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?

A prostate is never removed post gender surgery as it would lead to incontinence in males who wish to be female. All male to females have a prostate and can still get prostate cancer (one of the most prevalent cancers in the world).

Sorry my humour is slightly black. I mean no offense to anyone who has had a family member or friend murdered. I shouldn't have made a sarcastic comment about something so serious. I jut find this entire 'women do it too!!' argument to be ridiculous given nothing at all backs up that women commit at the same rate or even a slightly similar rate, as men.

You have a point, though.

I doubt the number of unsolved murders and missing person cases can make up for the difference in numbers of murders committed by men and women - there would have to be some female criminal geniuses who routinely manage to make their murders appear like natural deaths.

Ahh but Vestal that just goes to show how cunning and evil females are that is why we need to be controlled and put in our place. Look what feminism has done to the world created a league of female super criminals literally committing crimes that will never be solved.

All male to females have a prostate and can still get prostate cancer (one of the most prevalent cancers in the world).

Castration significantly reduces the risk, though.I get the impression there is a large difference in how adversely females are affected by this silencing of doctors compared to males.
FtT who still have their uterus and ovaries are at sky-high risk for problems with those, and if they have them removed will always retain an increased risk of osteoporosis, which is increased by a lack of female hormones. Not sure testosterone even balances that out.

All male to females have a prostate and can still get prostate cancer (one of the most prevalent cancers in the world).

Well then it's a bit of a crying shame that a GP will committing a crime if she tells the referred oncologist to have a look at this man's prostate, instead of suggesting they checkout an area somewhere south of her waist.

Ah Catholicism, same religion whose head very recently downgraded the punishment for pedophile priests
.

Is this what we've come to? One toxic institution with a toxic agenda having a passive aggressive fight with another toxic group with toxic ideas on public billboards?

I want to be a female criminal mastermind when I grow up. (Why I would just murder people is beyond me).

Castration and hormones are not clinically proven to reduce the risk of getting prostate cancer. However, hormonal (female) treatment is used to prevent it reoccurring though this does bring a heightened chance of breast cancer.

Is this what we've come to? One toxic institution with a toxic agenda having a passive aggressive fight with another toxic group with toxic ideas on public billboards?

Apparently.
If our rights and safety weren't at stake in this, it might even be fun to watch them fight.

But then, if they weren't disagreeing about the best way to oppress women, they wouldn't be fighting, would they?

I do wonder whether the fact that this has all spiralled out of control in America and Canada is because the medical profession are making a mint out of it.

80% of SRS are performed on men here and it has already cost £10million on the NHS.

Someone, somewhere is going to have a real issue with that.

• and that doesn't include the cost of hormones and other feminisation surgery.

I doubt the number of unsolved murders and missing person cases can make up for the difference in numbers of murders committed by men and women - there would have to be some female criminal geniuses who routinely manage to make their murders appear like natural deaths.

Interestingly, research into male and female serial murderers has tended to find that women serial murderers (I'm not denying they exist, they do but in the ratio of about 1 to every 5/6 men) kill both sexes fairly indiscriminately and it tends to be people they know. They are generally motivated by personal gain in a financial sense. Male serial murderers tend to have a victim profile that is largely in line with their race and sexuality, so they pick victims that fit who they are sexually attracted to. And they tend to kill strangers. Because male serial murderers are largely motivated by a need to exert physical power, emotional cruelty or gratify urges in a form of sexual release. There's often fetishes involved and the stalking of victims prior to the murder.

Which although it's not strictly what we're talking about, rather goes against the idea that men and women are equally sexually violent.

" shame that a GP will committing a crime if she tells the referred oncologist to have a look at this man's prostate, instead of suggesting they checkout an area somewhere south of her waist."

Oh please. As if nobody would suspect tw might be male, a doctor no less.

How many transwomen have you seen whom you would mistake for female for more than 10 seconds?

Oh please. As if nobody would suspect tw might be male, a doctor no less.

