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?

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 doubt it. I hope that most Trans people would agree to the information disclosed in the possible cancer scenario. But there are huge numbers of less extreme medical situations where biological sex is relevant to the possible diagnosis or treatment.

It also seems totally wrong that so many of these rules directly contradict the rules for everyone else. So, for all other patients, I would be in breach of good medical practice guidelines if I failed to disclose relevant information when making a referral. But, for Trans patients, I am in potentially a criminal if I do.

The government and establishment have made a huge number of concessions to the TA lobby, apparently without thinking through the consequences - including harm to Trans people themselves.

YY Snazzy and shiny, that's exactly it. Most people do believe those three things. And as you say they assume there will be checks and balances to stop any unintended consequences that they haven't really thought about getting out of hand. Most people aren't interested in thinking about it particularly deeply.

I'd guess that in a case as described above, a transman with suspected ovarian cancer, the doctor would tell the patient why they were being referred and then, should the patient for some totally batshit reason refuse permission for the investigation, it would be marked in the notes. If I were the doctor I would want some sort of signed acknowledgment that they were turning down my advice.

People are entitled to turn down treatment for whatever reason they want. If it's illegal to reveal a patient's sex without permission you would need to spell out the consequences of not revealing it whenever the patient's sex was significant and keep asking for signatures, possibly witnessed. Also I think I'm right in saying that if a doctor's advice is ignored the doctor is entitled to withdraw, tell the patient to see another doctor. Shiny will know better than I do.

shiny Would you be within your rights as a doctor to refuse to treat or refer trans patients because of the ethical and legal quagmire it places you in?

I'm not saying you would or should, but I'm wondering if doctors have any protection of their own when the law conflicts with medical ethics.

If we shift the burden of the definition of the sexes from external sexual organs to chromosomes intersex becomes relevant because many intersex people become relevant again because they do not conform to the male/female typical chromosomal patterns. It is not about intersex people being trans (which I never even said, but that doesn't seem to matter to some posters), it's about intersex people challenging our definitions of binary sexual attributions - something which may or may not be relevant to trans discussions.

In the thought experiment above if the person with the penis and no female sexual characteristics but female chromosomes wanted to be identified as a man, would you insist she be identified as a woman?

When it comes to rape victims and trans gyneacologists you would imagine that being a human being would trump all considerations, I.e. the doctor would appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and excuse herself from the case in accordance with the patient's wishes. Because most people, trans or otherwise, are not arseholes.

A lot of the questions you are asking - all of them excellent - don't have definitive answers yet. We won't know till some poor bastard falls foul of the craziness and winds up in front of a court or the GMC.

I certainly do not think I could refuse to treat a Trans patient who wouldn't follow my advice though - and I don't think I should do so. Patients are allowed to make their own decisions, no matter how wrong I think they are. What worries me about the no-disclosure rule is that (1) it contradicts the rules for everyone else (2) it may be hard to convince people with extreme gender dysphoria of the importance of disclosing their sex (3) a criminal offence FFS.

It also seems totally wrong that so many of these rules directly contradict the rules for everyone else. So, for all other patients, I would be in breach of good medical practice guidelines if I failed to disclose relevant information when making a referral. But, for Trans patients, I am in potentially a criminal if I do.

Yes, that's insane. It is a trend with the transnonsense; sterilisation of children would be illegal in any other case, but if the child is trans, no problem at all. (And apparently, this is achieved by puberty blockers alone: 4thwavenow.com/2017/01/26/shriveled-raisins-the-bitter-harvest-of-affirmative-care/comment-page-1/#comment-16623 , it says here that the ovaries of a girl who was on Lupron resembled shriveled raisins when the ovaries were surgically removed, as is the usual course of action after puberty blockers.)

It is so weird. If this kind of exemption from the good medical practice guidelines would be made for an ethnic minority, this would be considered a human rights violation - but certainly, no ethnic minority ever campaigned for their own children to be sterilized.
Which is very revealing, is it not? I don't think the adult transactivists act in the best interest of those children.

When it comes to rape victims and trans gyneacologists you would imagine that being a human being would trump all considerations, I.e. the doctor would appreciate the sensitivity of the situation and excuse herself from the case in accordance with the patient's wishes. Because most people, trans or otherwise, are not arseholes.

Forgive me if I don't find your limp assurance particularly reassuring. Nor do I necessarily agree that "most people aren't arseholes". I've certainly come across a few. Especially self righteous "activists" with a point to prove. I wonder if you really are that naive.

