Can we have a general Trans thread?

[Brugmansia]

Sorry for another trans thread and I feel this is a bit of an imposition given I don't post really.

Anyway reading FWR over the past few months has re-radicalised me. I've been reading lots here and wider.

Anyway just now been watching TV and there's been some stuff that's given me the rage but didn't seem to fit in existing threads or it's own thread.

Anyway thing that gave me the rage.
On BBC3 program on transgemder teen's the doctor just said "creating a vagina". Are doctors redefining vagina as pocket rather than a passage? Makes me want to screem.

Also Sarah Ditum being no platformed.

Thank you.

I used "biological women" so it is probably me rather than you MrsTP who is getting told off.

Does anyone know if these proposed guidelines were implemented?

Plan to withdraw treatment from racist patients

gu.com/p/p7fx?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

What question? I've lost track too

Sorry just saw it. No

"Biological fe/male isn't OK"

Says who?

Female and male are biological descriptions. One cannot be male or female in any other sense but biologically.

Male: Of the sex that can produce sperm.

Female: Of the sex that can produce eggs or bear offspring.

There are lots of women who will ask for a female HCP, this request is generally regarded as unremarkable in some fields (e.g. gynae, obstetrics) and women expect it to be honoured. It may well not be honoured from the woman's point of view by having an TW HCP take on their care. However, this may very well not be how the Trust see the issue. Imagine yourself having requested a female doctor and expecting to see a female doctor. You have your BP etc...checked by an HCA who ushers you into a room to undress before being examined. You lying are on the couch, semi-dressed or covered only by a hospital gown. In comes the Doctor to examine you, chaperoned by the HCA. You are semi-naked, lying down, about to undergo an examination and you have a split second to a) assess the situation and b) decline the examination because your definition of female differs from the definition of female held by the trust and the law. You may have to wait another six months for the next appointment in urogynae or endometriosis clinic.

I know Cote but we are supposed to be tiptoeing around not offending anyone. And this is the crux of it. The Venn diagram circle of what's 'offensive' has almost entirely moved over the 'language' and 'women's rights' circles. There's such a small space left.

I followed a pp like a sheep. Sorry. But I'm equally sure that a woman who can't produce eggs or bear offspring would not like to be told she doesn't qualify as female.

The key part is "of the sex that can". Any one individual man/woman may have issues that mean it isn't possible for them, but they are still of that sex.

""if I want a woman to do my smear, am I as bad as an ignorant racist?"

Of course not. This isn't about insisting that a woman check your eyes or look into your ear. As anyone with a vagina on this thread knows, gynaecological examinations are about being penetrated by a stranger, sometimes with fingers and sometimes with a cold metal object.

I have never done so, but it is not unreasonable for a woman to insist that the stranger in question be female.

Yes, and it's offensive to bottle-feeders to say that humans are mammals, since not everyone chooses to breastfeed.

slow going on my own working experiences (admittedly a long time ago) we didn't tell racist patients where to go. A lot of people aren't particularly nice, they still get the required care and treatment.
Asking for a male or female HCP is a different situation because a lot of health care is of a personal and intimate nature. It's quite easy to understand that a woman may not feel comfortable with a male midwife, or indeed a man may prefer another man to catheterise him or give him an enema.
The fact that a self identified transgendered person (which can mean absolutely no treatment or change whatsoever) can demand to be on a ward of their perceived gender is not good news. Mixed wards tend to be unpopular with both men and women. Hopefully transgendered people will be sensitive to this, though there's probably the odd one that won't be and will insist on their rights coming before other people.

" But I'm equally sure that a woman who can't produce eggs or bear offspring would not like to be told she doesn't qualify as female."

You don't seem to think much before you post.

The definition of female which you can see in any dictionary is OF the sex that CAN produce eggs of bear offspring. An infertile woman is still OF the female sex which CAN do these things.

And a transwoman, even after the hormones and the operation to do away with the penis, is still and always OF the male sex that CAN produce sperm. At least with our current technology, a transwoman is never OF the female sex that CAN produce eggs and bear children.

"we are supposed to be tiptoeing around not offending anyone"

Are we? If some people are offended by dictionary definitions, I would consider that a serious problem - in their heads and of their own making.

I am sure you're right

Any informed guesses as to how many TW HCPs there are in the NHS?

"I am sure you're right"

Good to see you understand that transwomen are not female and therefore not women (= adult human females).

I hope you will now have the grace to withdraw your recent comparison of women not wishing to be penetrated by a man during a gynaecological examination to racism.

"In 2014 the NHS employed 150,273 doctors, 377,191 qualified nursing staff, 155,960 qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff and 37,078 managers."

For the sake of argument we'll only look at doctors and nursing staff so say around 525,000 - let's say half are male = 262,500. GIRES assumes a transgender incidence of 1% amongst the male population so that's a potential 2,625 MTF healthcare professionals working in the NHS. If we were to take more cautious estimates of 600 in 100,000 which is the overall incidence rate regardless of birth sex then it'd still be 1,575 MTF trans.

I presume that most of those transwomen would be respectful of women's right to choose a female doctor but if just 1% were as pigheaded and stubborn about their right to "be a woman" as is seen in transactivists in general then women may as well kiss their right to informed consent goodbye.

DailyMail headline today "Transgender woman, 25, is accused of raping 15-year-old girl before she changed sex from male to female"

It'll be interesting to see if there's a campaign for a move to a women's prison in this case.

I could make sense of the words used by two of tge three discussing trans on News night. I guess it's because I am thick.

Cote it was not a comparison it was an alternative example (of a patient requesting a preference ). Sorry if it caused you any offence.

A question for you
"Of the sex that can..."

How do you specify sex?

"GIRES assumes a transgender incidence of 1% amongst the male population so that's a potential 2,625 MTF healthcare professionals working in the NHS."

I don't think we can assume that transwomen are present in the same percentage among doctors as in the general population.

We are told that transgender people and especially transwomen have a far higher incidence of suicide than the rest of population. We are also told that they don't have access to the same opportunities as the rest of society, that they can't count on support (especially financial) from parents, and that they are more likely to be assaulted and killed than others.

Considering all that, I would guess that the incidence of transwomen among specialist doctors like gynaecologists, who go through a very long, stressful, and expensive education, is probably significantly lower than in the general population.

About 150,000 doctors and approaching 400,000 nursing staff. Sex ratio is approaching 50:50 amongst doctors (though not in terms of whole time equivalents as women doctors work (paid!) fewer hours as sexist gits are constantly pointing out). So, using the same GIRES stats we might expect about 900 transgender doctors (750 transwomen, 150 transmen). There would be proportionately fewer transgender nurses, because there are (currently) fewer transgender people who were born girls and nursing is overwhelmingly a female profession (about 90% female). Back of the envelope calculation would be about 720 transmen nurses, 400 transwomen nurses. This assumes that healthcare attracts trans people in same proportion as general population.

i think Cote makes a good point about not being able to make assumptions about prevalence in any specific employment sector.

"Cote it was not a comparison it was an alternative example (of a patient requesting a preference ). Sorry if it caused you any offence."

Of course it was a comparison. You compared racists refusing "Paki" doctors to a woman requesting another woman for a gynaecological examination, suggesting that the latter is just as unreasonable.

"A question for you. "Of the sex that can..." How do you specify sex?"

I don't "specify" sex. Do you mean "define"?

I leave that as an exercise for the student. You clearly have internet access. Why don't you look it up?