Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Government announcement on petition to ban medical intervention to change gender for under 18s

92 replies

NiceHotBath · 25/02/2018 12:30

I couldn’t see a thread about this, apologies if I’ve missed it. The Government has responded to a petition seeking to ban medical intervention to change gender for under 18s:
www.gov.uk/government/news/voice-for-justice-uks-campaign-about-gender-reassignment

I think the summary is that they’re not going to do so, but to keep the law as it is.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 26/02/2018 19:17

Maryz going back to what you were saying on page 1 im a childfree by choice woman I asked for sterilisation a couple of times in my 20s and again when i was 30 i was disuaded from it.

Because its irreversible and i might have changed my mind.

Maryz · 26/02/2018 19:23

yy Helena.

My brother never wanted (still doesn't) children - he asked for a vasectomy aged 25ish. Was refused until he was over 40; I think he had a private one at some stage.

Adults aren't allowed to decide these things for themselves, but children are [baffled]

Somethingweird · 26/02/2018 20:21

There was a mother responding to a newspaper article whose child had been prescribed puberty blockers by the Tavistock. This is supposed to buy time so that the child can make a decision about cross sex hormones (with all the other problems this entails, like brain not maturing etc). However, that was all that happened - the child was discharged for at least a year into the care of their local CAMHS, who had no resources, so no therapy, no help for the family at all. It is no wonder that 100% go on to transition - they have no choice.

HughE · 28/02/2018 13:13

Elletorro
Wow HughE. That’s so sad - like the thalidomide babies?
Could you link to the research if poss?
Also when did the use of these hormones start?

Hormones were being used in medicine on an experimental basis during the 1930s. However at that stage there was no way of making them artificially, so they had to be extracted from natural sources, which made them very rare and expensive substances. Then a number of breakthroughs occurred in fairly rapid succession, which made them much more available and brought the cost right down.

The first, in 1938, was the development here in the UK of a very powerful estrogen-mimicking chemical called diethylstilbestrol (DES), which could be made cheaply from petrochemicals. The low cost and high potency of DES led to it being aggressively promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, in particular as a treatment for miscarriage prevention, where very high doses of estrogen were thought to be required.

Another breakthrough was the discovery in 1939 by a pharmaceutical company, Ayerst, of a way of extracting estrogens in bulk from pregnant mare's urine. The resulting extract was called Premarin. Nearly all the estrogens extracted in this process are unique to horses and don't occur naturally in the human body, making Premarin a poor choice for hormone replacement, but nonetheless, slick marketing by Ayerst turned Premarin into the main drug offered to postmenopausal women for hormone replacement until quite recently.

During WW2, a US-based chemist, Russel Marker, developed a process known as the "Marker degradation", which allowed diosgenin, a substance that could be extracted in bulk from certain species of Mexican yams, to be converted into hormones. Initially it was just progesterone, but within a few years, ways had been found of converting diosgenin into all the main groups of hormones.

As well as finding routes that allowed naturally occurring hormones to be produced, chemists working for the pharmaceutical industry discovered that they could produce "synthetic hormones", chemically modified hormones that would mimic the action of the naturally occurring hormones, but had improved properties as medicines.

The pharmaceutical industry could have promoted hormones chemically identical to our own as medicines, but they almost exclusively promoted synthetics instead. In their marketing to doctors, this was because the synthetics tended to be more potent and have a longer duration of action than the natural ("bioidentical") hormones, and could often be taken by mouth too (whereas bioidenticals generally need to be injected to get good absorbtion). In reality, I think it had more to do with the fact that synthetics can be patented, whereas bioidenticals are naturally occurring substances and can't be patented. The pharmaceutical companies didn't want to invest money into developing hormones into medicines, and then be undercut by generics manufacturers. That's my theory anyway.

The upshot of all this is that when hormones entered use as medicines, they were usually either completely manmade substances (synthetic hormones), or premarin, an estrogen extract containing mainly horse estrogens, not human estrogens. It all happened at a time when safety standards on pharmaceuticals were very lax, and the pharmaceutical industry had a very gung ho attitude to releasing new products to market with little or no testing. When safety standards were tightened in the wake of the thalidomide disaster, drugs already in use were exempt. As a result, the safety of synthetic hormones (both as medicines in general, and particularly for use during pregnancy) has not been subject to the level of scrutiny newer drugs would be. Also, I think synthetics have a special status with governments because they're the basis of birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraception, and play an important role in reducing population growth. I suspect that's led to pressure for problems associated with them to be glossed over.

