You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Alberta’ category.
Proud to be an Albertan today!
The contempt our Federal Canadian Government has for our province seems to know no bounds. We are the only province in a Canada that has a democratic mechanism to elect senators. There are currently three elected senators in waiting that were patently ignored, and instead to represent Alberta a radical gender activist Kristopher Wells and a lawyer that has donated at least 30,000 dollars to the federal Liberal Party.
Here is the list of Senators the citizens of Alberta have democratically nominated for the Senate:
So we have a partisan appointment:
“Fridhandler is a corporate lawyer, arbitrator, mediator, and businessman with over 40 years of legal experience.
[…]
Fridhandler has been an active supporter of the federal Liberal Party during his career, serving as the party’s election co-chair in Alberta between 2004 and 2009, according to his biography page on the website of Calgary law firm Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, where he has been a partner since 1990.”
And then we have the wacko rainbow gender activist:
“Kristopher Wells’s biography describes him as “an educator and a champion for the 2SLGBTQ+ community who has used research and advocacy to help advance diversity, equity, and human rights in Alberta and across the country.”
He is the editor-in-chief of Journal of LGBT Youth, which is the “world’s leading research publication on 2SLGBTQ+ youth,” according to his biography on the website for MacEwan University in Edmonton, where Wells is an associate professor.
Wells has also helped with the creation of the Pride Tape initiative, which several National Hockey League players have adopted in recent years.”
I’m not sure Trudeau could have picked people LESS representative of the people of Alberta. Let’s take a peek at the calibre of Well’s interaction with the public.
JFC. This is the fringe of the fringe. What a completely inappropriate and disappointing decision made by the Liberal Party of Canada.
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.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…