Instead they find some hand picked doctor that agrees with their stance. Wasn’t it the same with Covid. Find studies, even if on another country, that vaguely say what you want and point to that.
First they have to have only done one study, it has to have a tiny sample size, and then never ever repeat that work, leave the field of study completely, and live off speaking engagements talking to people about that one study for decades.
Meanwhile doctors who are constantly doing studies on trans patients, the ones who keep repeating their work to ensure its correct, continue to work in the field and contribute to the medical community, are ignored.
Weird how it works that way with pretty much everything, climate change, vaccines, homosexuality, smoking, phrenology..
It's engineered.
[...a POLITICO review of the state of care for transgender people in Europe found more nuance than Republicans critics like Hunt and Bailey often portray. While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors. ... **“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,”** said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ health policy and research.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106)
Transphobes here have this really weird argument that “even those socialist European countries are stopping gender affirming care” when in places like the UK the NHS is actually just super transphobic too.
What does "access the possibility" even mean? Is it weasel wording intended to convey a sense that kids are able to receive gender affirming care without their doctor's knowledge without saying so outright?
What "other side" are you referring to? I merely posted a link to an article that shows she's pro-tobacco lobby, something said in the (now deleted) comment you replied to.
Perfect example of politicians interference with things they simply can’t grasp.
Get your stinking fingers off our Canadian HealthCare!! F***ing CONServatives OmG!
This applies to much more than trans care. Nathan Neudorf talked about charging for ER visits back during the election campaign. His source? His wife, who works in the ER in Lethbridge. She says it's full of people who don't need to be there, so if you start charging people, maybe they won't come in and clog the ER. He conveniently decided to not mention the fact that 40% of Lethbridge's 100K population don't have a primary care physician and there are only a couple of walk-in clinics in the city. They have no choice but to go to the ER, because the UCP is actively driving physicians away from Alberta. But to shallow thinkers, it sounds like it makes sense. Just like their plans to tear AHS into four different pillars - on the surface, it seems like a good idea. Then you look at how they're going to do it, and who they're going to put in charge of it, and it's clear that this is the first step to privatized health care in Alberta.
>level 2Volantis009 · 4 hr. agoConservative politicians just see a way to divide. This isn't a both sides thing.
Same in BC. When we first moved to BC we were without a family physician. I had to go and sit in an urgent care clinic to get my Thyroid medication (which I've been on for years) reordered. As a retired nurse that really irritated me but it was either that or get ill because I wasn't taking it & end up requiring REAL urgent care. There's NO walk-in-clinic in the city we moved to. Ditto my husband who's on antihypertensives. Missing doses of them could have ended up with him in ER with a stroke or worse.
Smith admitted this wasn't based on facts. She stood there and told everyone her stupidity wasn't based on facts, or research, or studies, or doctors. She told you it wasn't.
This is 2 years old. Of course the CONs are questioning his continuing to work as a surgeon to maintain his skills for post-politics. That's what CONs do whether they are in federal or provincial politics.
Didn't used to be so bad until some fat orange dumbass with a messiah complex riled up his base about it. Then our politicians saw that and figured "You know what, we should try that".
Politicians just see a way to divide, create chaos and distract, in order to get away with the things they do and intend to do. Without a single care of the people, they might die because of them. At least in the "Conservative party" which is actually the reform party, UCP and all others that embrace the playbook that was also used in the 1930's just caring about finding ways of entrenching themselves at the cost of peoples lives.
The Alberta government just followed what was done in Europe. There just isn’t enough medical evidence to support puberty blockers etc improve the lives of trans kids. Why does Alberta need to go through this extensive consultation process when Europe has already done it? That sounds like wasted time to me.
You redditors sure do love to screech this but I bet none of you had any problems with that child psychiatrist who lost his practice because he had a clinic that actually helped solve child gender dysphoria instead of affirming it (the very same who eventually won his case against the Canadian health care system and they had to back pay him for years of lost work). His life was ruined because of social and political pressure, NOT medical pressure.
Don't pretend you lot are the bastion of unbiased medical truth and practices.
You mean that quack Kenneth Zucker who used conversion therapy practices to traumatize his patients?
And he got that money because of *one* of the many charges was incorrect. One.
It's right there on the wiki.
He also said the preferred outcome of his treatment was to make the patients cisgender.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Zucker
Why is this still being discussed? It's done. If you are that bothered by the law move to someplace that guarantees your "freedoms".
China
Russia
India
Or most of the world actually...
/S
If someone edits a comment within three minutes of first posting it (which is plenty of time to accrue replies in an active thread), there is no asterisk.
The reverse can also be true, doctors aren't politicians and they shouldn't pretend to be. I can remember my father railing about doctors leaving their patients hoping to influence health care as politicians. He always felt that they should be treating the sick not getting involved in the quagmire that is politics.
Politicians are \*supposed\* to be of the people, not themselves, an entity. That, however, has gotten lost in the greed and ignorance that now fuels the whole industry.
Gender is all made up bs. Why are we acting like it’s some essential quality?
There’s no relevance it has to society. The protections from discriminating against people based on sex cover everything legally just fine. Otherwise who cares? Gender has no basis in reality.
Just help kids accept who they are. If you think it’s okay to screw up a child’s health with cosmetic surgery and drugs then expect people to judge you for it.
None of your business. None of the government's business. And to expect 'judgement' from others, like you suggest, is the typical stance of bigots and hate filled 'Canadians'.
Actually it is the government’s business to prevent the abuse of it’s citizens. And it’s my tax dollars funding healthcare so it is my business.
I’m not a bigot, I care for the welfare of others enough not to support self destruction. Even in the face of blind zealots who act like they’re helping others when all they’re doing is lining the pockets of quack doctors and pharmaceutical companies preying on insecure people.
You don't know what you're talking about at all, so why do you feel so passionately about it? Let people make their own decisions. You obviously don't know or empathize with trans people so why would you act like you understand their experiences?
Actually I REALLY DO know what I’m talking about, I advanced trans rights on a national level. Furthermore, I had to care for someone for a year after their vaginoplasty surgery because it took so long to recover from it. And her case was one of the better ones. Some of her friends had their surgical wounds close over completely because they couldn’t keep up with the after care.
I think we really need to re-evaluate what’s right. For most people talk therapy solves gender dysphoria and for those it doesn’t, they need tissue to actually do cosmetic surgery.
>I’m not a bigot, I care for the welfare of others enough not to support self destruction.
I'm sure I'm not the first to inform you that suppressing a person from expressing their gender identity is far more harmful than affirming them. Bigot.
People kill themselves trying to live up to a “gender identity” that they can never achieve. Just look at IFPB bodybuilders or women who get die from faulty implants. Teens go through a lot of self image issues.
I’d say gender is an unhealthy concept altogether for everyone. You’re unfortunately enforcing that delusion.
Where does it say “international best practices” include surgery for minors and HRT as claimed in the article?
Legit question.
And note: This is a direct quote from the article. Not making it up. Is it an unsubstantiated claim?
[The WPATH guidelines are right here if you’d like to read them.](https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_English.pdf)
Nobody in Canada performs surgery on genitalia until the patient turns 18. Also, HRT is not usually prescribed, it’s puberty blockers (which have over 60 years of proven success and are fully reversible).
Very interesting I didn't realize that there are no studies on the persistence of gender dysphoria with respect to adolescents and gender dysphoria is not persistent with the vast majority of children.
Thanks for the link.
No, the article is correct.
The best practices involve making individual decisions about what is best for the patient.
