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.
A new twist on the old story.
Buried in the French language press a telling incident of transgender activist violence against Canada’s National Broadcaster for daring to tell the truth about irreversible puberty blockers and surgical child mutilation (aka Gender Affirming Care).
This is a translation from the LA PRESS website –
“An investigation was opened by Montreal police into acts of vandalism committed on the premises of Radio-Canada in Montreal earlier last week.
Gestures claimed online as a response to the recent broadcast of a report by the program Investigation into gender transition therapies among minors.
At 2:20 a.m. on March 13, a call was made to 911 concerning misdeeds committed at the building of a “media company” in the Ville-Marie borough, the Ville-Marie police department confirmed. of Montreal (SPVM). “Upon their arrival on the scene, the police noticed that there were broken windows at one of the entrances to the building,” explains a spokesperson for the police force, Caroline Chèvrefils. According to the first information available, “one or more suspects” caused this damage before fleeing, she adds.
The investigation is still ongoing and no arrests have been made at this time. The SPVM intends to view images from surveillance cameras that captured the scene. The state-owned company confirmed on Saturday that it had been the target of these acts of vandalism. “Suspects actually damaged three windows in our building and then fled,” said its spokesperson, Marc Pichette. This is an unfortunate act of vandalism.
» Claimed online On Friday, an anonymous press release was published on the Montréal Contre-information website, a platform used by anarchist activists to claim their actions. The text suggests that these acts of vandalism are intended as a response to the recent broadcast of a report on the program Enquête sur les therapies de transition de sexe. Broadcast on February 29, the report in question, entitled Trans express, focuses on the issue of adolescents who wish to change their gender and the fact that the Quebec health system “responds very quickly to their requests for medical transition by prescribing blockers, testosterone and mastectomies.” “Is it normal for a 14 year old girl to get a prescription for testosterone within minutes? »,
We can read in the description of the investigation, on the show’s website. However, the text published on Montréal Counter-information accuses the state corporation of “using its large platform to amplify transphobic speeches close to those of the extreme right”. “This report represents an ideological shift which serves to legitimize the transphobic demands of the far right, which will fuel violence against trans communities, which are currently increasingly targeted,” continues the text, the authors of which remain unknown.”
Hmm…
A quote directly contradicting the THIS NEVER HAPPENS narrative bullshit we constantly hear from the activist Left:
“On January 30, 14-year-old Sachay, alone, comes to a private chic clinic for his medical appointment. The girl identifies herself as transgender and, to initiate her transition to the other sex, she needs a prescription of male hormones, testosterone. It has not been referred by any doctor, psychologist or therapist.
In this way, it hopes to avoid the long waiting list of public clinics.
In less than three bminutes, Sacha describes to the doctor who receives her her tortuous relationship with her body, which she claims to hate from the age of 12. Having been diagnosed with an eating disorder in doubt, Sacha is convinced to be transgender after watching a video of a transgender young man on the Internet. He also realized “that he was not in the right body” after being diagnosed with an eating disorder.
After asking the girl if she had the support of her parents, the doctor goes on: “Do you consider any surgeries in the future?” Sacha doesn’t grab it right away: “Surgery… like?” “Mastectomy, remove the chest”, says the family doctor, before giving him the coordinates of the Montreal clinic where these operations are carried out.
When injected in the long term, the testosterone she wishes to obtain from the doctor may make a woman infertile. The possibility of a future pregnancy is raised in one question: “I understand that it is a little far away for you, at 14 years of age … Fertility, is it something you want to keep before you start?”, the doctor says. “Uh… no. I always knew I didn’t want a child”,” replied Sacha. “OK,” chained the general practitioner.
After nine minutes of consultation, Sacha gets his prescription: 30 mg testosterone to be injected once a week.”
17 minute Gender Assessments by ‘qualified doctors’ following the feelings based WPATH guidlines:
“Contacted by our team, the doctor says he adheres to the guidelines of WPATH, the international grouping of transgender health professionals. The body recommends a complete physical, psychological and social assessment before starting the medical transition of an adolescent.”
The suicide coercion ploy spelled out:
“This includes an Ontario study that transgender people in transition are 27 times more likely to commit suicide than those who have completed their transition. Or, this statistic on the probabilities of suicide attempt that would increase by 93% among transgender youth “without strong parental support”.
For the former holder of the Research Chair on trans youth and their families, this is a figure that comes to the fore. “Parental support is the number one protective factor among trans youth”, argues Annie Pullen Sansfaçon.
But other researchers are protesting against the use of these statistics among parents of transgender children. “It is ethically irresponsible to present these suicide statistics to parents”, “reacts” Samuel Veissière, an anthropologist for medicine and associate professor of psychology at UQAM. “When studying young people in gender questioning showing very high rates of suicidality and compared to other young people referred to in mental health, we talk about about the same rates.”
“This kind of message, according to Samuel Veissière, is tantamount to a form of coercion to impose the affirmative model on parents.”
Nor would there be any evidence that the take of blockers would soothe these young people with black ideas, psychiatrist Michael Landen continues. “There is no evidence that puberty blockers or hormones of the other sex reduce the suicide rate. None”, says the doctor and researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.”
Way to go Radio Canada!
The Radio Canada investigation has inspired other activists to post their fact free rebuttable hit pieces online. See how many false assertions you can spot along with the outright lies here.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…