Synthetics have remained the mainstay of women's HRT for decades, and it's only quite recently that bioidentical hormones (estradiol, estriol and progesterone) have started to be offered to women as hormone replacement. Doctors initially tried giving men synthetics for HRT too, but quickly switched to bioidentical testosterone (I guess because of a high body bag count, and the potential market being a lot smaller than women's HRT).

Literally millions of people must have died prematurely as a result of synthetics and premarin being the mainstay of women's HRT. The death toll from premarin alone is probably in the millions. Doctors have largely stopped offering women HRT because, when they finally did a study of women who'd been put on premarin (or premarin plus a synthetic hormone called Provera), they found that they were dropping like flies from blood clots and cancer.

Synthetics are toxic to adults, but they're even more harmful to unborn babies. In general, the synthetics are designed to resist degradation, and that gives them the ability to cross the placenta and wreak all sorts of havoc on an unborn baby, that a mother's own hormones wouldn't necessarily cause. One of the things they appear to be able to do is to cause the process of sexual development to go spectacularly wrong, and produce people who are physically intersexed, or who have a brain that is the wrong sex for their body. Exposure very early in pregnancy appears to be able to produce similar deformities to those that were seen with thalidomide. In the 1960s and 70s, more than a million women in the UK were given a hormone based pregnancy test called Primodos, with thousands of babies born deformed as a result. Ever since the 1980s, the families of the victims have been in a battle with our government to try and get recognition and help for their disabled children. There's a group called Hhorages France, who've documented more than a thousand cases of children who were prenatally exposed to synthetic hormones, and went on to develop serious mental illnesses or commit suicide (whereas their unexposed siblings had a rate of mental illness no greater than the general population). I have a Facebook friend, Jill Escher, who has evidence of a link between the use of these drugs in pregnancy, and autism in the grandchildren. Some of the harmful effects seem to be able to continue through multiple generations.

I set up this page on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/synthetichormonesaredangerous/

in an attempt to document what I've found, and draw attention to the harm that can result if an unborn baby is exposed to these drugs. In it I've posted links to news items and various bits of research I've found. Another good resource is this page:

diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/

which is mainly about DES, but also covers some of the harm caused to unborn babies by other drugs and chemicals.

NiceHotBath · 04/03/2018 09:47

@Anatidae

I've pasted your reply to HughE from another thread (where he made the same points) as I thought it was so clear and useful. Hope you don't mind:

I’m a scientist, whose work is basically in the ways genes and biochemistry control normal developmental processes and cancers. I do this for a living and I have a deep understanding of the genetics and pathways involved in normal development and what can go wrong.

You have not undergone partial female brain development. It doesn’t work like that. Your post is a confused mass of official sounding science that youve not truly understood. Im trying to say this gently but it’s basically like science ‘word salad’. It’s not cohesive, it makes no sense, you’ve misunderstood the basics and built a construction to suit your world view.

OP posts:
HairyBallTheorem · 04/03/2018 09:55

Oh look, HughE has turned up to talk about the totally irrelevant issue of intersex again.

And bore on about his favourite tin-foil hat theory about women routinely being given synthetic hormones during pregnancy (news flash - they are not routinely given, may occasionally be given in small doses and for limited amounts of time - i.e. first few weeks of pregnancy - in the case of IVF or recurrent miscarriages).

HughE, point us to your peer-reviewed papers in the medical literature on this, and I might listen to you. Otherwise I'm going to chalk you up as another internet conspiracy theorist.

swivelchair · 04/03/2018 10:00

It's all based off the idea that these kids will suicide if they're not medically treated - that's the only way that the risk/reward scales balance when what you want to do is put kids on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and give them cosmetic surgery which leaves them sterile, and with a life-long dependency on artificial hormones.

A little like the pill - the pill is safe - when compared to the risk of pregnancy. If you weren't at risk of pregnancy, then taking the pill has potential side-effects that don't make it 'safe' (or which need to be counter-balanced by some other risk to you)

HughE · 04/03/2018 22:37

@NiceHotBath
I was trying to track down Anatidaes post, but couldn't find it (unless it's the one in the "can't vote Labour anymore" thread, and has been subsequently edited). I wrote a rather curt reply to her there, but on reflection it's possible that she is legitimately a geneticist, and the course material where she studied just didn't go into much detail about the biology of sexual development.

