendees — rehearsals for how to hide Positive Space club activities from parents. None of this was ever neutral. It was war — a war on the family, fought under the banner of safety and inclusion. And parents have been left battered and bewildered, wondering how it came to this.

Actions like these are hardly neutral. They’re acts of war — a war on the family, waged under the banners of safety and inclusion. Parents are left wondering how their government and education system could so callously let them down in this way.

As the zeitgeist moves on from the gender madness, we must ask our leaders — the architects of this ideology — what will you do? Because make no mistake: the tide is turning. The Tavistock clinic, once the crown jewel of child gender medicine, was shuttered in disgrace. Lawsuits are mounting. Detransitioners are speaking out, telling the world how adults who should have protected them instead rushed them onto life-altering paths.

And that brings us back to Mark Carney.

It matters that his daughter went to Tavistock even if she attended the clinic well before it was involved in numerous scandals. It matters because Canada’s next Prime Minister is a man who’s family walked down the same path as countless Canadian families. We need to know: was Carney swept up in this social current like so many others? Does he see non-affirming parents as hateful extremists? Did he fight, privately, to protect his child? Or did he embrace it — not just as a father, but as a member of the political elite that championed these policies over expensive dinners while regular families bore the cost?

Helen Joyce, chronicling this movement, warns that the last defenders of child medical transition will be the parents who happily transed their children. Admitting they were wrong would mean confronting their own failure — that they sold their children a bill of goods society cannot deliver without enormous pressure.

So, yes — it’s in the public interest to ask where Mark Carney stands on childhood gender transition. Not because we wish harm his family, or because we delight in the suffering of others. But because politicians didn’t stop at their own families. They brought this ideology into our homes. They backed policies that severed us from our children. And they forced us to watch as schools and hospitals made secret decisions — while we were told to sit down, shut up, and trust the experts.

If you found this article informative, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel or following me on X @finkledusty

My work is entirely reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation to show your support.