Canada officially classifies “deadnaming” as gender-based violence

The Canadian government has formally categorized “deadnaming” — referring to a transgender-identifying person by their birth name — as a form of gender-based violence on its official Women and Gender Equality Canada website, a development with serious implications for free speech and religious liberty.

Under the government’s gender-based violence (GBV) framework, the definition of violence is expanded well beyond physical harm to include four categories: emotional violence, physical violence, economic abuse, and sexual violence. Deadnaming is classified under “emotional violence” and “technology-facilitated violence.” The government’s website presents a scenario in which students make negative comments and use a transgender student’s birth name online, and instructs Canadians to identify this as gender-based violence — specifically as a form of aggression that “actively denies” someone’s identity.

The government goes further, advising Canadians to document and report such incidents, including keeping records of “messages, usernames, and any other relevant information.”

This classification carries serious implications when paired with Bill C-9, the Carney government’s pending legislation that removes the hate speech exemption previously granted to sincerely-held religious beliefs. While the government claims the bill will not apply to sermons, prayer, or religious education, that protection is conditioned on whether a person is deemed to have “willfully promoted” hatred — a threshold the government itself defines.

The practical result is deeply troubling: a Canadian who publicly disagrees with gender ideology — in a church, online, or in a classroom — could find their speech categorized not merely as offensive, but as a form of violence.

When a government redefines the word “violence” to include speech it dislikes, it is no longer regulating conduct — it is regulating thought. Canada is proving, step by step, that the erosion of free expression rarely announces itself loudly. It creeps in through policy documents, redefined terminology, and legislation with assurances that quickly become meaningless.