For thinking it is odd for trans men to give birth

Sre you talking about the woman in a private hospital who refused to give her private care?

Or did this happen in an NHS hospital?

@GlovedhandsCecilia the above reply was also for you.

In response to your post at 10.34, again you are being deliberately obtuse.

It doesn't have to make statistical sense, women are self excluding because there is any chance at all. There shouldn't be any chance of a male HCP turning up if a woman asks for a female HCP to give her an intimate examination, that's the whole point.

I'm not actually talking about myself but I can understand why other women are self excluding because 1) I am a woman, 2) I have empathy for women, and 3) I know that this has actually happened. But nevertheless you are ridiculing the women who are self excluding for this reason:
"I think it's sad to potentially miss out on life saving screening on the tiny chance a TW might be randomly assigned to do your smear test, but I'm happy you get to choose, either way."

That's just taking the piss isn't it? It's not a free choice these women are making like "Ooh bit of necessary, possibly life saving healthcare this week? Nah! Don't feel like it!". The choice has been removed from their hands because their consent is not being respected by the NHS and some male trans identifying male HCPs.

If the NHS (and any male trans identifying male HCPs like Beth Upton, and that nurse IIRC) would stop lying and ignoring female patients consent, and instead guaranteed that when requested only female HCPs would perform intimate examinations, those women would no longer self exclude.

The problem is not the women who are self excluding here.

I think a lot of trans men would be mentally unstable without it so it's the same thing really. They are taking a drug to stabilise a mental health condition and that drug is harmful to fetuses. I don't see the difference.

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

A tiny chance, no matter how tiny, is still a chance.

Some women are self excluding because there is still that chance.

The NHS should be able to guarantee same sex female HCP for intimate examinations for those women that need or want them.

Currently there is no such guarantee. It should not be this way, and it does not need to be this way.

You are also ignoring both of the examples I have provided in your "tiny chance" minimisation.

This has already happened.

The woman who was refused healthcare after refusing the trans identified male (nurse IIRC) for her intimate examination, and a male trans identified doctor who has stated in a tribunal that he would also do this.

You are also ignoring that in the miniscule trans identifying male HCP population, 2 such incidences is actually a significant number, and that these are just two highly public instances and that there may be more given the chilling effect that trans activists have had on women in recent times.

No I don't. Testosterone is not being used by these women to manage a mental health condition either.

Do you think the same about women with mental health conditions who have to be on medication to remain mentally stable? Do you think they should just stop, or if they really can't, not conceive?

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

A tiny chance, no matter how tiny, is still a chance.

Some women are self excluding because there is still that chance.

The NHS should be able to guarantee same sex female HCP for intimate examinations for those women that need or want them.

Currently there is no such guarantee. It should not be this way, and it does not need to be this way.

You are also ignoring both of the examples I have provided in your "tiny chance" minimisation.

This has already happened.

The woman who was refused healthcare after refusing the trans identified male (nurse IIRC) for her intimate examination, and a male trans identified doctor who has stated in a tribunal that he would also do this.

You are also ignoring that in the miniscule trans identifying male HCP population, 2 such incidences is actually a significant number, and that these are just two highly public instances and that there may be more given the chilling effect that trans activists have had on women in recent times.

There is limited evidence, because it is not considered ethical to conduct research on pregnant women/babies that has the potential to create harm.

Womem taking testosterone for 'gender affirming care' are not doing so for a physical medical need. It strikes me as absolutely extraordinary that anyone would suggest they do anything but stop, if it has potential to harm the baby.

So I read this paper and it seems the crux of what is being argued is here:

"Despite this misinformation offered by a provider, above, other pro-
viders acknowledged that pregnancy was quite possible while on
testosterone and described advising their patients to maintain birth
control practices if having sex with people who have sperm. This
advisement may situate pregnancy while taking supplemental testos-
terone as risky, per se, even if existing empirical evidence establishing
such risks is scant, equivocal, or imbued with normative judgments about
potential fetal outcomes"

Specifically the last line. I read it as saying that actually there is limited evidence that taking Testesterone is harmful and then questioning how to counsel patients given the scant evidence. There is also the argument that some outcomes for the fetus are seen as unacceptable and that is ableism. I don't know where I stand on that argument as it is complex, but it is a similar argument to what lots are making about SSRIs and similar in pregnancy. It's the idea that we should be trying to create "perfect babies" that some see as ableist.

Also, if we do not counsel women who have other reasons to be on testosterone the same way we counsel trans men about pregnancy risks, then that is problematic.

@GlovedhandsCecilia

The amount of time you are taking to essentially ridicule the women who are self excluding, and how much effort you are putting into minimising the likely hood of something that has literally already happened is really distasteful too btw.

No

https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/300608/2/300608.pdf

Again in that PPs analogy all trans identifying men are the chocolates.

