Latest news with #pubertyblockers
National Post
09-07-2025
- Politics
- National Post
Jamie Sarkonak: Liberal-funded charity stops Alberta from protecting minors from gender ideology
Article content The big-picture concerns were to be grappled with later on in the challenge, however: in granting an injunction, the judge considered only the potential harm that could be experienced by transgender youth receiving treatment. Article content The medical risks were of little interest: in the immediate term, she was primarily concerned about not limiting the choice of trans youth. She was clearly moved by the children who joined Egale Canada in the challenge: these included one 11-year-old male who was socially transitioned at age three, a 10-year-old male who'd been identifying as agender since Kindergarten, and a 12-year-old male, currently on puberty blockers, who had wanted to become a woman after seeing the film Moana. Article content In the judge's view, the only people who would benefit from the government's treatment restrictions were the minority of youth transitioners who would grow to regret their transition. Most trans youth, she figured, were better off under the status quo, with the province's professional standards for doctors serving as their primary safeguard. Article content 'I accept that some patients and their parents may have had a different experience and believe that treatment was initiated hastily and without a full understanding of the consequences,' she wrote. Article content 'However, based on my assessment of the evidence it would be a stretch to conclude that because that may have been the experience of some, every doctor who practices gender affirming care has abdicated their responsibilities and are choosing to ignore the strength of the science regarding gender affirming care such that the Ban is necessary to protect the public good.' Article content It appeared early on in the decision, long before the judge reached her conclusion, that she favoured the gender ideology of the progressive left: 'From the age of kindergarten and before they expressed a gender that was different from the sex they were assigned at birth,' she wrote, seeming to agree with the idea of biological sex as an irrational label applied to the freshly born. Article content And here is Alberta's problem: even with a growing body of evidence that calls cosmetic hormonal interventions for minors into question, even though objective reality is on its side, Canada has a culture of relying on established professional standards and keeping politicians out of doctors' offices. Article content Article content Both Alberta and Egale Canada agreed that the 'prevailing sources of clinical guidance' included the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which supports a radical affirmation model and is known for questionable, activist-corrupted research practices, and the Canadian Pediatric Society, which supports the WPATH guidelines. Article content The judge was inclined to accept their positions as dogma with some light persuasion from Egale and its litigation partner, the Calgary-based Skipping Stone foundation (which is 40 per cent funded by government, and 20 per cent funded by other charities). As for why it takes so little persuasion, well, the Supreme Court of Canada has been endorsing gender ideology since 2023. Article content Alberta isn't just fighting a few activists: it's going up against a federal government that acts indirectly, through judicial appointments and generous cash handouts to ideologically aligned charities. There were always going to be losses along the way; what will ultimately count is whether Premier Danielle Smith decides to draw the notwithstanding clause from its holster. Article content
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Mia Hughes: Alberta judge relies on myth that gender drugs are lifesaving
An Alberta judge has temporarily blocked the province's ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, ruling that denying trans-identified youth these interventions would cause 'irreparable harm.' The injunction, issued on June 27, stems from a Charter challenge led by LGBT charity Egale Canada. But Justice Allison Kuntz — and the advocacy groups opposing the ban — have it exactly backwards: it's the unproven interventions Alberta has restricted that have the potential to cause lasting harm — including sterility, sexual dysfunction, and impeded psychosocial development. Echoing the language of the Charter challenge, Justice Kuntz cited several factors she believed would cause 'irreparable harm:' that the law would reinforce discrimination, inflict emotional harm, and lead to 'permanent physical changes that don't match their gender identity.' In other words, undergoing natural puberty would be harmful to these minors' identities. Yet, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith takes a different view. 'The court had said that they think that there will be irreparable harm if the law goes ahead. I feel the reverse,' said Smith the day after the ruling. She made clear that her government intends to challenge the decision in the higher courts, expressing confidence that Alberta has 'a very solid case.' That means taking the matter before the Alberta Court of Appeal — and make no mistake: Smith's confidence is well-founded. Bill 26 is backed, not only by multiple systematic evidence reviews and independent European investigations, but is also bolstered by recent developments in the U.S. legal landscape — most notably the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee's right to restrict these same interventions. The Tennessee case was brought by a coalition of civil rights lawyers led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who also argued that the state's ban on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors would cause harm. But the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't persuaded. It sided with Tennessee's right to protect children from unproven, high-risk interventions — dealing a decisive blow to those who advocate for medicalizing adolescent transgender identities. Like