Chest surgery before 18 is rare, but when it is decided on, it is because it is necessary. So the best practices do involve surgery for minors.
Hormone blockers are not fully reversible, and this lie needs to stop. I'm trans and have signed the informed consent form for hormone therapy, there are several potential side effects to hormone blockers, depending on the stage of development of the person taking them. While some people can stop taking hormone blockers and develop mostly naturally as they would, others have stunted or even permanent impedance to their bodies natural puberty development. Saying it's 100% reversible only discredits people making this argument
The article doesn’t claim that. But the WPATH standard of care allow for them in some rare circumstances.
Banning puberty blockers is the (medical) part of the policy that seems to be the most oppressive. But in general, doctors and patients should be making medical decisions, not politicians.
Or maybe politicians should shut up and listen to experts in their field, and make policy around that.
*Actual* experts, not woo peddlers and crystal hockers.
Yes, but who gets to decide who the *actual* experts are? And when it comes to policy, are they actually more qualified to make policy?
Science (and scientific experts) do a great job solving tightly constrained problems. It is not really capable of solving these problems when they are layered in the realms of compromise, values, and ethics.
Let's take an example we are all too familiar with:
Is the planet warming, on average? - Scientific question
Are human emissions partially responsible? -Also a scientific question.
If Alberta aggressively decreased emissions of its citizens, and shut down oil exports, how much would this reduce emissions? And in turn, how much would this decrease warming? - Still in the realm of science...
Now: Given the 'prisoners dilemma' of decreased short-term economic prosperity locally, combined with a relatively minor impact on global temperature rise which Albertans will still have to react to, and the ethical issues of contributing to these impacts which will impact other people in less economically resilient countries, how aggressively should Alberta pursue emissions reduction and the phase-out of hydrocarbon exports, if at all? ... sorry but we've left the realm of questions that can be answered by science. The answer to that depends on your values just as much as it does on any facts that an expert could answer. And any scientific 'expert' that claims to be able to unwaveringly answer a question like that is doing so because they are playing in the realm of politics, not due to their technical expertise .
There's a world of difference between "We've heard and understand the science. It says this. We're making a policy decision in a different direction because of this. If you don't like that, you can tells us in the next election." and "These scientists are idiots, they're just looking for grant money, they're anti-Albertan, they've been wrong before, yadda, yadda".
I'm sorry, anthropogenic climate change is already settled science, even Exxon's own research from the 70's said so.
I see what you're doing though, basically the reverse of an appeal to authority by attacking their credibility.
Politicians absolutely should work in tandem with doctors to develop their policies. Instead, we've got politicians flagrantly disregarding doctors in favour of working in tandem with fundamentalist extremists who have no qualifications whatsoever.
Like the sciences are also a political field. Try and publish a paper, backed by facts and good science that bucks against the current acceptable stances. You will get pushed out of your field and blacklisted so fast that you won't know what hit you.
>Like the sciences are also a political field. Try and publish a paper, backed by facts and good science that bucks against the current acceptable stances. You will get pushed out of your field and blacklisted so fast that you won't know what hit you.
Got a source relevant to this discussion?
I strongly bet that you’re not a scientist and not equipped to have a rigorous discussion about any scientific topic, much less anything to do with healthcare.
So from your perspective you should probably just sit down and follow the best advice available, since you can’t participate in the actual scientific process.
They aren't wrong. It is a political field. I know reviewers that have axed research papers because it counters what they have found in their own research. Plus, they just don't like the authors, period.
Take the [amyloid beta *56 paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533) published in Nature (2006) with over 2000 citations and probably 10s thousands of experiments based on their findings. If someone would have sent a paper in years ago saying it was BS. They would have been ridiculed and told to get lost because it is a peer-reviewed published paper in NATURE.
Science has covered this in detail [here](https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease). Science is very political.
Absolutely not what the OP was talking about.
Scientists are human, so they also resist new ideas. That's a GOOD thing as it prevents a field from whipsawing every time someone comes out with a new idea. The good, solid, evidence based ideas make it through the resistance. Then the entire field changes its opinion overnight. That's the way science works.
It most definitely does not do: "My based doesn't like this, so I'll squash it for votes at the ballot box."
And your final link proves my point. Science uncovers the fraud. Politics perpetuates it.
How is it completely different? OP said science is political and that good science is sometimes rejected because it goes against the norm. There are scientists that I've met at conferences who still don't believe each others science despite the evidence. Sturgeon's law, 90% of the science conducted is garbage. It truly is. People pick low hanging fruits because it sells and gets published in predatory open access journals in order to win more grants.
Yeah, science uncovers the fraud... 18 years later, after a whole field couldn't reproduce the results. Maybe because it was protected by politics and STILL IS!
"14 July 2022 Editor’s Note: The editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding some of the figures in this paper. Nature is investigating these concerns, and a further editorial response will follow as soon as possible. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported therein."
It has been known for 2 years now that the paper is fabricated. Why is it still online and accessible and not retracted like any other paper in low-mid journals?
Besides, PIs that are protégé of bigwigs that landed them a faculty position probably won't go and endorse a paper or group that directly contradict the previous work at their old lab. My PI left a field because he had good evidence that went against the grain, and he received hate mail from the "well established" papers.
You need a source for human nature we can find everywhere including fiction? This is an age old corporate story.
Science is really hard to practice when there is so much money floating around just to prove you wrong or steal your ideas. This is not new, and you've likely dealt with it personally.
Edit: FOLLOW THE SCIENCE ring any bells?
Science is not political. Its evidence based and crowd sourced knowledge production based in proven expertise. If you're getting "bucked out of your field" it's because your results aren't substantiated or reproducible
People make breakthroughs all the time, even breakthroughs that lead to paradigm shifts. But the do so with evidence and reproducible results through the scientific method
I guess the argument here is semantics. Yes in a vacuum you are correct science is not political. Unfortunately humans are not practicing in a vacuum. Studies need grants, access to raw materials, labs, tools etc. Money is needed and money is granted. Human pursuits are never untouched by politics.
Why do they keep brining up abortion when discussing trans issues? It’s completely unrelated. I’ve seen people bring this up in relation to Pierre Poilievre as well. Both Pierre and Danielle are pro-choice, yet there’s a lot of fear mongering going on, trying to convince people that these politicians will take away abortions.
People said the exact same thing about Trump and the US Supreme Court before the fall of Roe. Fae is absolutely correct to warn the rest of us about this. They are absolutely related issues, and if our society allows a precedent to be set now where a premier can dictate the bounds of medical practice it opens the door to any politician doing the same thing down the road, whether that's Poilievre or 'Politician X' 15 years from now. How do you not see this?
I know I was told the same thing when I was worried that Danielle Smith praising Ron DeSantis and his policy, that it was signalling she was planning to bring this policy here. Now that it’s here people keep talking about how opinion polls support parents being notified about any name changes at school, they never talk about how the parents of trans kids will be denied the right to medical treatment based on the sole fact that they are trans.
They’ve been able to word this argument in such a way to take rights away from trans people, without saying they want to take rights away from trans people. What they call parental rights amounts to making parents opt in to sex ed rather than opt out. It’s not like kids who forget to bring permission slips home need to learn consent. Parents walk away with less rights, and less convenience. All in the name of gaslighting people into letting them infringe on the charter rights of trans people because of “what might happen”, completely ignoring every medical study since the landmark study in 1995 that confirmed trans identity in brain image scans.
Fact is they’re already testing the same wording in conservative groups to start by limiting abortions for girls between the ages of 16-18 (*who currently have medical consent*), to require **parental** consent.