The idea that X and Y chromosomes determine sex is so deeply rooted in public consciousness that very few people seem to know that actually, there's this crucial step in the middle involving hormones. Certainly most doctors don't seem to, which I guess is why the practice of administering hormones to pregnant women doesn't get questioned. I didn't know any different myself, until I started delving into whether it's even possible to have a brain that's partly developed as male and partly as female (it turns out it is), and if so, how I could have ended up in that situation.

Your post is a confused mass of official sounding science...
I've read hundreds of scientific papers over the last several years, as well as numerous books about DES, hormones and brain development. Probably some of it has rubbed off in the stuff I write.

You have not undergone partial female brain development. It doesn’t work like that...
I've found several papers reporting on experiments carried out on sheep, in which it appears that some of the animals they produced had some brhaviours masculinised but not others. There's also a paper summarising several decades of research into the effects of prenatal exposure to external androgens on the brain.

Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to explore the organizational hypothesis in primates
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146061/?tool=pubmed

One of the things they mention in the conclusion to that paper is the following:
The timing of sensitivity to prenatal androgens varies for different behavioral endpoints. During gestation, the basic connections of the neural circuits that contribute to the expression of juvenile and adult behaviors are formed in a complex process that occurs over time... Perhaps instead of two ‘neural primordia’ (one for male-typical behaviors and one for female-typical behaviors), there are many neural circuits, each of which underlies an individual behavior and develops at a different time during gestation. The presence or absence of androgens may act to organize each of those circuits in a male-typical or female-typical direction independently of the others.

Basically what they're saying is that different parts of the brain undergo their critical development at different stages of the pregnancy, so if there's a temporary anomaly in androgen levels partway through prenatal development, the result can be a brain where some parts are male and some parts female. That's what I think has happened to me.

@HairyBallTheorem
...totally irrelevant issue of intersex...
We're talking about people who had parts of their prenatal development occur as male and parts as female. How is the term "intersex" not relevant?

And bore on about his favourite tin-foil hat theory about women routinely being given synthetic hormones during pregnancy (news flash - they are not routinely given, may occasionally be given in small doses and for limited amounts of time - i.e. first few weeks of pregnancy - in the case of IVF or recurrent miscarriages).

Let me direct you to an article that a group called Hormones Matter recently published on my behalf:
www.hormonesmatter.com/maternal-des-exposure-intersex-development-males/

In it is a table for using DES to prevent "accidents of pregnancy", taken from the 1953 "Physician's Desk Reference". The PDR is a guide for doctors published annually, containing the manufacturer's prescribing information for all the pharmaceutical products sold on the US market. Notice how the dose was administered on a progressively increasing scale, resulting in a comparatively light exposure during the first trimester (when genital development takes place), but a much heavier exposure during the second and third trimesters (the time when the permanent structure of the brain is being built). That same table apparently appeared in every edition from 1947 (the year the PDR was first introduced) through to 1962, when it was replaced by a recommendation to use doses of between 25 and 100 mg per day for preventing miscarriages.

DES is an extremely potent synthetic estrogen, and has roughly the same potency weight for weight as ethinylestradiol (the estrogen that's usually used in birth control pills). If you look at a packet of combined estrogen/progestin birth control pills (not the progestin only ones), most of them contain between 15 and 30 micrograms of ethinylestradiol per tablet. The doses in that table of DES dosages for preventing "accidents of pregnancy" are in milligrams. One milligram is 1000 micrograms. Every day during the later stages of their pregnancies, women put on DES were being given the equivalent artificial estrogen of thousands of birth control pills. Every day. It sounds crazy, but it happened.

The two doctors who originally came up with the idea of using DES for miscarriage prevention clearly didn't have the first clue what they were doing, and just plucked some plausible sounding doses out of the air based on the drugs they were used to dealing with. Medicine being very conservative, doctors tend not to question treatments once they've become part of established medical practice, and so those same insanely high doses continued to be used right up until when DES was withdrawn from use as a miscarriage preventative in the 1970s.

A while ago, I stuck that dosing table into a spreadsheet and worked out that, if it were followed to the letter, a woman on DES for miscarriage prevention would receive a cumulative dose of 11,718 milligrams of DES, roughly the same amount of artificial estrogen as is contained in 500,000 birth control pills! Naturally the CDC is telling the truth, when they say that the male babies exposed to this colossal estrogen overload suffered no ill effects other than "noncancerous epididymal cysts". Of course they are.

Boxesandbuttons · 04/03/2018 23:00

HughE what about the brain is female if it is attached to a male biological body?

Datun · 04/03/2018 23:07

Well exactly.

As far as women are concerned , it's all about the body.

We need rights based on our biology. Maternity care, reproductive issues, abortion.

