Doctors set out medical guidelines for trans men giving birth - Times

Or if the non trans partner cannot go through a pregnancy . Presuming they are a bio woman.

I'd have happily swapped with my partner to have my second child if I'd had the option due to serious health problems.

Unfortunately As he's a man mother nature said no.
Yeah so it seems you can't actually change sex after all.

I'd have done it for my daughter and I if I could have.. then changed back again.

Luckily we made it through ( just,)

Somehow it's still the same people holding the baby and the same people who can chose to opt out though right...

Funny, that!

I saw one where a trans man had to stop birth control before he could start taking T and the trans woman he was in a relationship impregnated him despite promising it wasn't possible and then split.

I was just gutted it seemed so tragic for him to be so unaware of his body and the risks he was taking with it. Somehow it's still the same people holding the baby and the same people who can chose to opt out though right...

And this one seeking more information about the new provision NHS England is funding, which hasn't yet been replied to.
This should give a good idea of the number of (women) people undergoing "masculinising genital surgery" which presumably is performed after any hysterectomy etc.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/nhsserviceeforprovisionnof_mas#incoming-2073681

There are a couple of FOIs I have seen regarding so called "bottom surgery" provision by the NHS.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/provisionoffmasculinisinggenit#incoming-2070993

We know the irreversible damage that is done to female bodies by puberty blockers, yet they continue to be prescribed. We know the irreversible damage that is done to female bodies by cross-sex hormones, yet they continue to be prescribed. I don't understand how any of these treatments can be justified in the absence of severe ill health.

And these females remain 100% female with these treatments.

I think part of the issue is that trans men can't have any kind of "bottom surgery" without having a hysterectomy. So without it, no matter how much testosterone they take and however much they might resemble a man with clothes on, as soon as they take their underwear off it's a different story.

Buck Angel, for example, absolutely passes as a man in photos. But as far as I am aware, he hasn't had any kind of bottom surgery. He is quite open about complications of medical transition on Twitter, and has mentioned vaginal atrophy a few times.

Of course, phalloplasties and metoidioplasties don't result in anything vaguely resembling or functioning as a penis anyway, and that's something patients need to be realistic about.

@babyjellyfish

I've got massive concerns about the hysterectomies/oophorectomies being offered to trans men. It's not just about fertility, although that's important. But we KNOW what happens to female bodies after these surgeries, particularly if both ovaries are removed, because we've been doing it for years for women with endometriosis. It ruins your health. And in this case, we're talking about putting healthy pre-menopausal females into surgical menopause. I don't understand how surgery which massively increases risk of heart disease, osteoporosis and dementia as well as depression can be justified in the absence of severe ill health. It is castration. It is irreversible. There's clear evidence to show that women who have oophorectomies die younger than women who don't. And that's before you get to the weight gain, hair loss, continence issues, dry eyes, cracked teeth, vaginal atrophy, scar pain, pain in the vaginal vault, memory loss, sweats, headaches, insomnia - I could go on but you get the idea. It used to be routine to remove ovaries with a hysterectomy to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, until it became clear that the risks of castration are far higher than the cancer risk, especially if you are young and will be without normal levels of oestrogen for a long time.

It worries me how many people are pretending this surgery is something different in this group. It's not. (Also can confirm that you remain 100% female after hysterectomy/oophorectomy).

Just the first report google offered, I haven't done extensive research on this.

ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/376na1_en.pdf

*Somewhat naively, I assumed that trans men would not be prescribed testosterone during pregnancy.

Quite apart from the risk to the placenta, it can cause a female foetus with an XX karyotype to be born with male genitalia.*

Another one who thought that. We have heard that fish in rivers develop DSDs as a result of hormones from HRT etc being flushed into the sewage system and into the water. Why wouldn't anyone worry about the effects of actual maternal medication in the developing foetus?

I have also seen reports that the testosterone gel can somehow be absorbed by children through close contact with the user so restarting soon after the birth is also concerning.