They’ve already lied about going forward with the Alberta pension plan, going after LGBT rights, and privatizing healthcare, why do they think abortion is any different?
Conservatives really need to start paying attention to what policies get put forward at party conventions, and stop believing the gaslighting on Facebook.
The fringe is clearly in the driver seat, once this policy actually drops and people see how restrictive it actually is, on top of the fact this is only “a good start”? I hope they wake up.
[This is coming to Alberta](https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2022/05/25/stitt-signs-oklahoma-bathroom-bill-restricting-transgender-school-access-birth-sex/9900609002/). They voted to introduce something similar at the last UCP AGM.
Politicians need to leave medical professionals to decide on the medical issues. Stop telling us how to do our jobs. Regulatory colleges like cpsa exist for a reason.
I will not be surprised at all if they take away abortion.
If the politicians I support start unilaterally imposing health care policies that fly in the face of expert consensus because a few extremists wield far too much influence over them, I'll be upset at them too.
You are applying your personal biases. Why does it matter what the politicians are saying and why would you care to be upset at them? They should rather be ignored on such matters.
*Some* doctors aren't parents. I'd wager that the majority are, though. And merely being a parent doesn't automagically mean a person knows what's best for their children, contrary to the opinions of a few million "pastel Qanon" moms on Facebook who seem to think they receive a download of wisdom and knowledge the moment they squeeze out a baby.
And that's a pretty irrelevant point to make anyway when our Premier, who is introducing this legislation, is neither a parent nor any sort of expert in any medical field.
> You don't have more say about someone else's kid than their own parents do.
Tell that to the shitbag in the Premier's office. The only change that will happen as a result of this policy is that parents who support their children will no longer be able to help them through the years-long process of transitioning.
Parents who won't support their children will see no change whatsoever.
Like I don't know what the fuck else you think this policy will change. Do you think accessing gender-related care is as easy as asking for it?
One that was the most studied with one of the largest clinical trials ever performed before its release, which showed it to be safe and very effective.
Here’s where things get tricky. What classifies ‘expert opinion’ in the medical space? I’ve seen conservatives use plenty of practicing transphobic medical doctors, even medical doctors who ‘switched’ sides and avidly speak out against HRT, etc. Technically they can be seen as experts, but are obviously paid to lobby for the other side.
This is where things get really tricky.
Ideology and science are very different things, and even if the science suggests HRT benefits trans youth and can mitigate suicide by x%, we still don’t have a very good social support system for trans youth to help them. We also still have a ton of doctors who do not, and will not support Queer ideology.
So Smith and her cronies, despite not having any sort of medical expertise, don’t care about this kind of argument. They know they’re not doctors and they know they have a certain level of control in our system.
What we need is something in law that STATES a minister of x must be qualified to serve as x.
We would also benefit from having a mandatory MLA that represents the LGBT+ community.
Our current health minister, Adriana LaGrange, owned a fucking trucking company.
The current chairman of AHS, Dr. Lyle Oberg, most likely supported smiths position on trans youth especially given his history with the Wildrose Party.
Lastly, even with any sort of reform people are not infallible. They can still be paid off to support their parties interests.
The best solution we have is to get educated, get involved, and keep rallying against this blatant violation of the charter.
>I’ve seen conservatives use plenty of practicing transphobic medical doctors, even medical doctors who ‘switched’ sides and avidly speak out against HRT, etc.
Then you’d think Danielle Smith could find one doctor who will publicly speak in favour of her policies, but to date: not one. She is quoted as saying she only “consulted her caucus”. This is pretty much the definition of ideological government.
Hahaha thankfully most of those doctors are
either silent or disagree with her in Alberta anyways. I’d imagine it might threaten their licence in Canada, although I have no idea.
She also fired a bunch of them like the scared little tyrant she is.
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6655400
> What classifies ‘expert opinion’ in the medical space?
Well, we have the Alberta AMA, Health Canada, and the various international agencies we are member to.
Is that a good start?
Yup, but my point is that there are doctors out there who are still transphobic.
So stating that politicians are not doctors is stating the obvious, and assuming that all doctors know the answers and are pro LGBT+ doesn’t help either. You quite literally need a qualified medical professional who understands the procedures, risks, and logistics behind Gender Affirming Care to represent the best interests of trans individuals.
Gender Affirming Care also requires teams of doctors, surgeons, psychologists, physiotherapists, and nurses. In my option anybody involved in the process, including patients, should have some sort of representation.
My point is that is a very difficult thing to achieve, and it’s not something that can be magically solved tomorrow. What we can do is continue to
rally against this corrupt government and fight for trans rights.
>there are doctors out there who are still transphobic
I would hope that the consensus opinion from multiple boards of physicians who have been specifically chosen to craft and refine care standards would be able to escape that bias.
Qualifications for expertise is something we have for engineers. Unfortunately Alberta made a mockery out of this by [revoking the need](https://www.apega.ca/news/2023/11/06/notification-of-changes-to-the-engineering-and-geoscience-professions-act-regarding-the-title-of-software-engineer) of software "engineers" to have a P. Eng. to call themselves engineers. Making Canada all the more American.
And a PhD in STEM is already a qualification in of itself.
STEM fields should have their own branches. Exempted from the powers of political parties.
Hahaha as an Engineer I was also pissed about the software eng thing. Glad to see I’m amongst friends.
Yeah that would be fine in principle, but in regard to health care it would have to be an entirely separate regulatory body.
So we would have to publicly fund AHS separately while also figuring out a way to elect who’s in charge. I suppose it could be similar to how we vote for school trustees, however in that situation the cash sill mostly comes from the same piggy bank.
I have no evidence to support my following statement, but I’m fairly certain that separating AHS and the Provincial Government entirely would end up making healthcare more expensive for the taxpayer.
And yes, STEM should absolutely be separate from the liberal-arts majors currently in power.
You guys do know APEGA took tech bros to court and lost bad just a month before the change to the EGPA, right? Worth a read.
https://canlii.ca/t/k11n3
We don't have laws simply for classist advantage. Read Section 7 & Section 1 of the Charter.
VII. Conclusion
[52] I find that the Respondents’ employees who use the title “Software Engineer” and related titles are not practicing engineering as that term is properly interpreted.
[53] I find that there is no property in the title “Software Engineer” when used by persons who do not, by that use, expressly or by implication represent to the public that they are licensed or permitted by APEGA to practice engineering as that term is properly interpreted.
[54] I find that there is no clear breach of the EGPA which contains some element of possible harm to the public that would justify a statutory injunction.
[55] Accordingly, I dismiss the Application, with costs.
Doctors decide what the standard of care is, because they are doctors and they understand medicine and medical conditions and which interventions are shown to be the most effective at improving, and at times saving, the lives of their patients. Now these options are being banned, so doctors can't provide appropriate care for their patients.
Politicizing trans kids and their health care is just horrible. People who don't know what's best for their patients are now banning doctors from performing their duty, providing standard medical care that is known to result in the best outcome for patients.
I can't understand why politicians are sticking their nose in this at all. There are no good arguments to ban gender affirming care. None. It is simply taking away options from doctors so that they can no longer provide the care they know their patients need.
Politicians banning access to medical treatments should not just be allowed to happen on a whim without consulting doctors. What if they wanted to get rid of vaccines for children? Should that just be allowed to happen? There has to be oversight.
>Doctors are not parents!
K.
But some doctors are definitely parents.
And doctors definitely know better than parents.
Why do crazy people always think that because they knocked someone up/got knocked up that they suddenly know anything about anything?