Men commit 98% of all sexually violent crime. With their bodies.

It's such a pointless derail.

HughE · 07/03/2018 17:01

@Boxesandbuttons
"HughE what about the brain is female if it is attached to a male biological body?"

No one really knows for sure what the differences between male and female brains are, just that there are differences. There are certain brain regions where visible structural differences can be seen under the microscope, but I think there must be a lot more to it than that, and there are probably subtle sex differences in the way cells are connected that extend throughout the brain. The animal research also shows that male and female brain tissue responds differently to hormones, animals with male brains having heightened sexual behaviour in response to testosterone, whereas animals with female brains become sexually receptive (show "lordosis behaviour") in response to estradiol. If you swap the hormones around, you don't get the amorous behaviour, so there is a definite difference between the way male and female brains respond to hormones. The animal research also shows that a short period of hormone disruption doesn't fully sex reverse the brain, so the sex differences must be built in gradually over a period of months. That's another reason for thinking that there are subtle sex differences that extend throughout the brain.

One difference I've noticed in myself vs ordinary men is the way their faces light up and they get all excited watching competitive sports, whereas to me, football, cricket etc are completely pointless activities that I can't get enthusiastic about no matter how I try. On the other hand, I go all gooey inside every time I see a baby. One of the things that happens while the brain is developing, is that there's a process of programmed cell death going on, during which excess brain cells are removed. I'm thinking that maybe androgen levels help decide which neurons get the chop, and in my case, the period of low testosterone I experienced partway through my prenatal development led to the neurons that would have driven competitiveness and the appreciation of competitive sport being axed, whereas my nurturing neurons (which would have been zapped instead if my testosterone was at normal male levels) survived.

Somerville · 07/03/2018 17:10

One difference I've noticed in myself vs ordinary men is the way their faces light up and they get all excited watching competitive sports, whereas to me, football, cricket etc are completely pointless activities that I can't get enthusiastic about no matter how I try. On the other hand, I go all gooey inside every time I see a baby

I started typing a response to this, but I'm laughing too much.

Wanderingwomb · 07/03/2018 17:43

HughE actually I think brain cell death is more to do with experience... You lose what you don't use... For example babies are born able to hear every different type of speech sound but then a baby brought up in Japan will gradually lose the ability to hear nuances of sound not used in Japanese and retain and strengthen the ability to hear sounds that are used. And vice versa for, for example, a British baby. Hopefully somebody else will explain it better.

Ps my OH is like you about sport and babies. I know he's a man because he impregnated me a few times. I'd bloody love him to wear a dress on occasion but he won't.

Wanderingwomb · 07/03/2018 17:47

HughE apologies i think you do have a point about hormones in the womb. I think Simon Barton Cohen did studies around personality traits and relative finger lengths (apparently indicators of uterine hormone levels)

Wanderingwomb · 07/03/2018 17:50

Nurturing is driven by oxytocin I think. Males who spend more time with their pregnant partners subsequently produce higher oxytocin and become nurturing fathers. A study replicated the same effect by offering fathers an oxytocin nasal spray at the birth.

OldCrone · 07/03/2018 18:05

HughE
Some traits are more common in males and some in females, but mostly it's just personality and has nothing to do with sex. Any feature of male and female brains will show a distribution like this one for finger length mentioned by Wanderingwomb

Government announcement on petition to ban medical intervention to change gender for under 18s
HughE · 08/03/2018 12:35

@Wanderingwomb
actually I think brain cell death is more to do with experience...
During childhood and throughout adult life that's true, however, during prenatal development, there's a period of time while the brain is developing, where large numbers of excess neurons are removed through a process of programmed cell death. I was speculating that which cells die might partly be determined by whether testosterone is present during the time it's happening, and maybe that partly accounts for the differences between adult male and female brains.

my OH is like you about sport and babies. I know he's a man because he impregnated me a few times.

I have two children, and I've looked at my sperm under a microscope. There are (or were last time I looked) still viable sperm cells swimming around there, even though my ejaculate volume is much smaller than it used to be before I got sick with the symptoms of hypogonadism. Under normal circumstances, men produce so many sperm cells that it takes a very large reduction in their fertility before they start to have trouble getting women pregnant.

It's quite a bit more than just sport and babies. I have female "courtship behaviour", a female pattern of arousal and orgasm, and feminine body language too.