the Egale-led Charter challenge, the ACLU's case relied on the claim that denying these drugs would cause irreversible physical and emotional harm — and increase the risk of suicide. But some of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices had done their homework. Citing the UK's Cass Report, one directly challenged the ACLU's most powerful rhetorical weapon: the 'transition or suicide' narrative. In a pivotal exchange during the December 2024 oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito confronted ACLU attorney Chase Strangio with the fact that there is no reliable evidence that puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones reduce suicide risk in this population. Strangio was forced to admit that suicide among trans-identified youth is extremely rare — and that, therefore, the claim these interventions are lifesaving is unsupported. And just like that, the medical justification for subjecting healthy adolescents to these interventions has vanished. There is no life-threatening emergency — only experimental drugs being offered to confused youth still exploring their identities and trying to find their place in the world. With Skrmetti, the ACLU learned a hard lesson — one Egale may soon face: in court, activist rhetoric doesn't cut it. Evidence matters. You can't win by shouting slogans or crying 'transphobia' when pressed. You can't call a treatment 'evidence-based' unless there is actually evidence to support it. Of course, Canada's judicial system differs significantly from that of the United States. Charter rulings tend to allow more room for ideological interpretation — and a Canadian court is not bound to follow the same evidentiary reasoning as the U.S Supreme Court. But the Skrmetti ruling is sure to have boosted the confidence of Smith and her legal team as they plan to take this fight to the higher courts. Like the ACLU's challenge to Tennessee's ban, the Egale-led Charter challenge rests on a strange and radical argument. It asks the court to treat the natural developmental stage of puberty as 'harm,' and the denial of experimental drugs as a violation of Charter rights. Most striking is the Section 12 claim: that restricting access to blockers and hormones amounts to 'cruel and unusual treatment' — a clause intended for criminal punishment, not medical regulation. Framing a protective measure as state-inflicted cruelty makes a mockery of the Charter's purpose. But more fundamentally, the challenge to Alberta's ban ignores a core ethical principle in paediatric care: a 'child's right to an open future.' Adolescents are still developing — physically, cognitively, and emotionally. To offer them potentially irreversible medical interventions based on transient identities is not an act of compassion; it's a form of foreclosure. True protection means safeguarding all the possible versions of the self that a young person has yet to discover — and shielding them from life-altering decisions they are not yet equipped to make. In essence, the Egale-led Charter challenge isn't about protecting rights; it's about defending an indefensible medical experiment — one that treats unproven drugs as safe, evidence-based care and the natural course of puberty as a danger. When Alberta moves forward defending its law, the Court of Appeal will face a choice: follow the science-led shift seen across Europe — or give legal cover to a collapsing ideology. Justice Kuntz failed to see past the activist script. The real test now is whether Canada's upper courts will have not only the clarity to recognize it — but also the courage to reject it. Mia Hughes specializes in researching pediatric gender medicine, psychiatric epidemics, social contagion and the intersection of trans rights and women's rights. She is the author of 'The WPATH Files,' a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and director of Genspect Canada. National Post Opinion: The retrenchment of Russian power and influence in the Middle East Opinion: The Iranian regime's new war targets its own people
Daily Mail
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
UK universities have been infiltrated by woke EDI culture that is stifling research into controversial issues like puberty blockers, major report warns
Universities have been infiltrated by a ' woke ' EDI culture that is stifling research into controversial issues like puberty blockers, a major report warns. The review, commissioned by the last Government, said academics are being 'bullied, harassed and blocked from career progression' if they dare to question transgender ideology. It says Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) staff are 'over-reaching' and sometimes even 'generate harassment' against academics. And it warns many EDI departments have been captured by trans activists, and calls for their power to be scaled back. Last night, Shadow Education Secretary Laura Trott hit out at universities for 'suppressing research' and 'silencing controversial views'. The 433-page document, the most extensive research of its kind, also records dozens of personal accounts of academics being shut down. In one example, a paper was rejected by numerous journals because reviewers 'objected to the findings' that puberty blockers may not be safe. Its writer, Professor Sallie Baxendale, a consultant clinical neuropsychologist, was told her research 'risked stigmatising an already stigmatised group'. Another academic told how they had been 'ostracised' by a colleague for 'providing balance' during a seminar discussion of puberty blockers. Today's report accuses universities of presiding over 'systemic and institutionalised suppression' of academic freedom, with 'far-reaching chilling effects'. Titled 'Barriers to research on sex and gender', it is led by Alice Sullivan, Professor of Sociology at the UCL Social Research Institute. She said: 'Researchers investigating vital issues have been subjected to sustained campaigns of intimidation simply for acknowledging the biological and social importance of sex. 