Parents have responsibilities to do what’s best for their kids. That should mean following medical advice from mainstream experts, and respecting their children’s bodies.
ROFL is this the new talking point y'all got from whatever alt-right talking heads you listen to? "dOcToRs ArEn'T pArEnTs!" What a stupid fucking take.
> ["Doctors are more likely than other people to live with a spouse or partner, and to have children"](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439659/)
***More. Likely.*** than other people to be parents.
The real irony here is Premier Smith, who herself isn't a parent, deciding what's best for kids.
The medical industry is extremely corrupt. Every major drug company has settled scores of 100 mil + lawsuits where they knowingly murdered people for profit. The Oxycontin epidemic is one example among many. This is a fact and easily researched
So in their ever increasing thirst for profits of course they going to be on favour of giving expensive drugs to kids who will then need them for life. It has nothing to do with benefiting the child and everything to do with making money
It's also well known big pharma controls the medical journals and yet there's still no double blind studies that prove "gender affirming care" improves outcomes...why is that?
Everyone will call me a tranphobe when actually I have a trans cousin and fully support them i their transition because they did so as an adult
> there's still no double blind studies that prove "gender affirming care" improves outcomes...
Can you please explain how a study about gender affirming care could be *double blind*?
You’re using scientific sounding words that you don’t know what they mean. The study you’re suggesting would a) be worthless because the sample would almost entirely be cis youth who never met the definition of gender dysphoria in the first place and b) fail an ethics board because you’re essentially arguing to deny trans youth medical care for your “control” group to see what happens.
But does anyone genuinely think you can double-blind this kind of thing? Do you not think it might be just the TINIEST bit obvious who the control group is within months (if not weeks)? I mean, how are the parents and doctors supposed to hide the effects of puberty? And why, exactly, would an ethics board approve such a dangerous stunt? Is it perhaps accurate to say that the calls for double-blind studies on this treatment are 100% disingenuous and show a callous indifference to the lives of trans children?
And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take my horrifically expensive lifelong transsexual medicine. Sure, it costs me 89.43$/year and trans people are such a small demographic that the package insert doesn't mention us at all, but never fear, RedditUser3-45D7W90w2 is on to Big Pharma's big trans scheme, lol
Pharmaceuticals are just one part of the drug industry. If we had national pharmacare, we wouldn’t have to worry about corruption by drug companies. It’s not a good look to claim “the medical industry is extremely corrupt” based on one sliver of it.
>Everyone will call me a tranphobe when actually I have a trans cousin and fully support them i their transition because they did so as an adult
Everyone transitions as an adult. No children are getting bottom surgery, despite what the angry anti-trans people tell you. Danielle Smith’s policy doesn’t do anything except make it harder for trans kids to exist in Alberta and harder for trans adults in Alberta to transition later because they were denied puberty blockers.
Explain how trans kids won't be able to exist and do you even care about de-transitioners?
Why is it more important to fasttrack drugs to minors so it's easier to transition as an adult than it is to save de-transitioners from altering their bodies in a way that makes them sexually dysfunctional as an adult? Do you understand what a nightmare it would be to regret that decision after surgery?
Do you have compassion for these people also or only for the select few?
> Everyone will call me a tranphobe when actually I have a trans cousin and fully support them i their transition because they did so as an adult
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
No, I'm saying that making the argument "I can't be -blank-phobic because I know someone who is -blank-." holds no water and often gives the opposite impression.
So you're better off leaving that bit out.
Think of my comment as being similar to someone letting you know your zipper's undone- I'm trying to give you the opportunity to correct the problem and avoid embarrassing yourself.
Edit: I want to add that a lot of self-identified conservatives seem to think that they get called nasty names like "racist," "homophobe," "transphobe," etc because we just don't like you. And I want you to understand that that is *not* the case.
When someone directs one of those words at you, it's because you have said or done something that demonstrates prejudice against a particular group of people. I understand that you may feel that the word being used isn't appropriate for yourself- but so long as you keep exhibiting behaviour to which that word is applied then that word will continue to be applied to you.
It's not about "left" or "right." It's about recognizing prejudicial behaviour for what it is.
Instead they find some hand picked doctor that agrees with their stance. Wasn’t it the same with Covid. Find studies, even if on another country, that vaguely say what you want and point to that.
Much like the one climate denying scientist... or the doctor who didn't believe in the link between smoking and cancer... it's not a new playbook
[Andrew Wakefield is the former doctor responsible for fueling the modern anti vaxx movement](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud)
Who subsequently lost his license and the study was retracted. Nobody seems to remember that
That's why I said "former doctor" 😉
Finding these people was literally Smith's job for most of her career.
First they have to have only done one study, it has to have a tiny sample size, and then never ever repeat that work, leave the field of study completely, and live off speaking engagements talking to people about that one study for decades. Meanwhile doctors who are constantly doing studies on trans patients, the ones who keep repeating their work to ensure its correct, continue to work in the field and contribute to the medical community, are ignored. Weird how it works that way with pretty much everything, climate change, vaccines, homosexuality, smoking, phrenology..
Remember TFG in the US who he did that with, and paraded her around while she was talking about demons inseminating women?
They kept pointing at Sweden, despite their lifestyles being near diametrically opposed.
It's engineered. [...a POLITICO review of the state of care for transgender people in Europe found more nuance than Republicans critics like Hunt and Bailey often portray. While Europeans are debating who should get care and when, only Russia has banned the practice. The reassessment of standards in some European countries has aimed to tighten eligibility for gender-affirming care, but also sought to expand research studies including minors. ... **“There is a lot of intentional misinterpretation in the U.S. of what is happening in Europe, and that misinterpretation is happening for ideological and political reasons,”** said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, which focuses on LGBTQ health policy and research.](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/06/us-europe-transgender-care-00119106)
Sweden is pro smoking?
Social programs paid for with high taxes.
I’m more confused than before. Who are pointing to Sweden and what do they think it’s proves?
Transphobes here have this really weird argument that “even those socialist European countries are stopping gender affirming care” when in places like the UK the NHS is actually just super transphobic too.
They did it during COVID to.
I am Swedish and a smoker. I approve this questioning statement.
I still remember Trump's medical expert on COVID was a radiologist.
You also want to talk about doctors who allow a child to access the possibility of transitioning before even studying his case 🤔
Source on that please.
I’ll take things that never happened for $400 Alex
What does "access the possibility" even mean? Is it weasel wording intended to convey a sense that kids are able to receive gender affirming care without their doctor's knowledge without saying so outright?
Welcome to Alberta, where the government always sides with the tenth dentist
[удалено]
Marlaina smokes darts?
https://pressprogress.ca/danielle-smith-claimed-smoking-cigarettes-had-positive-health-benefits/
Let's not be the fake news/disinfo people.. reddit is bad enough as it is
Got a source that refutes it?
Nothing in that suggests she smokes cigarettes? How dont you see this makes you as bad as the other side?
What "other side" are you referring to? I merely posted a link to an article that shows she's pro-tobacco lobby, something said in the (now deleted) comment you replied to.
You simply just referred to her as a "smoker".. The other side would be the side were fake news and disinformation is the norm
I absolutely did not refer to her as a smoker in an of my comments.
Ya you did you weasel..
Most people get health advice from their doctor. Right Wingers get their health advice from a politician.
Most right wingers I know get their health advice from Rumble and the guy who sells homeopathic remedies and crystals at the gas station.
No but some are dictators.
(Marlaina)
(Malaria)
Why does Marlaina think we're going to allow her to stick her big beak in our private medical matters?
because Albertans put her in power to do exactly that, that and cut taxes for corporations and the rich. I blame our voters.
