You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Alberta’ category.
I cannot vote for a party that is favour of undermining parents’ relationship with their children, and a party that is favour of putting children on medical pathways that lead to sterilization and life long medicalization.
Then the Leader of the NDP decides to hide replies like this:
Nope, nope, nope. We can’t have people who major in medical science denial anywhere near the levers of power.
Thank you to Our Duty Canada for composing this letter.
An Open Letter to the Alberta Medical Association (AMA)
Regarding the February 1st Statement from the AMA
Section of Pediatrics on gender-affirming treatments March 2024
On February 1, 2024 your association released a statement in response to
Alberta Premiere Danielle Smith’s proposed changes to the treatment of
trans-identified children and adolescents, those struggling with gender
ideation. We ask that you consider and respond to our questions and
concerns regarding your statement and explain how the official position
described therein is consistent with your profession’s fundamental
principle to first “do no harm.”
We are a group of concerned parents, most of whom have children
struggling with gender ideation and grappling with the largely unrestricted
social and medical options being presented to them in Canada. We believe
that no child has the necessary cognitive and psychosocial maturity to
provide informed consent to the use of off-label synthetic hormones and
surgical procedures, often referred to as “gender-affirming healthcare,”
that have irreversible and damaging effects on their health and fertility.
We also carefully follow the results of peer-reviewed research in this area,
which, to date, has NOT yielded strong evidence of the safety or efficacy
of gender-affirming medical treatments. Therefore, we work to increase
public awareness and pressure our social, medical and political
organizations to conduct themselves from an evidence-based perspective.
We have identified several areas of concern in your recent statement and
we address them herein. In summary, your statement contains
generalizations that are not supported by sound evidence; false statements
about the safety and efficacy of the off-label drugs you recommend for
children and adolescents; reference to your steadfast opposition to
safeguarding children and adolescents through proper regulatory
processes and networks; and finally, a strong disregard for age-appropriate
decision-making and consent to medical treatments and surgical
procedures that have irreversible and damaging effects, and which
increasing numbers of youth are living to regret.
Your statement first asserts that “transgender youth have higher rates of
mental health issues and suicidality because of the stigma attached to
their status. The mental health of these children and youth will be markedly
worse when denied care.” The fact is, however, that recent peer-reviewed
research, such as this 20-year Finnish study, does NOT show that gender
affirming healthcare improves the mental health outcomes of children and
adolescents. For example, and perhaps most importantly, this research
does NOT find decreased suicide rates in youth who have accessed
gender-affirming medical treatment.
Your statement further asserts that “the effects of puberty-blocking agents
are not irreversible; and once treatment stops, puberty goes forward.
Treatment allows the patient time to determine their options without
permanent effects.” This assertion is particularly disturbing for two
reasons: (1) it blatantly misleads readers about how puberty blockers are
actually used in trans-identified children and adolescents, and (2)
consequently, it evades the full truth about the actual impacts of these
off-label drugs. In regard to (1), your assertion is premised on cases where
puberty blockers are used for brief periods of time and then stopped so
that natural puberty can progress.
However, this is not how puberty
blockers are actually being used in the majority of trans-identified children
and adolescents. In reality, puberty blockers are most often followed by
cross-sex hormone treatment (up to 98% of the time) and these minors
never go through natural puberty. Further, the long-term effects of puberty
blockers when they are followed by cross-sex hormones are
well-documented and dire, as even the president of WPATH confirms in
this linked video and with this statement, “Every single child or adolescent
who was truly blocked at Tanner Stage 2 has never experienced orgasm, I
mean it’s really about zero.” The pituitary gland is actually rendered
indefinitely dormant with GnRH Analogues (Puberty Blockers), which is why
several countries, most recently England, have corrected their course and
banned their use for gender affirming healthcare. Medical associations owe
it to the public to provide COMPLETE and TRUTHFUL information, which
your statement does NOT do.