'When fundamental issues cannot be investigated or debated openly, this undermines our academic institutions, it hurts individuals and it compromises the integrity of research.' The paper is the second instalment of a review originally commissioned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under the Tories. The first instalment, published in March, found that biological sex had been erased from official data in the police, NHS and even the military. Among the many testimonies is that of Professor Kathleen Stock, who was hounded out of her job at Sussex University in 2021 for her gender critical views. There is also James Caspian, whose research on 'detransitioning' was blocked by Bath Spa University in 2017, over fears it would damage the university's reputation. The report highlights concerns that EDI departments are being used as 'levers for activists pursuing agendas which are not compatible with the truth-seeking mission of universities'. It says EDI policies have a 'tendency' to 'promote highly contentious theories such as gender-identity theory as unchallengeable fact'. Universities are also tolerating 'toxic' behaviour by 'a small minority of university staff' who 'de-platform' gender-critical academics, it says. And it adds: 'The targets of these campaigns have disproportionately been lesbians.' 'For some academics, the line between activism and research has been completely blurred, so that 'research' ceases to be a truth-seeking activity,' it says. There are also concerns about 'ethics committees', which 'use their positions to impose particular viewpoints or to block research that they dislike.' 'Ethics committees commonly direct researchers to draw on advice from university EDI teams,' the report added. It comes after the Office for Students published new guidance earlier this month stating academics should not have to show 'commitment' to EDI. The guidance was to help universities comply with the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, first drafted by the Tories, which comes into force from August 1. Despite this, there are currently official proposals to have universities' access to public funds determined partly by their compliance with EDI. Mrs Trott said: 'Labour opposed our Free Speech Act every step of the way, dismissing it as a Tory 'hate speech charter', and quietly tried to shelve before being forced to u-turn. 'Professor Sullivan's report shows why the Act is vital: universities have sadly suppressed research on sex and gender identity, silencing controversial views. 'The report exposes severe intimidation and legal battles over basic rights. 'As Conservatives, we will defend free speech on campus. 'I urge universities to follow the Office for Students' guidance and salute the brave academics standing for truth and free speech.' A Government spokesman said: 'We are taking strong action to protect academic freedom and free speech, which are fundamental to our world-leading universities. 'This includes introducing new duties on universities to ensure they are robust in promoting and protecting free speech on campus. 'It also comes alongside the firm steps the Office for Students is already taking, through fines and new guidance, to ensure universities remain beacons of academic freedom.'
Telegraph
27-06-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
The British Medical Association has just shown its contempt for science
The British Medical Association hasn't gone out of its way to court public affection lately – the 11 strikes the BMA has held since 2022 resulted in about 1.5 million cancelled appointments, though they also resulted in an astonishing increase in its members' pay. And it's a safe bet that patients won't be edified to learn that they're now 'energised' at the prospect of yet another strike. But if the doctors' union is disastrously out of touch on strikes, it turns out that it's even more remote from public opinion on the contentious trans issue. The Cass Review recommended an almost complete ban on puberty blockers for children. Well, the man who led the BMA's opposition to the Report, Tom Dolphin, has now been made chairman of the BMA's council, its governing body. The appointment followed what looks like a coup by the 69 member board which ousted the previous incumbent, Professor Philip Banfield. Dr Dolphin tabled an emergency motion last July that led to the union rejecting the Cass report. It announced it would be publishing its own review instead. But alas, nothing has so far appeared. Let's remember that Hilary Cass, the author of the report, found that 'there is no good evidence' that puberty blockers for young people are safe to use and that 'it is unusual for us to give a potentially life-changing treatment to young people and not know what happens to them in adulthood'. And it seems that in fact many doctors agreed. When the BMA council bypassed debate to reject the Cass review after it ran out of time to discuss the motion at the annual meeting, there were four attempts by members to have an open debate on the review. More than 1,500 doctors, the majority of them BMA members, signed a 'Not in Our Name' open letter to the BMA council, criticising the 'very undemocratic' decision to reject Lady Cass's findings. But rather than respond to members' concerns, the BMA council has now elected Tom Dolphin to lead the organisation. It's not out to please, is it? Dr Dolphin's view on this issue can be judged by his position three years ago, when he posted photos of himself getting ready for a Trans Pride march, saying: 'About to set off to let London know that trans rights are human rights!' Mind you, he didn't focus on this when he accepted his new position, observing that the last three years 'has been a period of huge change for the BMA which has seen doctors realise the power that they have as trade union members to change their working lives … for the better. The fight to restore doctors' pay and pensions continues.' More militancy then. You have to ask: are doctors really best led by a man who takes such a radical approach to giving life-altering drugs to children confused about their gender? I'd say it's proof that the BMA isn't an organisation that patients or the Government can take seriously.
