Violence Against Women

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Just been reading this blog post which talks about women who Transition as violence against women. I agree with her.

[Warning from MNHQ - this contains graphic images]

dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/transition-violence-against-women.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheDirtFromDirt+(The+dirt+from+Dirt)

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Tue 02-Oct-12 12:28:19
You do know there are some nice MRA sites you might enjoy?

I suspect you may have more familiarity with them than I do.
I'm actually interested in feminism, and learn a lot here. I'm also prepared to engage with other posters and provide reasonable validation for my views...

I also take to heart lessons about my tone...

I also start considerably fewer threads and guess I might probably irritate less people, despite my gender.

Men who want to be women have been taking hormones for "sex changes" since the 50's. There have been very few women doing so until very recently. From those that have there is the suggestion of a massively increased risk of cancer, heart disease and circulatory illnesses.

But the numbers of women involved are so small until recently, that this is not statistically significant. So actually we dont really know the long term effect on women.

And anyone consenting to medical treatment needs to be giving informed consent, which means that they should know the potential side effects.

EBAL I am pretty sure that medical ethics would require the doctor to explain that there was only studies of the effect of X number of years.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Tue 02-Oct-12 12:44:20
Men who want to be women have been taking hormones for "sex changes" since the 50's. There have been very few women doing so until very recently. From those that have there is the suggestion of a massively increased risk of cancer, heart disease and circulatory illnesses.

Cite for that please? Assertion doesn't make it so.

But the numbers of women involved are so small until recently,

Cite for that, please?

that this is not statistically significant.

What size of sample would you consider statistically significant, and why?

So actually we dont really know the long term effect on women.

Shocking how the medical establishment would willy-nilly introduce a treatment there was insufficient evidence for. Had a word with NICE?

No, you can't change your biological sex M to F or F to M, but that doesn't diminish the experiences of trans women who want to be a man. (note: not male, but a man.)

Women have quite enough of men dismissing their feelings, or telling them they don't know their own mind without other women joining in as well. It's a bit presumptuous isn't it.

The suggestions of massive increases in cancer and heart disease and the like are anecdotal. Women taking these hormones are reporting these issues at a young age. But the numbers involved so far in taking hormones have been too small for researchers to assess if this is just conincidence or not.

In terms of numbers for statistical significance, how many depends on how common an illness is. The number of people you need to include in any research varies for each illness. Google this and you can read up on it if you are interested.

Much though it pains me to trot out a MN favourite.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Lots of things are meant to increase the incidence of heart disease or cancer. Without some kind of clinical study or trial, it could just be because of one of the multiple causes of cancer trotted out in the Daily Mail on a regular basis.

Agree Keema. Which is why women should not be being given testerone they will have to take for life when nobody really knows the long term effect. And nobody does. There is anecdotal evidence which might turn out to be significant or coincidence. But as yet we dont know.

So these women are being experimented on.

The thing is, EBAL, once the phase 1-4 clinical trials of any drug or treatment has been completed and all regulatory and safety tests passed, the only way to ascertain long term effects is to release the treatment for market use and undertake follow up population studies as required. It's the same for a cardio drug, a drug for the neurological system etc. some treatments do get withdrawn after years of use for this very reason.

You are the one making these claims. Why should we google?

Back up your opinions if you have faith in them.

Sigh.

The term "experimented on" suggests no planning or forethought by the person undergoing treatment.

People make choices every day that may have a negative impact on their health long term, but free will is a wondrous thing.

Actually it would be interesting to have a proper discussion about FTMs, rather than the usual ill-tempered and repetitive fighting over MTFs. Unfortunately this thread is not it.

As an aside, if we lived in a society without ludicrous imposed gender roles (something surely everyone on this thread wishes for) it would be much easier to get a sense of whether transsexuals genuinely have something different about their make-up that means they feel a natural affinity with the other sex rather than their born sex. Or whether many of them have internalised gender roles, realise they don't suited the roles of their born sex and hence at a very early age subconsciously decide they should belong to the other sex.

Since we don't have this ideal society, and in the absence of any science bar the vaguest speculation, it is impossible to make any firm judgements as to the causes of transsexuality and I am pretty unimpressed by anyone who claims that we can.

I don't doubt that EBAL will correct me if I'm wrong - but I think this thread is about the self-harm that women partake in when they mutilate their bodies in order to fit in with the patriarchal masculine/feminine paradigm.
The subject is self harm
And the discussion is; should this self harm be institutionalised (in medicine) and normalized (by society) or should we question the enforced gender roles of patriarchal society and they harm they do to individuals
Which is a basic founding question of feminist tenets

Well, that is what the OP should have said, isn't it? But it didn't.

For what it is worth, I don't think the fundamentalist religion comparison is fair on Beachcomber, whose statements about not needing a 'journey' to understand feminism (paraphrasing) I agreed with.

Otherwise, this is another heartsink thread in FWR 'Chat'. Bring back the old bunfights, all is forgiven.

This is why your argument of no known results = medical experimentation falls down.

Here - chocolate might cause cancer

So every time I pick up a Curly Wurly I am unwittingly engaging in a medical experiment as anectodal data says that eating chocolate may increase my risk of cancer? No, I am making a decision based on the fact that I believe the consumption of said curly wurly would make me feel better.

Sorry for being so simplistic when surrounded by some very knowledgable and erudite posters, but sometimes a simple concept needs a simple explaination when faced with an illogical argument.

There are sources out there, if anyone wants to look (it doesn't seem as if anyone does, but still).

I just did a search on and came up with this, which has the right kind of medical-research jargon in it, though it's readable by normal people:

jcem.endojournals.org/content/93/1/19.full

Unfortunately, what it says is that as far as long-term results of hormone treatments are concerned, "we just don't know". It doesn't seem as if there are any immediate and startling results, anyway.

I think that if transexuals are indeed being experimented on, it's something they feel is important enough to take risks for.

Sorry, I forgot the [[.
jcem.endojournals.org/content/93/1/19.full

Surely the experimentation is consensual though? Doc says, 'Look, we just don't know the long-term effects of this'. Transitioning person says, 'Thanks for telling me, it is an unquantifiable risk I'm prepared to take.'

People do that in all kinds of medical situations, and I'm not persuaded that it is uniquely worrying or wrong in this context.

Thanks, TeiTetua.

Hello all

Please remember our rules about hate speech and personal attacks.

Thanks
MNHQ

I know some trans activists might describe this as cis-plaining; but I was told in another FWR thread this was a technique used by people trying to disrup feminism discussion areas. Which EBAL seems to be doing quite successfully .

Yes, precisely OMC. And it seems that EBAL is managing to be even more successful at disrupting this arena than when we had the invasions of MRA's. I am very saddened to see posters whom I respect immensely falling out with each other.

At least when the MRA's were shit stirring all the regulars in this section were united against them.

lol at the idea I am an MRA.

AF suggested that you were as disruptive as an MRA, not that you were one, EBAL.