Your statement goes on to point out that “Bottom surgery in Canada is
already limited to patients over 18 years.” Once again, you assert a
half-truth that is misleading to readers when you state that “bottom surgery”
is limited, but you remain silent about bilateral mastectomies (“top
surgery”). The fact is that bilateral mastectomies ARE being performed
on patients UNDER 18 YEARS old in Canada. We know this first-hand
because it has happened to our own children, and we know that this
procedure is completely irreversible. Asserting half-truths and omitting
information is not conducive to maintaining the trust of the public.
In light of the recent release of the WPATH Files, we find the following part
of your statement to be an effort to escape the duty to be transparent that,
as a regulatory body for the entire province of Alberta, is crucial to the
AMA’s role and responsibility: “Requiring a private registry of physicians to
provide gender-affirming care has the feel of surveillance, to which we
object. It is an unnecessary bureaucratic process given the current
existence of effective referral processes and networks.” First, what you
refer to as “surveillance” is understood by the Albertans to whom you are
accountable as the transparency you are charged to uphold. Second, you
fail to explain that your referral process is based on the WPATH guidelines,
which have been largely discredited. The fact is that these guidelines, for
“gender-affirming healthcare,” are not evidence-based, but experimental.
A 2023 article in the prestigious British Medical Journal confirms this. As
parents, we are paying close attention to this, and we are asking that our
medical professionals do the same. Statements like the one you have just
made show us that you are NOT paying attention and that you are NOT
following the overwhelming and growing body of evidence.
When professional medical associations cease to be guided by
evidence-based research and principles, and cease to be open and honest
with the public, then the public– rightly and understandably– becomes
alarmed and will, in turn, support the intervention of governments and
ultimately the courts. While we do respect the doctor/patient relationship,
your lack of adherence to the evidence is a symptom of a problem to which
you, as a medical association, have contributed. Your statement is shining
evidence of this.
There is, however, one part of your statement with which we could not
agree more: “Children and youth have the right to the appropriate medical
care.” Children and adolescents DO have the right to safe, evidence-based,
non-experimental medical care that protects them from long-term harm
such as loss of sexual function and infertility. This right is enshrined in the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, children,
adolescents and their families ALSO have the right to provide informed
consent to drugs and surgical procedures that are recommended to them.
This requires doctors and medical associations to be informed and
evidence-based, transparent and accountable. Your statement shows a
shocking disregard for these responsibilities, which the AMA SHOULD hold
sacred. Full stop.
We strongly recommend that your organization cease to follow the
guidelines put forth by the heavily discredited WPATH, stop promoting
medical negligence and harm while operating from a non-evidence-based
perspective, and change course now as progressive European countries
including Sweden, Finland, England, Norway and France have already
done.
We ask that you explain your comments from an evidence-based
perspective. If you cannot, we must assume that they, along with your
official position, are ideologically driven, in which case we call for complete
retraction or substantial correction to the AMA’s original statement. Should
you fail to respond, we will understand that as further dismissal of the
parents, children and adolescents, and citizens to whom you are
responsible, and we will proceed accordingly.
In Support of Children and Families,
Our Duty Canad
Having recently gotten into a discussion about the misnamed “Gender Affirming Care” with some of my acquaintances we broached many contentious topics but one point that stuck out was when we got into pronoun territory.
My interlocutor was brought up the idea that the shortening of names – like Stan for Stanley – was a preference and that people were just being polite by referring to the individual as they would like to be referred to.
I stumbled a bit on proposing a counter argument for this point – in hindsight it is fairly straightforward to construct a response.
If a person insists on calling a self proclaimed “Stan”, “Stanley” it might indeed be considered a bit offensive. So how is this different that using she/her pronouns for a male who is under the false notion that he is female?
Well, Stan and Stanly are both terms that are technically correct for the person in question. Is it inconsiderate to ignore their wishes, yes certainly, but here in this free society we don’t have to associate with people who we judge are inconsiderate toward us.
The male expecting people to use “she/her” when to referring to him is a completely different case. Pronouns and preferred names are not in the same category of linguistic use. In English pronouns are sexed, thus males are attributed he/him and females are attributed she/her.