Daily Mail
26-06-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Doctor who led British Medical Association's opposition to kids' puberty blocker ban elected as its new leader
The doctor who spearheaded the British Medical Association's opposition to the UK's puberty blocker ban has been elected as its new leader. Dr Tom Dolphin tabled the motion that led to the union controversially lobbying against the findings of the Cass Review into children's gender services. The BMA's governing council sparked fury in July last year when it voted to 'critique' the work, without consulting wider members. This set the BMA apart from the NHS, government and other leading medical organisations who universally backed the study, which took four years to complete and reviewed data from 113,000 children. Key among the recommendations was a ban on prescribing sex hormones to trans-identifying children outside of clinical trials. Critics described the BMA meeting where the vote took place as 'secretive and opaque'. The same council, consisting of 69 members, this week voted to oust sitting chair Professor Phil Banfield and replace him with Dr Dolphin. A source said: 'This shows the dominant ideological forces currently at play within the BMA. In order to get on, you have to embrace this way of thinking.' The BMA set up a rival 'task and finish group' to evaluate the methodology used by Cass and write a critique which they said would be completed by January. However, the report has still not been produced six months after the initial deadline and more than 1,000 members have now signed a letter calling on the union to 'abandon the pointless exercise'. Critics say the BMA is ill-equipped to match the rigour of the Cass review, which was published in April 2024, and describe the union's efforts as a 'waste of money and staff time'. Senior doctors warn that the BMA - which represents 190,000 doctors - has alienated itself, is 'no longer a democratic organisation' and has made itself 'irrelevant' after being taken over by 'ideologues and interest groups'. They highlight that the BMA leadership has consistently failed to select motions relating to the Cass Review at annual conferences, including that held in Liverpool this week, meaning gender-critical members are silenced. Meanwhile, topics including the Israel-Gaza conflict and climate change have been prioritised for debate. Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at human rights charity Sex Matters, said Dr Dolphin's election as chair 'shows how gender ideology breaks previously respectable organisations'. She added: 'The Cass Review is a comprehensive, evidence-based report on so- called gender medicine for children by an independent paediatrician with impeccable credentials. 'Creating doubt around it without robust evidence is irresponsible, misleading, and not in the best interests of patients. 'We've said before that the transactivist doctors at the BMA are an embarrassment to their profession. 'Their false assertions about biology can be disproven with primary school science. 'Giving them this level of credibility could have serious consequences for the health and wellbeing of vulnerable children and young adults.' Dr Dolphin is a Labour activist who previously boasted of charging the NHS £1,870 for a single shift. He made the extortionate sum covering for picketing colleagues during previous industrial action and donated it to the BMA's strike fund. Writing on X at the time, he said the war chest 'supports people to strike, meaning the strike is stronger and the win will come sooner'. Dr Dolphin has campaigned alongside hard-left MP John McDonnell and been the election agent for Dawn Butler during previous general elections. He also finds time to promote woke cases, including trans issues and veganism. Writing on social media in 2019, Dr Dolphin said: 'This election has really got our membership engaged and working together to bring in a new, different, Labour government.' In July 2022, he posted photos of himself at a Trans Pride march, adding: 'About to set off to let London know that trans rights are human rights!' He has described Brexit as a 'failure' and 'one of the worst foreign policy decisions by the UK in decades'. The union this week passed a motion at its annual conference urging members to offer patients 'identity-based care', despite warnings this risks going against the law on single sex spaces. It follows the Supreme Court ruling in April that the terms woman and sex in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'. Dr Dolphin is an anaesthetic consultant, who has been a member of BMA council since 2012 and lives in London with his husband. He vowed to continue the union's fight for higher pay rises for doctors and said: 'I will empower BMA members so that everywhere that doctors work and medical students study, they know that they are stronger together, and the exploitation and erosion of our profession is stopped.' Commenting on delays to the union's Cass 'critique', a BMA spokeswoman said: 'The original draft Terms of Reference (ToR) that were shared with Council suggested that the Task and Finish Group would report back in January. 'This was removed whilst the ToR were still in draft and has therefore not been an objective for the project, but the Group's chair has continued to give updates to Council. 'This is an extremely complex report to undertake. 'We want to be as sure as we can be that data collection and analysis processes are as rigorous and robust as possible; this requires time, rather than be rushed.'