Yes but that misses the point about referral letters. How is the surgeon who receives my letter about an ostensibly male patient with abdominal pain supposed to know that the patient has ovaries and fast-track him accordingly?

Yes I agree with shiny. They are putting themselves at risk by not making HCPs aware of biological issues, doctors have to be really careful about how they get this message across to them or they are going to be jumped on, and the legal position enables it.

How many transwomen have you seen whom you would mistake for female for more than 10 seconds?

Oh, some. But I am shortsighted and too vain to wear my glasses.

Once the clothes come off, it'll be pretty obvious to a doctor. But with FtT, there's quite some things that could cause pain in the area south of the waist, other than ovary cancer.

And the oncologist will also not be able two write "ovary cancer" on referrals to the radiologist, etc.

And then there's the problem with the GP not knowing about trans status in the first place. I don't know for what reasons bone density checks are done, for example, but suspect it is something that would be checked for in elderly women, but not people that appear to be middle aged men.

As shiny says, if you refer it's a criminal offence to point out in the referral that an apparent woman or man has actually had SRS. So until the patient actually attends their appointment the consultant won't be aware that they should be considered higher risk and fasttracked for cancer check etc.

"How is the surgeon who receives my letter about an ostensibly male patient with abdominal pain supposed to know that the patient has ovaries and fast-track him accordingly?"

Ah yes, he won't without seeing the patient, of course.

If a transwoman with abdominal pain won't divulge their sex to their doctor, you should just consider them a candidate for the year's Darwin Award, imho.

Actually, the whole sterilisation-by-hormone/surgery is quite Darwinian, come to think if it.

Is not about to divulging their sex to their own GP. It's about the GP going out referral letters asking for something to be checked that they can't name.

"This patient has a pain in this area. Please check it out".

I should imagine it would be rare for a transperson to demand this, but as a lot of their demands are nonsensical and counter-productive, who knows.

If a transwoman with abdominal pain won't divulge their sex to their doctor, you should just consider them a candidate for the year's Darwin Award, imho.

Well, yes, but what about the doctor? I am not so sure doctors are adequately protected from being sued by the family of one such lethally stupid transwoman.

Actually, the whole sterilisation-by-hormone/surgery is quite Darwinian, come to think if it.

The problem I have with it that it disproportionately affects women, whose reasons for dysphoria have nothing to do with lethal stupidity and everything with societal misogyny.
And children who are not old enough to be capable of consent.

The likes of "Caitlin" Jenner already have children, therefore do not qualify for the Darwin Award.

But I suppose if humanity as a whole manages to go extinct due to the transnonsense, that is also evolution.

"oncologist will also not be able two write "ovary cancer" on referrals to the radiologist, etc. "

Sounds truly Darwinian. I guess doctors sometimes have to accept that some people just don't want to survive.

And what if the GP makes a mistake and does refer to their anatomy. Or they get fed up with the entire business and sort out some kind of secret code between themselves. Are they going to get sued?

Because although I think it's the height of stupidity for a transperson to demand something that was massively counter-productive to their health, I can absolutely see them jumping on the bandwagon if a mistake was made over something minor.

I should imagine it would be rare for a transperson to demand this, but as a lot of their demands are nonsensical and counter-productive, who knows.

A lot of otherwise perfectly rational people have what I would consider odd ideas about their health. For example, I have one patient with several health problems, including type 2 diabetes, epilepsy & COPD. He is perfectly happy to attend appointments and take medication for the epilepsy & COPD, but flatly refuses to believe he is diabetic and has threatened us with legal action if we invite him to diabetic clinics. This is a perfectly sane, professional guy with no mental health issues.

My worry about Trans patients is that anyone whose gender dysphoria is severe enough to undergo surgery/take lifelong drugs may feel too threatened to have their biological sex revealed, even if not doing so puts their lives at risk. This does not mean that I think trans patients are mad or stupid (TAs are a different matter...), only that they may have a huge psychological barrier around this.

They should have to sign some kind of disclaimer saying that they personally understand the risk of not being treated appropriately for their biology. It's not fair for this to fall on others by default.