Alberta Premier Marlaina Smith plans to enact policies that will unavoidable HURT Trans kids while pretending to care about their protection.

@Flenflyys

Ok let's discuss that.

1) If trans kids are outed by this policy, there will be kids who are abused, punished or otherwise harmed by unsupportive or hateful parents.
Agree or disagree?

2) If you're concerned with them having time to make a decision that is good for them, how is it justified banning puberty blockers until after puberty given that not undergoing the "wrong" puberty is very beneficial to the trans individual and completely reversible?

@Pikachu your questions are leading and do not account for a comprehensive view of the situation. The potential for abuse exists in many situations. I don’t agree with government overreach into individual family units unless there is actual tangible abuse. Taking away the rights of parents due to the potential for harm is inappropriate. By that logic every child should be taken away from every parent because of the potential for abuse.

To address your second question, they aren’t undergoing the “wrong puberty”; they are undergoing puberty according to their biology. Their self perception is valid at any stage of life but their autonomy lies within their parents’ scope of care until they’re adults. Which ties us back to the first question.

@Flenflyys

My questions are not leading, they just have clear answers that you don't like.


It's not potential harm, it's inevitable harm. There are parents who will respond hatefully, there are parents who will cite religion, there are parents who will try to do what they think is best but trans kids will be harmed as a result.
To suggest otherwise is either dishonest or deliberately obtuse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344346/#:~:text=RESULTS,abuse%20(OR%20%3D%202.04).

Have you ever taken the time to listen to trans people on their experiences with being outed or coming out to their parents and what happened?
Do you know that members of LGTB youth are disproportionately homeless because their parents kick them out?

Parents aren't losing any right, children are losing their rights to security under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


"Wrong" as in "not corresponding with their gender identity", obviously.
If indeed their self perception is valid then you should support them in wanting to be validated using puberty blockers.
And what you're missing there is that whether the parent consents or not, puberty blockers will not be allowed until after puberty.
Do you understand?
You said " I don’t agree with government overreach into individual family units"...well, that's exactly what's happening with that policy.
So do you "totally support " it or do you disagree with the state overreaching into family units?

@Pikachu it is the potential for if it hasn’t occurred. Disabled children are also more likely to be abused by their parents, female children too. Should they be removed from the home? I believe in strong social policy and having government funded programs for individuals experiencing abuse and homelessness should be healthy.

Once again, your questions are leading. Deny it all you want, but you’re intentionally being black and white.

Self perception isn’t an objective truth.

@Flenflyys


It's a a matter of record that it does happen. There is not a question of IF trans kids will be harmed, it is a question of how MANY will be harmed and to what degree.
Your semantic argument demonstrates a lack of honesty in dealing with the actual issue.


And if there was a government policy increasing their risk of abuse, i'd appose it. How about you?
Think carefully.


We're not talking about removing trans kids pre-emptively. We're talking about preventing the situation where they might encounter abuse requiring removal.



So answer directly:
1) What is the benefit of a puberty blocker if it is not allowed until after puberty?
2) How is it government overreach to NOT force teachers to out trans kids but it isn't government overreach to block consenting parents from doing what they think is right for their child in a completely reversible process?


You said their self perception is valid, objectively true or not. That's also irrelevant in the context of harm as it pertains to this policy.

@Pikachu your position is that chemical castration and/or mutilation is justifiable action to prevent abuse. I disagree.

Would I agree with a government policy re. Displacement of children/families. Resounding no. Refer to the truth and reconciliation report for an excellent against government overreach into families.

1. The efficacy of the puberty blocker is secondary to the appropriateness of treatment.

2. When considering population health, health care entities consider the tiers of care from the individual to family to the community etc. Regulating education professionals is far less invasive than implementing policies that regulate parental rights.

Self perception is valid in that there is no doubt that the individual is distressed by their altered perception of self. You wouldn’t intentionally disrupt an individual with dementia’s delusion if it caused distress; it’s best practice to entertain it within the limits of realistic care expectations. It’s important to ensure their comfort within the context of appropriate care. My opinion of appropriate care is different than yours.

@Flenflyys


You got up on a high horse about "leading questions" and then you just straight up straw man my position? Not cool lol.

No, not even close. To be clear: My position is that it is justifiable that parents are not automatically told that their child is using different pronouns in order to prevent abuse.


And who should judge the appropriateness of the treatment? The patients and their doctors or the government? You?
But i accept your tacit admission that puberty blockers applied post puberty makes no sense.