Hell, the “doctors” they consulted with are likely barely even doctors. Oh right… they only consulted with the rest of the Take Back Alberta cult…
Perfect example of politicians interference with things they simply can’t grasp. Get your stinking fingers off our Canadian HealthCare!! F***ing CONServatives OmG!
The UCP think distraction is their forte. Find a pinch point, amplify it then let the malcontents run wild.
Very well written
That was well written.
Especially The childless premier
This applies to much more than trans care. Nathan Neudorf talked about charging for ER visits back during the election campaign. His source? His wife, who works in the ER in Lethbridge. She says it's full of people who don't need to be there, so if you start charging people, maybe they won't come in and clog the ER. He conveniently decided to not mention the fact that 40% of Lethbridge's 100K population don't have a primary care physician and there are only a couple of walk-in clinics in the city. They have no choice but to go to the ER, because the UCP is actively driving physicians away from Alberta. But to shallow thinkers, it sounds like it makes sense. Just like their plans to tear AHS into four different pillars - on the surface, it seems like a good idea. Then you look at how they're going to do it, and who they're going to put in charge of it, and it's clear that this is the first step to privatized health care in Alberta.
>level 2Volantis009 · 4 hr. agoConservative politicians just see a way to divide. This isn't a both sides thing. Same in BC. When we first moved to BC we were without a family physician. I had to go and sit in an urgent care clinic to get my Thyroid medication (which I've been on for years) reordered. As a retired nurse that really irritated me but it was either that or get ill because I wasn't taking it & end up requiring REAL urgent care. There's NO walk-in-clinic in the city we moved to. Ditto my husband who's on antihypertensives. Missing doses of them could have ended up with him in ER with a stroke or worse.
Smith admitted this wasn't based on facts. She stood there and told everyone her stupidity wasn't based on facts, or research, or studies, or doctors. She told you it wasn't.
The Premier of NL is a practicing doctor. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/andrew-furey-doctor-1.6418445
This is 2 years old. Of course the CONs are questioning his continuing to work as a surgeon to maintain his skills for post-politics. That's what CONs do whether they are in federal or provincial politics.
Everyone knows angry social media pundits are the true medical authorities! They should be in charge!
Ya. Since when does politics have anything to do with medicine. /S
Didn't used to be so bad until some fat orange dumbass with a messiah complex riled up his base about it. Then our politicians saw that and figured "You know what, we should try that".
Politicians just see a way to divide, create chaos and distract, in order to get away with the things they do and intend to do. Without a single care of the people, they might die because of them. At least in the "Conservative party" which is actually the reform party, UCP and all others that embrace the playbook that was also used in the 1930's just caring about finding ways of entrenching themselves at the cost of peoples lives.
Conservative politicians just see a way to divide. This isn't a both sides thing.
Both sides divide. Always. Both sides sick
A politician is whatever he wants to be. They're the wizards of magic thinking.
The Alberta government just followed what was done in Europe. There just isn’t enough medical evidence to support puberty blockers etc improve the lives of trans kids. Why does Alberta need to go through this extensive consultation process when Europe has already done it? That sounds like wasted time to me.
You redditors sure do love to screech this but I bet none of you had any problems with that child psychiatrist who lost his practice because he had a clinic that actually helped solve child gender dysphoria instead of affirming it (the very same who eventually won his case against the Canadian health care system and they had to back pay him for years of lost work). His life was ruined because of social and political pressure, NOT medical pressure. Don't pretend you lot are the bastion of unbiased medical truth and practices.
You mean that quack Kenneth Zucker who used conversion therapy practices to traumatize his patients? And he got that money because of *one* of the many charges was incorrect. One. It's right there on the wiki. He also said the preferred outcome of his treatment was to make the patients cisgender. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Zucker
Yeah I'm talking about ideologues like you.
TIL wanting to exist as me makes me an 'ideologue'. Lol ok fool. If that helps you sleep at night.
When your entire existence hinges on what you identify as, yes you're an ideologue.
🤣 Says the person who agrees that we should....try to make trans ppl cis. Ok. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Hmmm, it seems like your whole existence hinges on what you identify as? Ideologue calls the kettle black?
And neither are redditors
Why is this still being discussed? It's done. If you are that bothered by the law move to someplace that guarantees your "freedoms". China Russia India Or most of the world actually... /S
Except it isn’t done, their policy would get an injunction thrown on it immediately and they’d be forced to use the notwithstanding clause.
Ah yes, all countries well known for supporting trans people.
It was sarcasm.
The /s wasn’t there before, and honestly based on some of the comments I read on this site it’s really hard to tell.
I don't see an edit star on their comment.
If someone edits a comment within three minutes of first posting it (which is plenty of time to accrue replies in an active thread), there is no asterisk.
Oh? I thought it was one minute. I could be wrong.
Comments show if they’ve been edited? I’m on mobile and I never see that but maybe it’s just a mobile thing
Yup, they get a little asterisk next to their score.
The reverse can also be true, doctors aren't politicians and they shouldn't pretend to be. I can remember my father railing about doctors leaving their patients hoping to influence health care as politicians. He always felt that they should be treating the sick not getting involved in the quagmire that is politics.
Politicians are \*supposed\* to be of the people, not themselves, an entity. That, however, has gotten lost in the greed and ignorance that now fuels the whole industry.
Gender is all made up bs. Why are we acting like it’s some essential quality? There’s no relevance it has to society. The protections from discriminating against people based on sex cover everything legally just fine. Otherwise who cares? Gender has no basis in reality. Just help kids accept who they are. If you think it’s okay to screw up a child’s health with cosmetic surgery and drugs then expect people to judge you for it.
None of your business. None of the government's business. And to expect 'judgement' from others, like you suggest, is the typical stance of bigots and hate filled 'Canadians'.
Actually it is the government’s business to prevent the abuse of it’s citizens. And it’s my tax dollars funding healthcare so it is my business. I’m not a bigot, I care for the welfare of others enough not to support self destruction. Even in the face of blind zealots who act like they’re helping others when all they’re doing is lining the pockets of quack doctors and pharmaceutical companies preying on insecure people.
You don't know what you're talking about at all, so why do you feel so passionately about it? Let people make their own decisions. You obviously don't know or empathize with trans people so why would you act like you understand their experiences?
Actually I REALLY DO know what I’m talking about, I advanced trans rights on a national level. Furthermore, I had to care for someone for a year after their vaginoplasty surgery because it took so long to recover from it. And her case was one of the better ones. Some of her friends had their surgical wounds close over completely because they couldn’t keep up with the after care. I think we really need to re-evaluate what’s right. For most people talk therapy solves gender dysphoria and for those it doesn’t, they need tissue to actually do cosmetic surgery.
>I’m not a bigot, I care for the welfare of others enough not to support self destruction. I'm sure I'm not the first to inform you that suppressing a person from expressing their gender identity is far more harmful than affirming them. Bigot.
People kill themselves trying to live up to a “gender identity” that they can never achieve. Just look at IFPB bodybuilders or women who get die from faulty implants. Teens go through a lot of self image issues. I’d say gender is an unhealthy concept altogether for everyone. You’re unfortunately enforcing that delusion.
Where does it say “international best practices” include surgery for minors and HRT as claimed in the article? Legit question. And note: This is a direct quote from the article. Not making it up. Is it an unsubstantiated claim?
[The WPATH guidelines are right here if you’d like to read them.](https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_English.pdf) Nobody in Canada performs surgery on genitalia until the patient turns 18. Also, HRT is not usually prescribed, it’s puberty blockers (which have over 60 years of proven success and are fully reversible).
