I'll take the liberty of responding.
As I have gone through, mainly in French, in my prepared remarks, we feel that in fact the definition already encapsulates what you are trying, in good faith, to advance. As I mentioned, within the definition, the fact that the definition has two elements to it—first that it must amount to a practice, treatment or service, and second that the practice, treatment or service has to achieve a prohibited objective.... It does in fact encapsulate what the justice department website said and what we still continue to say. It doesn't capture good-faith conversations about people exploring their identity.
There is a “for greater certainty” provision in the act, and we don't actually even feel that that is necessary in legal terms, but we feel that it captures quite well what you're trying to put forth.