And again, you are ignoring the fact that it can and has happened and women are self-excluding as a result. Those women don't give two shits at how unlikely or not it would be to happen to them, the fact that it has and could again is more than enough for them to self exclude. This is the problem, they should never have to fear the slightest possibility of this happening at all, if they are told they will have a woman HCP, it should be a female and not a trans identifying male.

At least one woman ended up in the papers because she was having to actively fight to get access to healthcare after she refused a trans identifying HCP for her intimate exam and had healthcare withheld from her because of this damning evidence of her "transphobia", and Dr Beth (Theodore) Upton told the whole country on the stand that he would do the same in the highly publicised NHS Fife tribunal.

So that's two. In such an apparently tiny pool of trans identifying HCPs, two is actually a substantial number.

These examples are just the two highly public instances of this happening. Is it happening more, and we just aren't hearing about it because women have been so silenced by aggressive accusations of transphobia, bigotry, and hysteria over something that's "unlikely to happen"? I'm going to go with yes.

This?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24602967/

But there arent enough trans women who are HCPs for them to be compared to a bowlful of chocolates. The only thing that could be compared to a bowlful of chocolates are HCPs who use a female label. They can be the masses. The trans women have to be the minority potentially compromised sweet for that analogy to make sense.

If I wanted a trans woman to perform my smear test on me, I'd have to search pretty hard to find one. I could find a nurse who can do my smear and uses the label "woman" in a few mins. Therefore, the bowl has to be full of people who identify as women whether they are trans or not. It makes no sense for it to be full of trans women who I have to pick between to do my smear. It isnt reflective of the real world

I never said there would be this situation. I said the chances of there even being.one trans woman you could pick is very slim so the people avoiding smears in case a trans woman is the nurse seem even more irrational.

The link to the paper is in there

Yes.

This is not an article. It is you trying to get AI to agree with you.

Nobody would say it is ableist to advise stopping a harmful drug in pregnancy. What people might acknowledge is that it could be hard for a trans man to stop the drugs that make them more masculine for the sake of pregnancy. Acknowledging that it's tough for them doesn't mean you are encouraging them to take it.

share.google/aimode/pBwLFSPm1lLsZah9H

Are you getting me mixed up with another poster? I didn't come up with the analogy or reference it in any way.

But now that you mention it, I'm not particularly convinced by your analogy. There is not going to be a situation where a trans identifying man is the only healthcare provider available. Especially as you point out the numbers are so small.

The point you're missing is regardless of how unlikely or not it would be to have a trans identifying male present himself for a female patient's intimate examination, there are women who are self excluding from necessary healthcare because the NHS cannot guarantee that the patient will be seen by a female HCP, and in fact male HCP with trans identities have and would present themselves to do the exam.

A PP said that a woman in that scenario could say no (ignoring all the issues with that I covered in my last post), and then rebook. Sometimes that is not possible. In one woman's case she refused the trans identifying male for her intimate exam was then refused health care solely for that reason, refusing a male bodied person's presence and touch during an intimate examination.

You also missed the point of the chocolate analogy. All the chocolates in that analogy are trans identifying men, but only some of them are poisoned chocolates. The point was you know some are poisoned, but they are indistinguishable from the totally non-harmful other chocolates until it is too late.

I assume you are missing those easy to understand points on purpose.

A PP asked why trans identifying men are seen as more of a danger than other men and asked for stats, the attached image is for rates of sexual offending by sex from HMS data 2023 which clearly shows that of the male prison population, trans identifying males are 5 times more likely to be incarcerated for sexual offences than other males.

My issue is not about insisting on female care. I know you keep wanting to bring it back around to that, but that isnt what I am talking about.

I am focusing on these analogies that you make up and then believe in, like the sweet. It makes no sense unless you think that trans women are all like poisonous sweets: inherently harmful to those who consume them. In this case, it would be women who interact with the trans woman so inherently harmful to women.

You could argue that there is a bowlful of sweets, most are absolutely fine, but one MIGHT be poisonous. It isn't definitely poisonous, it just might be, because sweets that are poisonous are typically this type of sweet. But the majority of that type of sweet are not poisonous. But a few of them are deadly.

Would you take a sweet knowing that out of the many, one MIGHT be poisonous?

Would you take a sweet if it might have benefits to you (like highlighting bowel cancer), but one of the many MIGHT be poisonous?

This to me is a more accurate.analogy. It acknowledges the higher risk of harm that comes JUST because a male is involved while being realistic about the odds of encountering a male who has transitioned in the first place and the risk of that male being harmful (hence the might).

Well if the percentages are so small, insisting on female care is unlikely to make any difference to how early someone is seen.

However if the poster is alluding to the fact that she couldn't trust her medical providers to adhere to her request, then that's a huge problem.