this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
19 points (95.2% liked)

CanadaPolitics

2833 readers
33 users here now

Placeholder for any r/CanadaPolitics refugees

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

Who else would you use them for??

[–] investorsexchange@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

I oppose Poilievre being in government.

It’s hard to understand why his opinion should carry any more weight than mine.

[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It starts here, Canada. Abortion is next.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Sigh.

I'm so sorry Gen Z, Gen Alpha. We've let you down.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago

So many words on this topic, so few of them addressing the obvious questions about why doctors might have a use for "puberty blockers" or what legitimate basis politicians could possibly have for wanting to abolish them.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aren't puberty blockers more reversible than puberty?

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes. So upon seeing that headline, my first thought is that "for kids under 18" is rather suspect phrasing. Like someone wanted to get "kids" in there no matter what.

[–] undercrust@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

The decision to use puberty blockers should be based on a conversation between a young person and their doctor, Boissonnault said.

“I don’t see M.D. after Pierre Poilievre’s name or Danielle Smith’s,” he said. “So, not their business.”

THIS RIGHT FUCKIN HERE