is it fair othat older transwomen get to stay on HRT for life?

[intheparcark]

is it fair that NHS gps will more than likely prescribe HRT for transwomen for life?
On the other hand, middle aged women are often bullied into stopping it after 60.
even though for a lot of women, their mental and physical health depends on taking HRT.
A lot of younger women don't realize that for a large percentage of women, menopausal symptoms (hot flushes, low libido, depression, brain fog, insomnia and mood swings) NEVER GO AWAY.

I'm assuming that all these middle aged men who want to become women won't be 'getting the talk' from their GP after they've been on HRT for so many years

I need to correct a factual error, which is that trans women are never, ever prescribed progesterone, even if they want it or have tried it from an online source or from a friend and found it beneficial. And, many trans women are taken off of estrogen by incompetent doctors once they reach 60, causing horrible withdrawal symptoms like chronic pain, with absolutely zero hormones produced by their own bodies.

home Isn't it usual for people who are transgender to take cross-sex hormones before surgery?

Also as I've mentioned upthread, I had a total hysterectomy and consequently surgical menopause (when relatively young) I wasn't completely altered by this during the period before taking HRT and I have a number of friends similarly affected by gyny cancer (& younger than me) who had the same operation but are unable to take HRT. They are very definitely women!

R0wantrees — the vast majority of trans women would be angry to hear of you and your friends being denied necessary hormones. One of the fundamental principles of most trans organisers is "bodily autonomy" — which includes the freedom to take the hormones you feel your body needs. Making hormones more widely available, and doing more research into their long term effects and into safety improvements would benefit us all, there's no reason to see us as opposed in this matter.

Yes, Rowantrees, prior to surgery - or in the increasing number of trans umbrella cases who never have surgery - this occurs.

Because the body is still producing natal sex hormones and these have to be gradually reduced and replaced by cross sex hormones until some kind of balance can be reached.

But without GRS the total eradication of testosterone down to natal female levels can never be consistently achieved.

Athletics have ridiculously high levels that allow transwomen to participate because of this.

Because most trans athletes will never get close to the levels of natal women athletes and especially not if they do not have GRS. Which the sport does not enforce - though IMO it probably should as there are already too many advantages to male born athletes even if they are on hormones - T levels being only one aspect.

Some advantages will never be eradicated. But GRS - and probably a several year post surgery minimum wait too monitoring changes to muscle mass and fat distribution is the best way to approach any kind of equitability as without it far too many advantages remain.

The rules as now are an insult to women athletes to be honest.

when you have had GRS, you ARE replacing hormones that are needed because your body is no longer producing any.

No, this isn't the case.
A male body can't be said to 'no longer' be producing female levels of oestrogen because it never did produce them in the first place. And that body never had the ovaries to produce those levels, nor the 'expectation' of a female body to receive them.

You can't replace something that was never there and never intended to be there.

The oestrogen implant in my abdomen replaced the oestrogen my ovaries prematurely ceased production of. And even then, it does not replace it at the same levels I used to make, or would still be making if they hadn't failed so young.
Nor does it replicate the dramatic peaks and troughs of my natural cycle. But it is replacing, at least partially, the female hormone output from my once functional ovaries.

And the progesterone I take 12 days a month is similarly a crude attempt to replace what my body needs to keep my uterus safe from cancer, and to balance the effects of that oestrogen. And when my body sheds it's uterine lining after this artificial intervention, it isn't even referred to as menstruation or a period, even though it's experienced in the same way I've always bled. No, it's a 'withdrawal bleed'.

So, if a female who is literally replacing her own hormones as best as medicine can manage can accept that she is not recreating her natural state all that effectively, then someone who has a male body and reproductive system needs to accept that this is not a replacement situation. It is a cross sex situation.

Genderskeptic
I'm not sure how to take your post to be honest.

I have come to know a number of women since being diagnosed with gyny cancer. I've also known a lot of them die.

