Manulife - Funding Child Abuse

So my eldest son, Liam, decided he too was a woman. It seemed insanity was contagious.

I remember one conversation in particular—entirely over text—where he tried to convince me that gender-affirming care had a 99% success rate, while comparing it to hip replacements, which we've been doing for decades, and claiming they only had a 40% success rate.

He'd clearly been absorbing the marketing and rhetoric from the very people selling those treatments.

What made me particularly furious was discovering that Manulife, the insurer through my work, had decided to fund gender-affirming treatments.

Reversing them? Of course not. That isn't how the business works.

I was delighted to cancel my Manulife policy.

And Monique—I haven't forgotten how uncomfortable you made that conversation. Nobody wanted to honestly hear how angry I was that they'd take my money and then help fund treatments I know would permanently harm my family.

I didn't forget.

That was unforgivable.

Apparently employee health spending accounts mattered more than making sure my children weren't encouraged down a path I believed would permanently alter their bodies—with corporate approval and corporate funding.

Taking my business elsewhere felt insignificant.

I wanted them to feel consequences. Not just the loss of one customer, but the collapse of the illusion that they were untouchable.

If a corporation profits from decisions I see as morally indefensible, why should it expect loyalty?

By the time I'm finished, Manulife won't be burning.

Its reputation will.

Shalina Shariffe and Yoschika Ramnallie I have to remember to revisit this conversation.