I agree, but if you can’t even get people to recognise and respond to the issue that they are putting their potential children at risk then legislating is not going to stop it. It’s like drink driving, we actually have adequate legislation and drink drivers fully understand the risks they are putting themselves and others through, but some people choose to ignore it. You can’t legislate for selfish behaviours, especially when people think their needs trump other peoples rights.

Part of me wonders whether being on some sort of LARC should be a prerequisite for being prescribed testosterone, but that's an ethical minefield in terms of bodily autonomy.

How can we reconcile the rights of the trans man to take testosterone and also reproduce, with the safety of any child they might conceive?

I don’t think FM did take it during their pregnancies, which is in a way even more worrying. If it still continues to have an effect on a gestating foetus , how long does the effect last, when would it be “safe” to attempt a pregnancy. I assume that transmen would only want to discontinue testosterone for the shortest possible time to minimise any lessening of its effect for themselves.

And FM , despite their apparent research and supposed intelligence, did not understand that radical mastectomies would severely reduce any chance of breastfeeding, and was also unaware ( even on their second pregnancy) that the effects of testosterone use in a female pregnant body severely reduces the size of the placenta thus putting the baby’s growth and development at risk.

Somewhat naively, I assumed that trans men would not be prescribed testosterone during pregnancy.

Quite apart from the risk to the placenta, it can cause a female foetus with an XX karyotype to be born with male genitalia.

I genuinely hope Freddy's son has a Y chromosome.

And FM , despite their apparent research and supposed intelligence, did not understand that radical mastectomies would severely reduce any chance of breastfeeding, and was also unaware ( even on their second pregnancy) that the effects of testosterone use in a female pregnant body severely reduces the size of the placenta thus putting the baby’s growth and development at risk.

I think in twenty or less years time there will be a tranche of trans people weeping and wailing at the permanent damage they have done to their bodies through poorly understood hormone treatment and surgery, devastated at the crippling health issues they are facing , and looking for someone to blame. And reports like this that make the issue about the language and being kind rather than being upfront ,honest and loud about long term impacts will be being produced in evidence of Health authorities failure with regard to trans peoples health needs.

@Babyjellyfish, your earlier post going through points raised in the RCGO report is excellent, I hope you will be sending them a copy, not that they don’t already know the points you raise, but it might jog someone’s conscience if they realise that other people can see right through their wispy woke curtains.

That's one extreme of transgender expression. At the other end are people who change absolutely nothing about themselves or their appearance, but maitain that they are a different sex/gender/unicorn.

Having severe gender or body dysphoria is not a prerequisite for being trans.

Excellent post, babyjellyfish. It is remarkable to see a medical body, which should be prioritising scientific evidence, so ideologically captured that it is willing to spout absolute nonsense. It's as if the Royal Astronomical Society published a document about the importance of star signs.

@JellySaurus
With respect, Cutting your breasts off and taking male hormones so that you can grow a beard are not ‘rejecting stereotypes of féminité , they are extreme cosmetic medical processes which impact on the care and possibly welfare (hormonal damage?) of the infant.

What a mess and how distressing to see august medical bodies use incorrect terms like assigned at birth and cis.

Breastfeeding has nothing to do with obstetricians and gynaecologists, they have nothing to do with the baby, as it's the terrain of the midwife. No doubt the Royal College of Midwives are obediently nodding along, as ever.

I agree.

Abortion care is one thing, but pregnancy?

Freddy McConnell's pregnancies weren't accidental. He had artificial insemination. After obtaining a GRC on the basis that he intended to live the rest of his life as a man.

A few quite worrying things in there.

The royal college, which was founded in 1929, is responsible for postgraduate training of gynaecologists in Britain and sets clinical standards for childbirth and illnesses affecting female reproductive organs. The new draft guideline, which is subject to a six-week consultation, is the college’s first advice to doctors on care for trans people. It says they should use a patient’s chosen pronouns, adding: “Deliberate misuse of language associated with the sex assigned at birth (misgendering), may cause profound offence.”

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists knows better than just about everyone else that sex is not assigned at birth. Surely there are better ways to recommend that healthcare practitioners use transgender patients' gender identities without using this anti-scientific language? If they pretend this stuff isn't nonsense, members of the public who don't have the medical knowledge they do will believe it.