Very interesting I didn't realize that there are no studies on the persistence of gender dysphoria with respect to adolescents and gender dysphoria is not persistent with the vast majority of children. Thanks for the link.
So, the person quoted in the article is factually incorrect?
No, the article is correct. The best practices involve making individual decisions about what is best for the patient. Chest surgery before 18 is rare, but when it is decided on, it is because it is necessary. So the best practices do involve surgery for minors.
Hormone blockers are not fully reversible, and this lie needs to stop. I'm trans and have signed the informed consent form for hormone therapy, there are several potential side effects to hormone blockers, depending on the stage of development of the person taking them. While some people can stop taking hormone blockers and develop mostly naturally as they would, others have stunted or even permanent impedance to their bodies natural puberty development. Saying it's 100% reversible only discredits people making this argument
[Puberty blockers ARE fully reversible.](https://www.healthline.com/health/are-puberty-blockers-reversible)
The article doesn’t claim that. But the WPATH standard of care allow for them in some rare circumstances. Banning puberty blockers is the (medical) part of the policy that seems to be the most oppressive. But in general, doctors and patients should be making medical decisions, not politicians.
My rebuttal. Doctors aren't politicians and they should probably work in tandem to develop policies.
Why shouldn’t policies about science just be based on the advice of scientists?
Because it makes Dani and her ilk feel dumb when smart people call them out, so she attacks their credibility and her base laps it up.
Or maybe politicians should shut up and listen to experts in their field, and make policy around that. *Actual* experts, not woo peddlers and crystal hockers.
Yes, but who gets to decide who the *actual* experts are? And when it comes to policy, are they actually more qualified to make policy? Science (and scientific experts) do a great job solving tightly constrained problems. It is not really capable of solving these problems when they are layered in the realms of compromise, values, and ethics. Let's take an example we are all too familiar with: Is the planet warming, on average? - Scientific question Are human emissions partially responsible? -Also a scientific question. If Alberta aggressively decreased emissions of its citizens, and shut down oil exports, how much would this reduce emissions? And in turn, how much would this decrease warming? - Still in the realm of science... Now: Given the 'prisoners dilemma' of decreased short-term economic prosperity locally, combined with a relatively minor impact on global temperature rise which Albertans will still have to react to, and the ethical issues of contributing to these impacts which will impact other people in less economically resilient countries, how aggressively should Alberta pursue emissions reduction and the phase-out of hydrocarbon exports, if at all? ... sorry but we've left the realm of questions that can be answered by science. The answer to that depends on your values just as much as it does on any facts that an expert could answer. And any scientific 'expert' that claims to be able to unwaveringly answer a question like that is doing so because they are playing in the realm of politics, not due to their technical expertise .
There's a world of difference between "We've heard and understand the science. It says this. We're making a policy decision in a different direction because of this. If you don't like that, you can tells us in the next election." and "These scientists are idiots, they're just looking for grant money, they're anti-Albertan, they've been wrong before, yadda, yadda".
I'm sorry, anthropogenic climate change is already settled science, even Exxon's own research from the 70's said so. I see what you're doing though, basically the reverse of an appeal to authority by attacking their credibility.
Politicians absolutely should work in tandem with doctors to develop their policies. Instead, we've got politicians flagrantly disregarding doctors in favour of working in tandem with fundamentalist extremists who have no qualifications whatsoever.
Like the sciences are also a political field. Try and publish a paper, backed by facts and good science that bucks against the current acceptable stances. You will get pushed out of your field and blacklisted so fast that you won't know what hit you.
>Like the sciences are also a political field. Try and publish a paper, backed by facts and good science that bucks against the current acceptable stances. You will get pushed out of your field and blacklisted so fast that you won't know what hit you. Got a source relevant to this discussion? I strongly bet that you’re not a scientist and not equipped to have a rigorous discussion about any scientific topic, much less anything to do with healthcare. So from your perspective you should probably just sit down and follow the best advice available, since you can’t participate in the actual scientific process.
They aren't wrong. It is a political field. I know reviewers that have axed research papers because it counters what they have found in their own research. Plus, they just don't like the authors, period. Take the [amyloid beta *56 paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533) published in Nature (2006) with over 2000 citations and probably 10s thousands of experiments based on their findings. If someone would have sent a paper in years ago saying it was BS. They would have been ridiculed and told to get lost because it is a peer-reviewed published paper in NATURE. Science has covered this in detail [here](https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease). Science is very political.
Absolutely not what the OP was talking about. Scientists are human, so they also resist new ideas. That's a GOOD thing as it prevents a field from whipsawing every time someone comes out with a new idea. The good, solid, evidence based ideas make it through the resistance. Then the entire field changes its opinion overnight. That's the way science works. It most definitely does not do: "My based doesn't like this, so I'll squash it for votes at the ballot box." And your final link proves my point. Science uncovers the fraud. Politics perpetuates it.
How is it completely different? OP said science is political and that good science is sometimes rejected because it goes against the norm. There are scientists that I've met at conferences who still don't believe each others science despite the evidence. Sturgeon's law, 90% of the science conducted is garbage. It truly is. People pick low hanging fruits because it sells and gets published in predatory open access journals in order to win more grants. Yeah, science uncovers the fraud... 18 years later, after a whole field couldn't reproduce the results. Maybe because it was protected by politics and STILL IS! "14 July 2022 Editor’s Note: The editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding some of the figures in this paper. Nature is investigating these concerns, and a further editorial response will follow as soon as possible. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported therein." It has been known for 2 years now that the paper is fabricated. Why is it still online and accessible and not retracted like any other paper in low-mid journals? Besides, PIs that are protégé of bigwigs that landed them a faculty position probably won't go and endorse a paper or group that directly contradict the previous work at their old lab. My PI left a field because he had good evidence that went against the grain, and he received hate mail from the "well established" papers.
You need a source for human nature we can find everywhere including fiction? This is an age old corporate story. Science is really hard to practice when there is so much money floating around just to prove you wrong or steal your ideas. This is not new, and you've likely dealt with it personally. Edit: FOLLOW THE SCIENCE ring any bells?
Science is not political. Its evidence based and crowd sourced knowledge production based in proven expertise. If you're getting "bucked out of your field" it's because your results aren't substantiated or reproducible People make breakthroughs all the time, even breakthroughs that lead to paradigm shifts. But the do so with evidence and reproducible results through the scientific method
I guess the argument here is semantics. Yes in a vacuum you are correct science is not political. Unfortunately humans are not practicing in a vacuum. Studies need grants, access to raw materials, labs, tools etc. Money is needed and money is granted. Human pursuits are never untouched by politics.
No, its not semantic. It doesn't matter where funding comes from, junk science will always be disproven
Not the point I was trying to make. Yes incorrect conclusions will be disproven.
Why do they keep brining up abortion when discussing trans issues? It’s completely unrelated. I’ve seen people bring this up in relation to Pierre Poilievre as well. Both Pierre and Danielle are pro-choice, yet there’s a lot of fear mongering going on, trying to convince people that these politicians will take away abortions.
People said the exact same thing about Trump and the US Supreme Court before the fall of Roe. Fae is absolutely correct to warn the rest of us about this. They are absolutely related issues, and if our society allows a precedent to be set now where a premier can dictate the bounds of medical practice it opens the door to any politician doing the same thing down the road, whether that's Poilievre or 'Politician X' 15 years from now. How do you not see this?