If you hold a set of beliefs that do not comport with reality – that is a male believing that he is somehow a woman (adult human female) – that is perfectly fine. Your personal belief about your reality are of no concern to anyone else in society.
The expectation though of people outside your gender delusion to play along with and be party to your departure from the material reality we all share is not acceptable, especially if you are a person that sees the harm Gender Ideology does to women and society.
Thus, the argument of using a preferred name vs. a pronoun is distinctly a false equivalence as in the first case two real descriptors that accurately represent reality are being offered. In the second case using the “wrong” pronouns is a decision to comport with reality or the decision to ignore the evidence your senses are reporting and submit to someone else’s interpretation of reality – no one is obliged to do so.
Both cases associated with someone is who you perceive to be offensive is not usually not a mandatory experience. Occasionally being offended in society is a part of life and one must learn to deal with it.
Compelling the speech of others is a distinctly authoritarian notion and should not be encouraged in a society that values freedom of thought and expression.
Letter to the PM and Premier Doug Ford on the danger of “gender affirming care”. Share widely. 
Nothing gets the juices flowing more than a little woke hypocrisy in the afternoon. Scrolling through facebook I saw a post for a choral get together with the goal of showing “the transphobes” how wrong they are.
My first reaction was one of exasperation because the individual who uttered it is currently kicking up a huge fuss in the choral community. The reason? She got in a disagreement with the conductor about whether wearing a “they/them” pronoun pin on stage was acceptable part of the dress code for a professional choir.
Pro-tip: It’s not. And she wouldn’t let it go – so Fing around and finding out involved not having her contract renewed with said professional choir. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. Unfortunately, as it is with so many of the Woke zealots, she has an activist bent and has been wailing about how oppressive the decision was and how the ‘ENTIRE ORGANIZATION’ is transphobic. This is the standard tactic for the woke activist – you call something/someone transphobic until they relent to your demands or the organization crumbles. It’s bullshit and I hope the professional choir as the fortitude to withstand the struggle session it is being put through.
“They/them” othered their ideological opponents in a public comment and I found that to be infuriating because there is no sense of fairness in the statement. “Othering” is a one way problem.
People that meltdown when people are “othered” shouldn’t participate in the othering of their ideological opponents. Calling people you disagree with “transphobes” illustrates the strong lack of an ethical system behind followers of gender ideology.
So many people get taken in by the bullshit woke propaganda around gender ideology. People who usually ‘follow the science’ seem to turn off that part of their brain and go along with the “be kind, be inclusive” crowd without a second critical thought. Their behaviour boggles the mind.
The information is out there – heck – even in the Calgary Herald. Why are people suddenly so desperately incurious about issues they claim to be staunch and relentless defenders of?
From the Calgary Herald Dr. Roy Eappen Endocrinologist writes –
“As a practising endocrinologist who understands what these invasive and irreversible medical interventions can do to young people, I couldn’t be more supportive of Alberta’s decision to protect children. There’s not nearly enough evidence to justify their use on children, yet there’s plenty of evidence that they harm them.
Unsurprisingly, this move has come under swift attack from some in Canada’s “chattering classes” including journalists, some academics and a few politicians who are either unaware or don’t care about the realities of kids’ bodies.To that end, there has been a torrent of media coverage alleging that Alberta is endangering children and abandoning medicine. That’s false. Sex-reassignment interventions can do serious physical and mental damage, leading to lifelong health programs that would otherwise be avoided.
Besides, Canadians who uncritically support such physical interventions to children and teenage bodies would do well to broaden their horizons. They may be surprised to learn that international organizations and European countries that they commonly look to for leadership are urging the very caution that they oppose.”
Damn, I guess that would make the medical associations in the UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and France ALL SERIOUSLY TRANSPHOBIC.
Along with the hypocrisy the usual woke tactic is to call everything they disagree with as “insert slur here” rather than presenting an argument or compelling evidence.