The document also says that trans women should be put on female wards despite controversy over the issue as some patients self-identifying as women retain male sex organs.

Where to even start? I don't see why RCOG needs to concern itself with healthcare for trans women, given that trans women are male and will therefore never need either an obstetrician or a gynaecologist. This is a specialism which focuses exclusively on female patients. And yet they are prioritising the feelings of male patients over the feelings, safety and dignity of their own, female patients, by recommending that trans women be put on female only wards, regardless of how the female patients feel about that.

The royal college urges staff to ask men whether they want to “chestfeed” their baby, adding: “For trans men who choose to chestfeed, offer chestfeeding support in the same manner as for cis women [women whose gender identity matches their sex].”

Once again, we see an organisation emphasising the importance of using transgender people's preferred language to refer to them, and then calling the rest of us "cis" with impunity. We are apparently the only people who don't get to say how we should be referred to, and have our preferences respected.

It says transgender people should be offered advice about fertility preservation before having gender hormone therapy. For example transgender women, who were born with male organs, should be offered the chance to freeze their sperm. It also says hysterectomies, when the womb is surgically removed, should be offered to transgender men.

So, what they're saying is that trans women should be offered fertility preservation, but trans men should be offered sterilisation.

Does nobody else find that worrying?

So trans women, most of whom do not have any bottom surgery and in whom the effects of testosterone suppression are reversible if the hormones are stopped, are offered sperm freezing in case they would like to father children later. But trans men are encouraged to have hysterectomies which will render them permanently infertile. Too bad if they regret their decision at a later date, either because they decide they want children after all or because the removal of their female internal sex organs has put them into immediate menopause and wreaked devastating damage on their bodies.

NHS Digital said it followed standards and guidelines set out in the NHS service manual. It says those writing for the NHS website should “only mention sex, gender or sexuality if they’re relevant, for example, to signpost people and help them get the health information and access to treatment they need”.

And yet they are recommending desexing language even in circumstances where sex is highly relevant, and referring to gender identity instead when it is far from clear how this is relevant to anything at all.

Men cannot give birth, it is the ultimate feminine act - surprising given the lack of glitter involved. But surely any biological woman, identifying as a man, and who want to fulfill this role would be best served by being supported to reconcile with their biological selves in order to do so. Perpetuating a falsehood will surely only add to trauma.

As an aside, I simply cannot get my head around any parent denying their child a mother - to willingly birth and raise a child but deny them this seems unbelievably cruel.

Well its " fair " on the childish and selfish level that most of the people look.at it now ( what with debate/discussion now viewed as phobic 🙄) .

If crackheads Helen and Joe can have a baby then why can't Hard working Harold and Ian have one..and if Harold and Ian have a baby without a mother why can't Alex have a baby and tell the baby they are the father etc etc

If more in depth thought was actually given , and cries of homophobia and transphobia were seen for what they are on these cases, which is emotional blackmail and attempts to shut you down then none of this would ever have gotten this far.

Since when was giving people what they demand if they shout at you, regardless whether their demands are harmful to them or to others, being 'fair'?

TBH I don't think it's about being fair, as much as it is about being seen to be fair. The forced teaming of attaching T+++ to LGB allowed the propagandists to imply that not submitting to this new ideology was equivalent to homophobia. You wouldn't want to be seen as homophonic, would you?

There's no denying we have kind of backed ourselves into an impossible corner. We have perhaps been more obsessed with being right and " fair" than doing the right thing. You cant argue that its its no big deal for strangers to have to validate identities by rolling out policies forcing staff to do just that, and have it listed as a hate crime if you don't , then turn round and say that actually the baby will be harmed if you deny you are actually mother and make them call you dad.

One also would have hoped , now that the attempt to list the biological.mother as the father on the birth certificate was not sucessful that it would have given hospitals an out so to speak. That they were free to draw the line now because despite efforts with pronouns amd rainbow laces ita still all gonna end when it gets to the registry office. But it would seem that no ones willing to do that.