Like most animal species that form long term pair bonds, people have a “courtship ritual”. We're much more socially complex than most animals, and our courtship ritual is much more varied and free form than the very rigid patterns of courtship behaviour you see in birds, for instance. Nonetheless, it works in a similar way: the male does stuff to demonstrate his fitness and suitability as a mate to the female. If she's sufficiently wowed, she'll hang around with him, they'll get closer to each other, and in due course they'll enter a long term relationship. In general, the way it should work is that the man should lead the way, and the woman, if she's suitably impressed, follows. He's the one who goes up to her and tries to chat her up with corny chat up lines. He's the one who asks her out on their first date, and generally keeps things moving along as they get to know each other better. The man is the seducer, the woman the one seduced (yes I know there are exceptions, but that's how things generally work in the majority of cases).

The thought that occurred to me is that I have the female version of this behaviour. In the days when I was young and single, I'd make eye contact with women to signal my interest, but then I was expecting them to come over to me to do the chatting up and asking out. Obviously, seeing what I was doing wrong, in the same situation now, I could make myself take a more active role, but if I did, I'd be creating fake behaviour, it wouldn't be what my instinct tells me to do. Getting the courtship process right is absolutely critical to reproductive success, and it's not something you'd expect nature to make mistakes with.

I'd have dismissed the whole thing as just “being shy” or a quirk of my personality, but then another thought occurred to me. My process of arousal and orgasm is a lot more like what normally happens in women rather than men. Having had sexual encounters with people of both sexes, the way it seems to typically work in men is that once they get started, they get continuously more aroused until they climax, a process that generally takes no more than a few minutes. In my case it's more an ebb and flow. I build to a peak of arousal, then the feelings ebb away before starting to build again to a (hopefully higher) peak a few minutes later. And so it continues, until eventually I'll hit a peak high enough to tip me over the edge into orgasm maybe 30 minutes or so later. It's the same whether I'm masturbating or having sex with someone. This struck me as being very similar to what normally happens in women, not men.

Then I remembered my first relationship, which turned sexual the first night. Despite trying and trying, I was completely unable to climax. Nor was I able to the next few times we got together. After we'd been going out for several weeks, I could tell she had developed feelings for me and was no longer just using me for sex, and it was like a block had been lifted. Suddenly I could climax with her without difficulty. The was the same with my subsequent relationships too, and I realised that I've never been able to “let go” enough to achieve orgasm with a stranger. Once again, I seemed to be doing the female thing, not the male one. Rape is an important secondary mating strategy for men, and it shouldn't be necessary for me to be emotionally bonded to sexual partners before I can achieve orgasm with them.

As far as nature and genetics are concerned, if you don't reproduce, you might as well be dead, so nature never normally gets anything to do with reproductive success wrong. Yet something appears to have gone drastically wrong in my case.

I tried videoing myself, and realised that I have quite feminine body language too (which is probably why, when I was younger, gay men kept approaching me; I'm guessing they'd see a feminine-looking man with female body language, and assume I must be gay).

Then I thought about how I can't get enthusiastic about competitive sports, and how men who are watching them seem to be experiencing something that I can't experience. Putting all those things together is what originally gave me the idea that perhaps somehow some of my brain development occurred as female instead of male.

The following year (2011), when I was in a position to investigate further, I discovered that I'd developed symptoms of acute hypogonadism, and things like my body structure and digit ratio show that it's been present at a subclinical level all my life.

As part of my investigations, I obtained a copy of a book, "Brain Sex", and in it I found the following passage, in a section talking about a study of teenaged boys whose mothers had been given treatment during pregnancy with an artificial estrogen called diethylstilbestrol (or DES).

Like most of the group, Jim is shy, unassertive and has a comparatively low self esteem. He ranks himself in the bottom 25 percent of his class when it comes to popularity, influence, sporting and physical prowess... In the course of the survey, Jim's mother made a spontaneous comparison between Jim, and her older son, Larry. While pregnant with Larry, she had not taken any of the hormone treatment. She commented that her younger son was an extremely poor athlete, was regarded as a "sissy" by the other boys, would never fight back, and never developed an interest in electronic devices or chemical sets as his older brother had done.

Aside from the bit about chemistry sets, it was a more or less perfect match for my own teenage years.

Shortly after that, I joined an online group for DES sons, and discovered I have enough in common with them to know I must have had some kind of exposure to artificial female hormones. The main difference is that most of the people I've talked to seem to have undergone more female brain development than I have. With me, it's very much a case of having some parts of who I am female and other parts male, whereas the majority of people I've talked to are female identified (even if for personal reasons they're having to stay in the closet about it).

Government announcement on petition to ban medical intervention to change gender for under 18s
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread