"I regret transitioning"

[Corabell]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/feb/03/experience-i-regret-transitioning

I can't even imagine how difficult this realisation must be and the article really shows why hormonal changes and surgery should not be taken lightly.

That's a weird way of putting it, "zero tolerance for FGM", don't you think? Sounds like some might argue for a little bit of tolerance, that there are degrees of tolerance that might be considered... I'd have gone for "the eradication of FGM", I think.

But I digress. Idk why GRS isn't described as genital mutilation. I think it is. It doesn't matter that people have the surgery voluntarily. A doctor got struck off for amputating the healthy limbs of transabled patients, because just because something is voluntary doesn't mean it's beneficial.

Having GRS appears masochistic in the extreme. The results for transmen are so dreadful that hardly any of them go through with. Only 20% of transwomen have SRS. Reading about what it's like to own a surgically constructed neovagina is so utterly depressing. You have to be always stretching it or it'll heal up. The surgery is a long way from creating a convincing replica and, according to researchers, they have a "foul smell". I think it's genital mutilation and I hope that eventually people realise that patients with GID need compassionate MH care far more than they need surgery.

Hi Datun sorry - only just saw your question to me - I didn't think you were being goady at all.

Most people in the medical establishment have no idea what is happening with TAs. That is why we have seen the Royal College of GPs and GMC mindlessly promoting the TA line that any counselling before transition is 'conversion therapy' - this despite the fact that it would be a breach of medical ethics, and in fact the law, to perform any medical treatment without informed consent. So, to take the RCGP/GMC line literally, doctors are legally and ethically obliged to ensure that all patients understand the implications of a medical/surgical treatment...except for anyone wanting to transition. So I could be up in front of the GMC for failing to counsel a patient about the side-effects of aspirin but also up in front of the GMC if I did warn a patient of the risk of taking puberty blockers off-licence, lifelong hormones or lopping off their genitalia. Go figure.

What would actually happen if/when a doctor is had up by the GMC for advising patients about the risks of GR treatment is anyone's guess. Very few doctors will be prepared to take the risk because - even if you are eventually vindicated - the GMC can suspend you while an investigation is underway, meaning no work and no income, sometimes for years.

That's awful, and scandalous, shiny. The patients or their families have a right to know that there are risks. And you are not able to practice in a way that you consider ethical.

Why has everyone swallowed whole what these lobbying groups with clear vested interests promote? What happened to evidence bases and fact checking?

shiny

I've read your post twice and I just want to make sure I understand it properly. Are you saying you are actually not allowed to disclose the risks of drugs used for transitioning purposes? You're not saying that you can disclose the risk but you then have to still comply with the patients wishes? You actually can't tell them the dangers?

What is the piece of legislation that is being used to defend that?

Sorry to grill you! I see you are in an utterly conflicted position. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Hi Datsun- I am not saying that is the explicit policy of the GMC; I'm saying that is the effect of them supporting the TA line that conflates all counselling with conversion therapy.

I very much doubt the GMC or RCGP have a clue about what Trans activism actually wants. They are just blindly assuming that doing what TAs and Stonewall say must be the right-on, liberal position (see also Maria Miller, Jess Phillips etc etc). The danger is that doctors will be put off counselling anyone considering transition because doctors quite rightly fear the GMC.

Yes, I think that's the case with many organisations. And I agree it has exactly the same effect as banning discussion of risks.

But it's a bit of a dodgy unofficial party line, as surely transpeople who are not happy in future (especially children) could hold individual doctors liable for not making them aware of risks?

I'm still encouraged by more and more people on here who are starting to see the weakness and danger of the ideology.

And the BTL commenting too. And MSM is also starting to question.

I think there has been a deliberate conflation of conversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality (traumatic and ineffective) with the skilled psychological therapy which could and should provide a careful and objective exploration of an individual's gender identity to help someone come to an informed decision about life-changing medical treatment i.e. not designed to prevent transition. The T has been tagged onto to the LGB (again).

Absolutely agree that the conflation is deliberate and designed to entrap ill-informed virtue signalllers like Maria Miller and the GMC.

The irony is that there can be no more extreme form of gay conversion therapy than sterilisation and castration.

Totally. It's all smoke and mirrors.

It does make you wonder that if they are not doing any due diligence over this, what else gets passed with as little thought?

Indeed, shiny.