Stop mixing up sex and gender GPs told

Alex2112 - The operations for both doe not change biological sex of a human, the procedures are they to emulate the genitalia of the opposite sex, for cosmetic reasons.

THIS ^^ At the end of the day, ALL trans surgeries are cosmetic.

Referring back to my earlier post - I haven't entirely worked out the "pre vs post" thing in my head yet, but all other points I stand by.

There are other circumstances when men have their testes removed or have disrupted hormone levels eg testicular cancer.

CORRECTION **

The surgery for a "female to male" transexual does not create an actual penis and testes that produce sperm,

Endocrine levels constantly change and fluctuate whilst pre-operative (between male and female levels) as doses or oestrogen/anti-androgens are regularly altered.

The surgery for a "male to female" transexual does not create an actual penis and testes that produce sperm,

The operations for both doe not change biological sex of a human, the procedures are they to emulate the genitalia of the opposite sex, for cosmetic reasons.

Equally intersex surgery does not change my biological status, and sadly can be as serious, but not by choice, often life saving. Even at my age...

These people are free to identify as female, and dress as they wish. The law protects that right.

The law does not (as far as I'm aware) protect the 'right' of a man to 'identify as female'. The GRA enables those who acquire a GRC to be treated as if they were the opposite sex in most (but not all) cases.

Hence why I said medical and surgical history
as that covers all options

A "post op" trans woman, remains a biological male, who has undergone castration, and has had penile skin inverted to create a cavity.

There are though a range of specific genital surgeries now rather than just one 'op' and of course there are women as well as men.

There is no vagina, there is no XX chromosomes, such an individual would still have a prostate. They would not have a cervix, nor ovaries. Medically the NHS would require biological reality of the person they are treating.

Being intersex is clearly shown on my NHS record, it is medical fact.. How the person "IDs" is secondary.

The "post op v. pre op" does not change the biological sex of the individual. It just states if the biological male has testes and penis intact.

In lay man terminology a castrated male is a eunuch, may offend people, in lay mans terms an intersex person may be called a "hermaphrodite" - old medical term.

Castration does not magically turn a biological male into a biological female.

These people are free to identify as female, and dress as they wish. The law protects that right. But biological reality does not change. NHS and medical profession MUST stick to biological facts.

Is that specifically male transsexuals and by pre/post op you mean genital surgery?

Pre-operative transsexual
Post-operative transsexual

As a categorisation, even before delving deep into medical records for details of surgery.

• Keep biological (sex observed at birth) marker. Reference patient's transsexuality as an ongoing condition (just as one would reference kidney disease or IBS) Place gender marker for dignity reasons.*

As simple as possible, but no simpler.

Hamster
Keep biological (sex observed at birth) marker.
Reference patient's transsexuality as an ongoing condition (just as one would reference kidney disease or IBS)
Place gender marker for dignity reasons.

YES. THIS

Perhaps a pre-op or post-op marker might be helpful. (Thinking aloud as I haven't fully thought it through)

Details of specific operations should be on a patient's records regardless eg a lot of women will have had mastectomies and hysterectomies.

I think we should get rid of all these ridiculous trans umbrella terms that Stonewall et al have lumped together to be inclusive and go back to basics.

ie Transsexual or Transsexuality - the old DSM categorisation. Medical professionals knew what it was. Sex observed at birth should remain on all medical records permanently, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria that is MEDICALLY treated with a full ADULT pathway should be noted as a lifelong condition (unless detransitioning of course). Obviously each step of that pathway should be fully documented.

Obviously changes to a person's legal name are a moot point as anyone can change their name on any documentation, but I think that a gender marker should be added as clarification to at least provide dignity to the transsexual patient.

Coming up with convoluted or various "in transition" terms is just denying reality, and as we all know a large proportion of trans patients (especially mtf) don't go through with a full surgical outcome.

Perhaps a pre-op or post-op marker might be helpful. (Thinking aloud as I haven't fully thought it through)

Trans(sexual) people have specific healthcare needs that are different to men or women not on a trans-medical pathway (namely endocrine issues, regular liver/kidney testing, increased risk of DVT, heart issues, strokes etc due to treatment). Hiding or denying those needs is only going to put the patient at risk, even before other "non-trans" health conditions that may arise... Clinicians need to know the biological sex of ANY trans patient.

TLDR:

Keep biological (sex observed at birth) marker.
Reference patient's transsexuality as an ongoing condition (just as one would reference kidney disease or IBS)
Place gender marker for dignity reasons.

I will say, most medical people I know realise this. The problem is more with systems.

Being able to be confidential about that stuff is just part of the job.

Hamster how do you think it should be done ?

The person I know has always been utterly open about their history.
I know their birth name even though I met them 25 years after their surgery.
So although I always call the person by their female name and refer to them as "her" in real life conversations
as we all get older I am more and more aware that biological reality
trumps feelings.

Its a shame that so many of the young woke folks say that I need to be "educated" and tell me about clown fish.
Their intolerance is endangering lives.

Nor by the BBC? I ask this on the basis of your earlier comment "Indeed, doctors and the BBC have a responsibility to those people who believe that sex change is possible. It is not."

And by extension, not by any other media either?

The BBC by dint of its unique status has obligations beyond that of other media.
Of course all media should report more responsibly. The responsibility for change will have to start within public sector rather than private though. Regulatory capture is widespread.

relevant thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

What is your suggestion, then, for a replacement for the term "Male to Female transition" / "Female to Male transition"?

Wouldn't having an accurate record of surgery and medication be better? There are many different variations on what 'male to female transition' (sic) can encompass. hamster might be best placed to comment on what would work in practice, I guess.

And by extension, not by any other media either?

As it happens, I agree.

What is your suggestion, then, for a replacement for the term "Male to Female transition" / "Female to Male transition"?

My suggestion is that such misleading terminology is not used by the medical profession. Its completely contrary to good practise to use such inaccurate terminology, especially if the consequences compromise patient care.