Dr. Eappen continues:
“Consider the World Health Organization (WHO). Last month, the WHO declined to issue guidelines for transgender procedures for children, on the grounds that “the evidence base . . . is limited and variable regarding the longer-term outcomes.” The words “limited” and “variable” are significant and cautionary. The first, “limited,” means it’s far from clear that so-called “gender-affirming” medical interventions are beneficial. The second, “variable,” hints at the evidence that children who get these interventions suffer. Coming from the World Health Organization, that’s quite a statement indeed.
Or consider Europe. A growing number of countries have already banned or severely restricted children’s access to transgender interventions, based on systematic reviews of the science. That includes England, Sweden, Finland and Norway, while Belgium, France, Ireland and Italy have raised concerns. We’re talking about countries that are generally aligned with Canada, ideologically. They’re looking at the science and seeing red flags. What’s wrong with Alberta doing the same thing?Canadians who reflexively see gender transition as an extension of previous advocacy for gay civil rights should know that it’s not. Instead, “gender-affirming” care for children is essentially gay conversion therapy.Multiple studies have found that most kids who are confused or distressed about their sex end up realizing they’re gay — nearly two-thirds in a 2021 study of boys. Yet if they go down a transgender road, they’ll lose sight of who they really are.
Before England started taking child safeguarding seriously, clinicians at the country’s main transgender service referred to prescribing puberty blockers as “transing the gay away.” They also joked that “there would be no gay people left” if they continued helping kids medically transition. Is that really what Canadians want for our country’s gay and lesbian kids?
The fact is that about 80 per cent of children who believe they’re transgender eventually come to terms with their sex without surgical or pharmaceutical intervention. The worst thing we could do is prevent them from discovering who they really are by pushing them down the road of irreversible medical interventions.
Alberta has joined Saskatchewan and New Brunswick in doing the right thing. Now the rest of Canada should follow suit.”
So it looks like evidence based medicine is transphobic, material reality is transphobic, and really the truth must be at least doubly transphobic.
Link to the Calgary Herald – hhtps://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-alberta-is-right-children-should-be-protected-from-transgender-procedures
Link to the paper cited – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00358-x
Sorry folks just tired of the fact free hyperbole surrounding the issue. We need to get back to reality based arguments. The sooner the better.
Eva Kurilova on twitter writes on how harmful gender ideology is for children.
@eva_kurilova
If the option to become a boy had been presented to me as a child, I would have become obsessed with the idea and believed I’d never be happy if I didn’t do it. This would have been encouraged by adults like@JanisIrwin,@JyotiGondek, and@RachelNotley with no concern about whether such a fixation was good for my mental health or my health and happiness in the future.
Such people care only about appearing progressive and compassionate rather than about having difficult conversations and risking unpopularity, which actual compassion often entails. The rhetoric around this issue would probably even lead me to believe that I would end up committing suicide if not allowed to pursue this path. In fact, up until my late 20s I often sometimes wondered if I’d one day wake up suicidal about not transitioning, since the messaging was that that’s what girls and women like me were supposed to do.
Think about how abhorrent it is to put these thoughts into the mind of a child and think about how heartless it is to tell them once they are older and regretful that it was all their choice and therefore all their fault. But, instead, people like those mentioned above and others are raging and even crying about the policies proposed by
@ABDanielleSmith that would ensure such a thing doesn’t happen. It is completely upside down.
This is a mockery of the kind of care and concern society is supposed to show to its children. It’s “give kids what they want or they will kill themselves.” It’s narcissistic abuse and adult temper tantrums rolled into one. It’s something that these so-called adults will be trying to live down and pretend they never did in a few short years when they’ve moved on to the next virtue signal of the day. It’s pathetic and morally bereft.
This is a full repost of Amy Eileen Hamm’s article from the New West Times.
It is important that news like this gets proper exposure and to illustrate how the MSM is not doing its job. Plus it gets it on Facebook around the stupid news censorship in Canada.