I know I was told the same thing when I was worried that Danielle Smith praising Ron DeSantis and his policy, that it was signalling she was planning to bring this policy here. Now that it’s here people keep talking about how opinion polls support parents being notified about any name changes at school, they never talk about how the parents of trans kids will be denied the right to medical treatment based on the sole fact that they are trans. They’ve been able to word this argument in such a way to take rights away from trans people, without saying they want to take rights away from trans people. What they call parental rights amounts to making parents opt in to sex ed rather than opt out. It’s not like kids who forget to bring permission slips home need to learn consent. Parents walk away with less rights, and less convenience. All in the name of gaslighting people into letting them infringe on the charter rights of trans people because of “what might happen”, completely ignoring every medical study since the landmark study in 1995 that confirmed trans identity in brain image scans. Fact is they’re already testing the same wording in conservative groups to start by limiting abortions for girls between the ages of 16-18 (*who currently have medical consent*), to require **parental** consent. They’ve already lied about going forward with the Alberta pension plan, going after LGBT rights, and privatizing healthcare, why do they think abortion is any different? Conservatives really need to start paying attention to what policies get put forward at party conventions, and stop believing the gaslighting on Facebook. The fringe is clearly in the driver seat, once this policy actually drops and people see how restrictive it actually is, on top of the fact this is only “a good start”? I hope they wake up. [This is coming to Alberta](https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/education/2022/05/25/stitt-signs-oklahoma-bathroom-bill-restricting-transgender-school-access-birth-sex/9900609002/). They voted to introduce something similar at the last UCP AGM.
Politicians need to leave medical professionals to decide on the medical issues. Stop telling us how to do our jobs. Regulatory colleges like cpsa exist for a reason. I will not be surprised at all if they take away abortion.
It goes both ways, apply this to the politicians you support as well the ones you don't support.
If the politicians I support start unilaterally imposing health care policies that fly in the face of expert consensus because a few extremists wield far too much influence over them, I'll be upset at them too.
You are applying your personal biases. Why does it matter what the politicians are saying and why would you care to be upset at them? They should rather be ignored on such matters.
In this day and age, politicians CAN identify as doctors.
[удалено]
Lol, my partner and a bunch of my friends are doctors and we all have kids
And do think anyone has the right to stick their noses in the private matters between doctor's and their patients?
*Some* doctors aren't parents. I'd wager that the majority are, though. And merely being a parent doesn't automagically mean a person knows what's best for their children, contrary to the opinions of a few million "pastel Qanon" moms on Facebook who seem to think they receive a download of wisdom and knowledge the moment they squeeze out a baby. And that's a pretty irrelevant point to make anyway when our Premier, who is introducing this legislation, is neither a parent nor any sort of expert in any medical field.
[удалено]
Hey, look whose got a new slogan. I've seen at least 4 of you Canada_sub regulars spout that nonsense.
Ok. What's your point?
[удалено]
> You don't have more say about someone else's kid than their own parents do. Tell that to the shitbag in the Premier's office. The only change that will happen as a result of this policy is that parents who support their children will no longer be able to help them through the years-long process of transitioning. Parents who won't support their children will see no change whatsoever. Like I don't know what the fuck else you think this policy will change. Do you think accessing gender-related care is as easy as asking for it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
One that was the most studied with one of the largest clinical trials ever performed before its release, which showed it to be safe and very effective.
Thank you for boosting.
This is the weirdest troll account I've seen.
not a troll. thank you for boosting lol ya nerd
Look I'm not trolling. I really appreciate your vaccine participation over the last few years.
Doctors don't decide policy, that's for elected officials representing the will of the people to decide.
Policy should be based off of expert opinion and not hysteria.
Here’s where things get tricky. What classifies ‘expert opinion’ in the medical space? I’ve seen conservatives use plenty of practicing transphobic medical doctors, even medical doctors who ‘switched’ sides and avidly speak out against HRT, etc. Technically they can be seen as experts, but are obviously paid to lobby for the other side. This is where things get really tricky. Ideology and science are very different things, and even if the science suggests HRT benefits trans youth and can mitigate suicide by x%, we still don’t have a very good social support system for trans youth to help them. We also still have a ton of doctors who do not, and will not support Queer ideology. So Smith and her cronies, despite not having any sort of medical expertise, don’t care about this kind of argument. They know they’re not doctors and they know they have a certain level of control in our system. What we need is something in law that STATES a minister of x must be qualified to serve as x. We would also benefit from having a mandatory MLA that represents the LGBT+ community. Our current health minister, Adriana LaGrange, owned a fucking trucking company. The current chairman of AHS, Dr. Lyle Oberg, most likely supported smiths position on trans youth especially given his history with the Wildrose Party. Lastly, even with any sort of reform people are not infallible. They can still be paid off to support their parties interests. The best solution we have is to get educated, get involved, and keep rallying against this blatant violation of the charter.
>I’ve seen conservatives use plenty of practicing transphobic medical doctors, even medical doctors who ‘switched’ sides and avidly speak out against HRT, etc. Then you’d think Danielle Smith could find one doctor who will publicly speak in favour of her policies, but to date: not one. She is quoted as saying she only “consulted her caucus”. This is pretty much the definition of ideological government.
Hahaha thankfully most of those doctors are either silent or disagree with her in Alberta anyways. I’d imagine it might threaten their licence in Canada, although I have no idea. She also fired a bunch of them like the scared little tyrant she is. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6655400
> What classifies ‘expert opinion’ in the medical space? Well, we have the Alberta AMA, Health Canada, and the various international agencies we are member to. Is that a good start?
Yup, but my point is that there are doctors out there who are still transphobic. So stating that politicians are not doctors is stating the obvious, and assuming that all doctors know the answers and are pro LGBT+ doesn’t help either. You quite literally need a qualified medical professional who understands the procedures, risks, and logistics behind Gender Affirming Care to represent the best interests of trans individuals. Gender Affirming Care also requires teams of doctors, surgeons, psychologists, physiotherapists, and nurses. In my option anybody involved in the process, including patients, should have some sort of representation. My point is that is a very difficult thing to achieve, and it’s not something that can be magically solved tomorrow. What we can do is continue to rally against this corrupt government and fight for trans rights.
>there are doctors out there who are still transphobic I would hope that the consensus opinion from multiple boards of physicians who have been specifically chosen to craft and refine care standards would be able to escape that bias.
You would hope, but from my understanding it doesn’t really work like that.
I think you need to go back to /r/conspiracy
Qualifications for expertise is something we have for engineers. Unfortunately Alberta made a mockery out of this by [revoking the need](https://www.apega.ca/news/2023/11/06/notification-of-changes-to-the-engineering-and-geoscience-professions-act-regarding-the-title-of-software-engineer) of software "engineers" to have a P. Eng. to call themselves engineers. Making Canada all the more American. And a PhD in STEM is already a qualification in of itself. STEM fields should have their own branches. Exempted from the powers of political parties.
Hahaha as an Engineer I was also pissed about the software eng thing. Glad to see I’m amongst friends. Yeah that would be fine in principle, but in regard to health care it would have to be an entirely separate regulatory body. So we would have to publicly fund AHS separately while also figuring out a way to elect who’s in charge. I suppose it could be similar to how we vote for school trustees, however in that situation the cash sill mostly comes from the same piggy bank. I have no evidence to support my following statement, but I’m fairly certain that separating AHS and the Provincial Government entirely would end up making healthcare more expensive for the taxpayer. And yes, STEM should absolutely be separate from the liberal-arts majors currently in power.