Hormones can be very significant with women's cancer, both gyny and breast.

Your post may have been light-hearted but given the realities of these cancers, I'm not feeling the humour.

Because the body is still producing natal sex hormones and these have to be gradually reduced and replaced by cross sex hormones until some kind of balance can be reached.

But this is a deliberate course of action isn't it? To medically supress some hormones and introduce others.

genderskeptic, but women would not self medicate HRT - they would be sensible and talk to doctors and follow medical advice is a medical matter concerning the body.

On which doctors are experts and most people otherwise are not.

It should be a MUTUAL decision as to what happens after talking it through and the implications being understood.

Women I suspect would be totally fine with that principle - that they have a say.

But trans activists want to remove the doctor, make life altering decisions based on their own opinions because it is a 'right'.

Well it should not be just a right - because it impacts other people too and otherwise it becomes a selfish demand not a right.

And believing it makes any kind of sense to do what you like to your body and not care at all about the consequences - for you, your family, others you interact with if something goes awry, etc - is again not a reasonable demand. It is selfishness.

Medical assessment of trans people is a totally reasonable thing considering it involves major medical alterations to a body. In fact it is very odd to even consider it as anything else.

Or is it also nobody else's business and should we legalise the pumping into our bodies of any high strength and potentially toxic drug because it is 'our choice' if we want to.

Society has a say in things that will impact outside the individual.

There is a long history of people 'self-medicating' with testosterone.

The possible side effects of this are well documented.

Roawntrees: But this is a deliberate course of action isn't it? To medically supress some hormones and introduce others.

Yes, that is what I said in my second paragraph. It is done to create a balance and carefully monitored by doctors as things can go wrong if you just play doctors and nurses and do this yourself. Like it seems the supporters of self ID want because many people will not wait for NHS clinics and will just self medicate via the internet.

They may perceive this as a human right to self define.

But if their amateur dabbling with hormone levels creates a problem of hormone imbalance this could very easily have consequences for family or others around them.

This is not about freedom of choice. It is about not being selfish and wanting what you want now and being prepared to consult with experts and follow a sensible path to protect yourself and others.

Right now we have that with the gatekeeping behind the GRA. Can it be made smoother? By all means look into that.

Should we scrap all medical involvement? No way in my view.

I think this binary choice is a bit simplistic homefromthehills.

There are surely alternatives that could be done to support people who are transgender and keep them safer whilst waiting for appointments?

Perhaps there is more that the transgender community itself could do?

And, many trans women are taken off of estrogen by incompetent doctors once they reach 60, causing horrible withdrawal symptoms like chronic pain, with absolutely zero hormones produced by their own bodies

All females go through menopause either natural or surgical.

If a trans woman has not had GRS but has taken cross sex hormones for a long period of time, are there circumstances when they would start naturally producing testosterone again?

I'm not sure if the terminology 'withdrawal symptoms' is correct in this case. Although here would of course be consequences / side effects to stopping a long term course of hormones. Has this been studied?

bartrackbarmer - men do produce estrogen from both the adrenal glands and testes. It is at a very low level normally. Similar to the low level of testosterone that women also usually produce.

But they both have specific biological functions in either sex.

Both rates can also be high or low and cause problems as a consequence and they can change throughout stages of life.

It is really just semantics whether you think replacing lower doses of one with higher doses of another should be called replacement therapy.

The point is a balance of both of some sort in the body is needed post transition so it there is a replacement going on.

I see what you are arguing, but it is not really like this is being called that for any strange reason. Mostly it is because the prescriptions were for the same medication and that's what IT was called.

I disagree home.
Given the numbers of young people who may be moving towards medical interventions, I think naming things is part of understanding things and this is needed in order to have informed consent.

There are some medical aspects which have euphemistic names.

"Euphemism
Definition:
The term ‘euphemism’ is used to refer to the literary practice of using a comparatively milder or less abrasive form of a negative description instead of its original, unsympathetic form. This device is used when writing about matters such as sex, violence, death, crimes and things "embarrassing". The purpose of euphemisms is to substitute unpleasant and severe words with more genteel ones in order to mask the harshness."

