Ok - another trans thead

[Bambambini]

This is more about logic and free speech than simply Trans issues. A catholic group paid to advertise their message on a bus that Girls have vulvas and boys have penises. Seems it was a reaction to a similar ad promoting that girls have penises and boys have vulvas. Aibu to be concerned that logic and free speech is under attack? Why was one claim allowed and another censored? This seems to be a sign of the times and I'm getting worried. Who is choosing which ideas, agendas are allowed and promoted?

*Imagine a person born biologically female with an unproblematic and functioning female anatomy. She then asks a doctor for a penis transplant (this is a thought experiment, go with it) which is successful so she now has sexual characteristics of both sexes, what is she now, male or female?

She then has her womb and ovaries removed....less female than before?

Now she asks for her vulva to be cosmetically removed so she only has a penis. Can she still call herself a woman?*

Yes. Her chromosomes are still female, her hormones are female, she is still at greater risk of 'female' diseases such as osteoporosis and thyroid problems.

People - please stop commenting on boo's posts - he/she is simply using the existence of intersex to shut down the debate on trans.

Interesting Harriet Harman is aware. What was the outcome of Maria Millers proposed bill last week - was it objected to?

A person who is born female will always be a woman, no matter what surgeries they have, and vice versa. I think the person who keeps rambling on about intersex people thinks there is some discussion to be had about whether surgery changes sex, but there really isn't. It should be obvious to anyone with even half a brain.

titchy I think it's fair enough to consider boo's point of view even if you don't agree with it.

Many people agree intersex has nothing to do with trans, boo disagrees with this and argues that it has. Isn't that how reasonable discussions go?

The Gender Identity bill was rescheduled for 24th March.

They have hijacked all these confused youths

Trans in most adolescents is just the latest version of rebellion (punk/goth/emo) toxically mixed with adolescent self-loathing (cutting, ED). TAs secretly know that, IMO, which is why they are so desperate to shut down anyone suggesting that these kids be given time to figure out what their identity really is. If they really believed that all those kids are truly Trans, why would counselling be a problem?

Of course, the difference between Trans and the other forms of teenage rebellion is that you can regrow your hair and shave off your mohican. If you have lopped off your genitals or taken drugs that will permanently affect your fertility, it's too late.

Agree Bev (I'm a GP) - it is frightening. I am furious that the BMA has swallowed the Kool Aid and labelled counselling for Trans as 'gender conversion therapy'. The General Medical Council take the same line.

So, to follow their logic - I would be committing a breach of medical ethics (and potentially of the law) if I prescribed drugs without fully assessing whether the patient needs them, considering alternatives and explaining risks and side-effects....unless they are trans in which case I mustn't say any of this.

And this week I found out that it is now a criminal offence for a doctor to tell another doctor that a patient has had GRS without express permission. So, if I see a FTM patient who still has ovaries and has symptoms of ovarian cancer, I can't mention in a referral letter that ovarian cancer is a possibility without the patient's permission. If the patient doesn't give that permission, I would have to refer as general abdominal pain (or whatever the symptom was), despite knowing that this will be investigated with much less urgency and the chance of a cure may be lost. It is barking and totally inconsistent with the rest of the law around patient records - in most cases, patients are not allowed to remove correct medical information from their records for precisely this sort of reason.

Booboo when you come out with statements like what is a woman and what is a man, you are conflating sex and gender.
A woman is an adult human female, a man is an adult human male.
When trans-activists use intersex conditions to further their argument that they are really women inside it's an straw man.
For the last time intersex is an anomaly it is not a 3rd sex, sex is binary in humans you are either male or female or an anomaly (no offence to intersex people).
If we take you arguments to their conclusion I can say that humans don't have two ears because some people are born without.
I swear trans activist think if they just shout loud enough everyone will fall into line despite all the actual evidence that contradicts their ridiculous arguments.

Let's take a woman, remove every vestige of her internal and external female anatomy and recalibrate her chromosomes. Then give her surgery to have a functioning penis that produces effective sperm, add a prostate and Adam's apple, and socialise her as a male. Then would she be considered a man?

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that once they all get released from a prison for the criminally insane, as far as I'm concerned, she can use whatever loo she likes.

So, to follow their logic - I would be committing a breach of medical ethics (and potentially of the law) if I prescribed drugs without fully assessing whether the patient needs them, considering alternatives and explaining risks and side-effects....unless they are trans in which case I mustn't say any of this.

Will the BMA/GMC have your back when disappointed people who have been harmed by this sue you in the future because the risks and side effects weren't properly explained to them and no alternatives were offered?

I find it utterly terrifying. How have they said this to GPs shiny? Was some sort of memo sent out?

It's a collective mania. It goes beyond political correctness when doctors can't explain risks and side effects to patients and their families. What happened to "do no harm?" How is it remotely ethical?

shiney

Is it guidelines or instructions? Have you been able to raise it with other GPs?

I can't imagine this sitting well with medical professionals generally.

The MDDUS (one of the medical indemnity organisations) published the guidance about it being a criminal offence to disclose GRS, based on GMC guidance. Here's a screenshot of the MDDUS advice.

Frankly I think most doctors are tuning this out - we have so much else to worry about at the moment and most people still don't understand the full insanity of the TA movement. Personally I have had a number of Trans patients over the years with no problems because they were all mature adults who had taken the decision to have GRS after years of consideration. I thought a few of them had general body dysmorphia, but I had no clue about the full madness of the TA movement from my clinical work. I imagine most doctors are in the same position.

Shiny

Do you discuss trans issues with other doctors? I'm curious what the medical and scientific community really think about this - if they feel free and safe to discuss it.

Maybe any doctors or science folk could comment.

Ah - cross post.

And this week I found out that it is now a criminal offence for a doctor to tell another doctor that a patient has had GRS without express permission.

Are you protected from the legal consequences that obeying this law can (and likely will) have, such as being sued for contributing to a wrong diagnosis?

I'm totally out of step with my liberal friends on this, they honestly don't get the implications for women.

I think they must assume two things:

1. No man will legally change their gender unless they genuinely believe they are a woman on the inside.
2. A man who genuinely believes they are a woman on the inside would present no more risk to women than other women in any situation.

These are two massive assumptions that are obviously false and put women at disadvantage and risk.

I also think most people just haven't caught up with the reality of 'self identifying' your legal gender. They assume there must be sensible checks and balances, but there are none.

The change in Irish law came in very under the radar (or else I'm living under a rock). I wasn't aware of it until I started reading up on this here.

Snazzy

The 3rd assumption is that all MTT people have had/want to have GRS whereas, in fact, only 20% do. The idea of a chromosomal man sharing women's spaces is less threatening if you assume that he won't have a penis.

The question being why is this person trans, but not that person just because they are a double child killer?

Because, uh, people with genuine ladybrains are not violent? You know, because women are never violent. Especially not against children!

This will result in violent female criminals being sent to the men's prison, after diagnosing them with manbrain.

The rapists in there will rejoice.

I mean, I hope not, but how else would they prevent men who are violent enough that it causes a public outrage from getting into women's prison, while letting everyone else self-identify in?