So you believe that recently raped women owe transactivists validation? That is what you are saying isn't it. Rape victims owe TA access.

She does, but she believes they'd be niiiiiiice, and they'd probably agree to hand the patient over to an actual woman because they're obviously really sensitive to traumatised women's needs and everything. And if they didn't and they chose to validate their gender identity against the wishes of a rape victim, well, not the end of the world is it?

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.

Jesus christ that is absolutely terrifying. And batshit. But more terrifying. So because the patient does not want anyone to know their birth sex for whatever reason...their treatment could be delayed and their lives lost/everything gets worse. Honestly, WHO is pushing for this?! It is dangerous and helps noone.

If we can't bring intersex into it how is it okay to bring rape victims into it?
I'm not okay with that at all, speaking as someone who has been raped by both men and women (I had a very unfortunate childhood.)

It writes off the experiences of those who already report less due to societal pressures, those raped by women, and male victims of rape. To say a rape victim shouldn't have to share a bathroom with a man in a dress (because it's usually bathrooms people go back to) is basically saying all rape victims are women and all rapists are men, which is a very dangerous assertion that I thought we were making progress on. Not to mention that even if male rape victims are accepted in existence, you're saying they should instead share the bathroom with the dangerous rapists.

"If we can't bring intersex into it how is it okay to bring rape victims into it?"

Because intersex people are not concerned and not affected by the trans discussion. They are not trans. They are not even happy to be used by transactivists to further trans agenda.

But rape victims are concerned and are affected by the changes to female safe spaces, access to female HCPs etc that will come into effect as tranactivists reach their goal of pushing males into these places and roles.

Did you even read the posts about rape victims Rixera?

And why are you conflating male rape victims with transwomen?

I'm not, I'm saying if you consider that transwomen should have to use the male bathroom because of the risk of them committing assaults, it is saying to the male rape victim that they ought to be the one at risk of being assaulted instead.

And of course we will only hear the voices of the rape victims that are concerned, that's confirmation bias as the ones not concerned won't be petitioning anything. I'm a rape victim and I don't appreciate my 'fear' being appropriated as a reason to treat transwomen as anything less than women. Anyone can commit assaults, gender has nothing to do with it.

If we can't bring intersex into it how is it okay to bring rape victims into it?

Because rape victims are actually affected by the transnonsense, and negatively, and are the most vulnerable to this, too, as they don't have the time to just make another appointment with a different gynecologist when they need gynecological treatment right now because of the rape.

But you are right, we should not even fucking have to bring rape victims into it.

A woman has a right to privacy, whether she was raped or not. Bringing rape victims into it is a desperate attempt to make the pro-self-identification side develop even a tiny, tiny bit of empathy.

But there is no need to talk of rape victims. Let us talk, instead, of women who are accused of having taken drugs, and are forced to let a male watch them pee because said male identifies as female.

Let us talk instead of women who are suspected of a crime and are forced to let a male grab their breasts and vulva because said male identifies as female.

That is sexual violence, so ... yeah, sorry, it is impossible to not bring victims of sexual violence into it. This system makes women victims of sexual violence, up to and including rape.

I'd not be happier if it was a woman doing any of those things.
Women are capable of assault and to have one grabbing at me would be just as triggering as if a man did it and I don't appreciate being spoken for.

Rapists make women, and men actually, victims of sexual violence and rape, not a system, so please let's put the blame where it belongs.

I'm not, I'm saying if you consider that transwomen should have to use the male bathroom because of the risk of them committing assaults, it is saying to the male rape victim that they ought to be the one at risk of being assaulted instead.

Males are unfortunately always at risk of male violence. That is just how things are. If you lock them up alone, they are at risk of male suicide rate.
Why on earth would you think men should be entitled to enact their male violence on women so that other males will be spared the brunt of it? Do you really hate women so much?

Women are capable of assault and to have one grabbing at me would be just as triggering as if a man did it and I don't appreciate being spoken for.

I happen to be a woman who prefers female gynecologists and would rather be searched by a female police officer. But you are happy with my boundaries being violated.

You think you can speak for me. No, you cannot.

The stereotyping in the advert was what I most noticed as I suppose we are supposed to recognise a gender by hairstyle!

I'd not be happier if it was a woman doing any of those things.

Fair enough, but other women should have the right to chose. Its not forcing every rape victim to be treated by females, it is giving all rape victims the right to chose if they do want a female.

Also, sorry to hear what you went through.