By now, every Canadian has heard the news out of Alberta. Although depending where you get your news, you’ve either heard that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has announced a forthcoming genocide camp for LGBT youth or—for those who’ve not lost their grip on reality—you’ve heard that Smith is taking an evidence-based stance on transgender healthcare for minors, protecting female athletes in sports, and ensuring parents have the right to safeguard the well-being and best interests of their children.
There will be no more puberty blockers or cross sex hormones for children under 16. No gender surgeries—such as double mastectomies or penile inversions—for minors under 18. No more teachers changing under-16 students’ names or pronouns without parental permission. No more leaving parents in the dark about gender-identity school lessons. Parents can continue to opt their children out. For female athletes, they will have sports leagues of their own: no males can identify their way in.
Smith is bringing safety, fairness, parental rights, and reason back to her province. She is bringing Albertans exactly what the majority of Canadians support, as per a recent Angus Reid poll that shows parents expect to be notified if their kids suddenly identify as transgender at school. (What loving parent wouldn’t want to be?) Similarly, a 2021 poll reveals that Canadians want sports segregated by sex, not gender self-identification.
There’s no denying that Smith’s new legislation is reflective of majority Canadian sentiment. So naturally, Canada’s activists and hard left, plus their sycophant Liberal and NDP bootlickers—fringe minority that they are—had a Chernobyl-level nuclear meltdown, with a fallout zone well beyond Alberta’s borders.
Notably, our national broadcaster trotted out vile misogynist Fae Johnstone, slapped an “expert” label on the transgender-identified male, and hit “publish” on another gaslighting piece of state propaganda. They quoted Johnstone on Smith’s new rules: “This is interfering ideologically in the provision of medically necessary healthcare for trans and gender diverse young people.” He also claimed the new legislation “flies in the face of establishing medical best practice.”
All of what Johnstone said is demonstrably—and infuriatingly—false. The only ideology at play is his. Gender “affirming” healthcare for minors is being globally outed as the medical scandal that it is, with numerous Scandinavian and European countries implementing restrictions or bans on the treatment of children. The World Health Organization just released trans care guidelines that do not include standards for youth or minors; they cite a lack of evidence to support childhood transition guidelines.
Persons like Fae Johnstone are desperate to bury the truth. When not lying via our government-funded media platform, Johnstone can be found trolling and threatening women with differing political opinions online. “I actually do want a political environment in which TERFs are so vilified they don’t dare speak their views publicly,” he once wrote. Because if you can’t beat them, shut them down.
And then there’s Canada’s Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, Randy Boissonnault, who took the good news from Alberta particularly poorly. In a presser, the man insisted that joining your school’s chess club or debate team is no different than changing your gender and going on Lupron, the puberty-blocking drug used off-label for trans kids and also to castrate sex offenders.
“Nobody calls your parents when you join the debate team. But now, if somebody thinks you’re questioning or queer, they’re gonna tell the teacher and the teacher’s gonna call the parents,” said Boissonnault. “This is our NATO moment as an LGBTQ community. An attack on one of our communities is an attack on us all.” Boissonnault, a gay man, seems blissfully unaware that childhood medical transition is disproportionately inflicted upon gender-confused kids who, if left alone to go through puberty, would simply end up gay. What Canada is doing to “trans” kids, in many cases, is “transing the gay away”; it’s a modern form of conversion therapy. It must stop. We are an international embarrassment on several fronts, most appallingly so for ignoring the global demise of gender ideology and destroying the bodies and minds of untold numbers of vulnerable children.
In response to Premier Smith, legal group Egale Canada has called her proposed legislation “unconstitutional” and claims they will launch a court challenge. It’s possible that the federal government will, too. Minister Boissonnault is promoting a rally to protest Smith’s proposed changes at the Edmonton Legislature this weekend.
Premier Smith is not backing down. Good for her. Canada needs an enormous dose of reality, and our petulant gender activists need their tantrums to go ignored. Let them stamp and shout and lie—the adults in the country are finally having a conversation.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…