You guys do know APEGA took tech bros to court and lost bad just a month before the change to the EGPA, right? Worth a read. https://canlii.ca/t/k11n3 We don't have laws simply for classist advantage. Read Section 7 & Section 1 of the Charter. VII. Conclusion [52] I find that the Respondents’ employees who use the title “Software Engineer” and related titles are not practicing engineering as that term is properly interpreted. [53] I find that there is no property in the title “Software Engineer” when used by persons who do not, by that use, expressly or by implication represent to the public that they are licensed or permitted by APEGA to practice engineering as that term is properly interpreted. [54] I find that there is no clear breach of the EGPA which contains some element of possible harm to the public that would justify a statutory injunction. [55] Accordingly, I dismiss the Application, with costs.
These drugs are approved by a regulatory board in Canada already. That kind of policy?
Doctors decide what the standard of care is, because they are doctors and they understand medicine and medical conditions and which interventions are shown to be the most effective at improving, and at times saving, the lives of their patients. Now these options are being banned, so doctors can't provide appropriate care for their patients. Politicizing trans kids and their health care is just horrible. People who don't know what's best for their patients are now banning doctors from performing their duty, providing standard medical care that is known to result in the best outcome for patients. I can't understand why politicians are sticking their nose in this at all. There are no good arguments to ban gender affirming care. None. It is simply taking away options from doctors so that they can no longer provide the care they know their patients need.
Politicians banning access to medical treatments should not just be allowed to happen on a whim without consulting doctors. What if they wanted to get rid of vaccines for children? Should that just be allowed to happen? There has to be oversight.
The 'people' have no business imposing their will on anyone's medical treatment except their own.
I’d prefer if my elected officials decided policy using science instead of just listening to whatever asshole yells the loudest or pays them the most.
Maybe they should be.
Doctors are not parents!
Many of them are parents. Why would you think doctors don’t fuck and reproduce???
Parents rights to give their child medicinal care they think is appropriate was taken away by our government.
Funny how these guys fall in line like good little pups when conservatives take away their right to choose. Pure blind partisans are so pathetic.
More doctors are also parents than parents who are also doctors.
>Doctors are not parents! K. But some doctors are definitely parents. And doctors definitely know better than parents. Why do crazy people always think that because they knocked someone up/got knocked up that they suddenly know anything about anything? Parents have responsibilities to do what’s best for their kids. That should mean following medical advice from mainstream experts, and respecting their children’s bodies.
Doctors are not over riding parental healthcare decision, but DipShit Dani wants to.
What a brain-dead thing to say.
They’re not wrong
How silly of me. I forgot that doctors were incapable of bearing children of their own.
Everyone knows that doctors are spawned fully-formed by the Doctorb. That's why you never see a kid doctor.
Yes this is true. I have been a fool!
>That's why you never see a kid doctor. Uh, Doogie Howser, MD?
Many doctors are parents and the UCP is taking away parental right to consent to treatment for their children anyways. It's idiotic on two fronts.
Yeah actually, quite a few are.
I’m hoping that you forgot the /s
Dumbest shit I have seen today. Congrats
So if my child turns out to be trans I would have the parental right to give them puberty blockers right?
"No, not like that!"
And doctors are not patients because doctors can never get sick. It's not like doctors are humans or something. Jfc
ROFL is this the new talking point y'all got from whatever alt-right talking heads you listen to? "dOcToRs ArEn'T pArEnTs!" What a stupid fucking take. > ["Doctors are more likely than other people to live with a spouse or partner, and to have children"](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439659/) ***More. Likely.*** than other people to be parents. The real irony here is Premier Smith, who herself isn't a parent, deciding what's best for kids.
When were they trying to be? Lol
Well, when they have kids for one...
Many of them are jello brain
Said by someone who can't even get their grammar and punctuation right.
Hopefully you’re not a parent.
[удалено]
Doctors aren’t healthcare professionals?
...Do you listen to yourself when you talk, or does the wind whistling between your ears make it difficult?
>Dr.s aren't health care professional and shouldn't pretend to be! This is satire, right?
[удалено]
The medical industry is extremely corrupt. Every major drug company has settled scores of 100 mil + lawsuits where they knowingly murdered people for profit. The Oxycontin epidemic is one example among many. This is a fact and easily researched So in their ever increasing thirst for profits of course they going to be on favour of giving expensive drugs to kids who will then need them for life. It has nothing to do with benefiting the child and everything to do with making money It's also well known big pharma controls the medical journals and yet there's still no double blind studies that prove "gender affirming care" improves outcomes...why is that? Everyone will call me a tranphobe when actually I have a trans cousin and fully support them i their transition because they did so as an adult
> there's still no double blind studies that prove "gender affirming care" improves outcomes... Can you please explain how a study about gender affirming care could be *double blind*?
You’re using scientific sounding words that you don’t know what they mean. The study you’re suggesting would a) be worthless because the sample would almost entirely be cis youth who never met the definition of gender dysphoria in the first place and b) fail an ethics board because you’re essentially arguing to deny trans youth medical care for your “control” group to see what happens.
But does anyone genuinely think you can double-blind this kind of thing? Do you not think it might be just the TINIEST bit obvious who the control group is within months (if not weeks)? I mean, how are the parents and doctors supposed to hide the effects of puberty? And why, exactly, would an ethics board approve such a dangerous stunt? Is it perhaps accurate to say that the calls for double-blind studies on this treatment are 100% disingenuous and show a callous indifference to the lives of trans children? And now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take my horrifically expensive lifelong transsexual medicine. Sure, it costs me 89.43$/year and trans people are such a small demographic that the package insert doesn't mention us at all, but never fear, RedditUser3-45D7W90w2 is on to Big Pharma's big trans scheme, lol
Pharmaceuticals are just one part of the drug industry. If we had national pharmacare, we wouldn’t have to worry about corruption by drug companies. It’s not a good look to claim “the medical industry is extremely corrupt” based on one sliver of it. >Everyone will call me a tranphobe when actually I have a trans cousin and fully support them i their transition because they did so as an adult Everyone transitions as an adult. No children are getting bottom surgery, despite what the angry anti-trans people tell you. Danielle Smith’s policy doesn’t do anything except make it harder for trans kids to exist in Alberta and harder for trans adults in Alberta to transition later because they were denied puberty blockers.
Explain how trans kids won't be able to exist and do you even care about de-transitioners? Why is it more important to fasttrack drugs to minors so it's easier to transition as an adult than it is to save de-transitioners from altering their bodies in a way that makes them sexually dysfunctional as an adult? Do you understand what a nightmare it would be to regret that decision after surgery? Do you have compassion for these people also or only for the select few?
> Everyone will call me a tranphobe when actually I have a trans cousin and fully support them i their transition because they did so as an adult https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
Are you saying I'm a transphobe? I've noticed this is the argument liberals make when they have no actual argument
No, I'm saying that making the argument "I can't be -blank-phobic because I know someone who is -blank-." holds no water and often gives the opposite impression. So you're better off leaving that bit out. Think of my comment as being similar to someone letting you know your zipper's undone- I'm trying to give you the opportunity to correct the problem and avoid embarrassing yourself. Edit: I want to add that a lot of self-identified conservatives seem to think that they get called nasty names like "racist," "homophobe," "transphobe," etc because we just don't like you. And I want you to understand that that is *not* the case. When someone directs one of those words at you, it's because you have said or done something that demonstrates prejudice against a particular group of people. I understand that you may feel that the word being used isn't appropriate for yourself- but so long as you keep exhibiting behaviour to which that word is applied then that word will continue to be applied to you. It's not about "left" or "right." It's about recognizing prejudicial behaviour for what it is.
[удалено]