( I will also declare an interest in words and language)

If your bank manager emptied your bank account and 'replaced' the funds with monopoly money you probably wouldn't argue that this was replacement so much as substitution. I'm not sure you'd accept his placation of 'its only semantics' either.

I don't want to fall out over this, as if it matters to you then go ahead and try to change it as I have no personal issue with whatever they are termed.

In real life I have never thought of, or ever referred to, my Premarin dose as anything other than a monthly tablet order. And I don't recall anyone ever using words like hormone replacement to me specifically anyway.

I have been taking them now since 1973 so cannot really recall what anyone called them that far back. Though I do still recall what the chemist who gave me my first order said to me on handing them over - loudly - in front of a shop full of customers.

It was the first and last time anyone did that to me in public. I was very young but said nothing as it did not really matter. I just took my order to another chemist next time.

I read the story the other day of the chemist in Arizona being fired for the way they handled an order like this with a trans customer and thought only that the world has changed so much for the worse over 45 years, because never would I have tried to take retribution against a rude shopkeeper as seems the way of the world with trans people today.

Having just checked to see if they have been altered to include any mention of use for trans people as they had not last time I looked at it in detail a while ago (and they haven't) the leaflet inside every box actually says 'Premarin is a Hormone Replacement Therapy' and contains several warnings and references about use of HRT.

They are the exact same medication and would presumably have to be created in two different packages or at least the very long and detailed booklet inside would have to be.

The warnings would still be necessary, of course.

I appreciate your engaging with this. And there's nothing I can or would want to do about what you call things privately.

But the steady and relentless public appropriation by males of terms that relate solely and exclusively to females and their biology is wearing and hateful. And if men had any respect or empathy for women they wouldn't dream of doing this.

A lovely friend of mine and his wife are expecting a baby very soon. Whenever I ask him when his wife is due he answers "we are 36 weeks". It makes my toes curl and I hate it. Pregnancy is something only a woman experiences. Women don't talk about how 'we' had a vasectomy, or how 'we' have a prostate problem.
Of course I say nothing. He and his wife may be happy to say this to each other. But I despise hearing it because I am a woman, I have been pregnant and having to listen to a man talk about 'their' stage of gestation makes me cringe.

I can understand why you would react that way to the 'we' comment. I have heard men do that too and thought it odd. Though I think Margaret Thatcher got in there first with the 'we have become a grandmother' comment 30 years or so ago. Though, of course, she had.

I was not aware that the term HRT was being appropriated by trans activists. I have seen a lot of nonsense out there on Twitter and called much of it out when I do but do not recall this specifically.

I would not really have thought about it beyond what I said earlier about why it might be considered that. But I will bear in mind what you say and why you feel this way and try to avoid using it myself if it ever comes up in conversation.

Margaret Thatcher got in there first with the 'we have become a grandmother'

I understood that this was more likely Margaret Thatcher using the 'royal we' / majestic plural construct. The 'we' being her as both 'the mother' and 'the Prime Minister', rather than her and Dennis.

Wiki:
"In the public situations in which it is used, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking not only in his or her personal capacity but also in an official capacity as leader of a nation or institution"

For Barracker

This link might be helpful: Dr Jen Gunter is an ob/gyn currently experiencing menopause. She discusses risks and benefits. drjengunter.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/an-ob-gyn-tackles-menopause-there-is-no-wisdom-in-suffering/

Of course I say nothing. He and his wife may be happy to say this to each other. But I despise hearing it because I am a woman, I have been pregnant and having to listen to a man talk about 'their' stage of gestation makes me cringe.

I find it cringey.
It's very similar to the barren wives in the handmaid's tale being so jealous of the handmaids going through real labour that they end up pretending to be in labour themselves, all so they don't feel 'left out'