You appear to be missing the part where parental rights ARE being regulated here by making it illegal for a trans kid to receive puberty blockers even with the consent of the parent. And again, this treatment is REVERSABLE because it was initially developed to delay puberty in precocious puberty cases. It is designed to be reversible.
So on what grounds can you applaud this removal of parent's rights while decrying the perceived removal of a parent's right to know if their child is using different pronouns?


And what are the best practices for dealing with gender dysphoria according to healthcare professionals? Can you show me where your opinion on appropriate care reflects the expert opinion on the subject and if it differs, on what grounds?

@Pikachu I’m going to back out of this discussion as you’re starting to throw overused internet language at me and I’m just not into that, sorry. If you feel I’ve misrepresented you, just say so. I believe I’ve been clear. I’m formally educated in and have a decade of experience in public health, and my education and experience guides my opinion. You’re naive in thinking we are going to agree on a phenomena that’s not quantitative. Research on the definitiveness of gender identity is ambiguous at best. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise anyway, you asked and I stated my position. You can access diagnostic criteria in the DSM and follow up with individual institutions and health networks in your area for best practice guidelines that your region follows.

But it sounds like you’re passionate about the topic of gender identity and I know a lot of post secondary institutions provide speaking opportunities that often turn into informal debates. You should consider attending one.

@Pikachu actually, slight change. I was just discussing this with the pharmacist I work with and she’s interested in it too! Could you list the drugs you’re referring to when you state “puberty blockers”? Thanks.

@Flenflyys


I did.
I appropriately identified your characterization of my position as a straw man and then explained my actual position which is one for which you have no coherent response.
Or at least you seem willing to dismiss the harm as merely potential rather than imminent and therefor avoid addressing it at all.

If i'm being honest, i don't think you're very familiar with the policies and had not well thought through your support for them but rather based your support on your ideological assessment of the validity of transgender identity.


Then you would have very little trouble citing the professional consensus and on what grounds you disagree with it.
Feel free to do so if you change your mind about backing out.

@Flenflyys "

Didn't ask you to write a paper, just make some specific references instead of a vague gesture towards a non-specific connection to public health.

I'm assuming you sincerely wish to prevent harm to children...but you refuse to answer directly how you can support a policy which unavoidably will result in an increase of child abuse.

If you can address that issue honestly then indeed we might have an interesting discussion.
If you can't then i advise you to make good on your promise to excuse yourself from the discussion.

@Pikachu Listen I’ve made my point using core terminology from public health guidelines. It seems like you aren’t familiar with principles of harm reduction, because you just try to invalidate language thats familiar within and translates to many health sectors. I understand you truly believe that the potential for harm is harm in and of itself. You should start from the ground up when educating yourself on public health principles because you do not have the foundation to make a solid argument. It’s a core concept of public health and if I recall correctly in university I studied it for over a year. Maybe start with the WHO and the governing body in your province.

So are you going to list the drugs or?

@Flenflyys


Maybe we can clear this up if you answer the following question:

Given the literature which shows that LGTB kids are abused at a higher rate than cis kids and given your training in public health, do you think this policy is likely to result in more or less abuse of trans kids by parents?

Answer that honestly.

@Pikachu please reread my previous replies on the exact question you’ve just asked me yet again. How many times are we going to have this circular conversation. The answer to that question doesn’t matter when a crime has not yet occurred; the place where we disagree is where to draw the line in regards to government involvement. If a parent abuses their trans child, they need to be charged and the child removed. Not before. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Why not regulate parental access and control in regards to any of the social determinants of health then? Although, not to put words in your mouth, but based on a previous reply it sounds like you’d be ok with that. I believe Canadian history paints a very grim picture of government over-involvment in the home with negative outcomes for children.

I’m starting to think you don’t have any pharmaceutical training either though. Are you going to list the medication(s) or not?

@Flenflyys


That's absurd. It's called prevention. It's the same reason we wear seatbelts instead of relying on EMTs to save out life after we go through the windshield.
If i asked you if we should be wearing seatbelts to prevent harm i'm certain you would not be ducking and dodging so much.

I'm going to ask you the question again and if you don't answer them then i'm afraid we'll have to wrap up there.
I don't hold much hope because i think you began with your conclusion before you even knew what the policies were and i know it's human nature to dig in one's heels when challenged. Nevertheless, here we go:

Given the literature which shows that LGTB kids are abused at a higher rate than cis kids and given your training in public health, do you think this policy is likely to result in more or less abuse of trans kids by parents?




And once again, this policy removes the parent's ability to consent to treatments. Only for trans kids of course, not for cis kids.
Surely that's government over-involvement?
You seem to be missing the fact that the government is not currently over-involved, there is legislation being ADDED.

@Pikachu oh my god you’re a nut lol. Goodbye.

@Flenflyys

Sorry you feel that way. Goodbye✌️