Some Science

[Roseformeplease]

www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/indulging-transgender-ideology-has-deadly-consequences

From America and I am no scientist but it seems to suggest men taking oestrogen is harmful.

You have shared an article written by the Family Research Council hosted on LifeSite on a feminist forum.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Life_Coalition
and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council

These people campaign against women's reproductive rights and right to divorce.

I can disagree with a lot of things, said by a lot of people and still be interested in a discussion of them, surely.

Is it of concern that oestrogen is so harmful?

In a study of 5,000 people who identify as transgender, men trying to become women were 80 to 90 percent more likely to have a stroke or heart attack. They also had a higher risk of blood clots from the estrogen. That's an astounding level of risk for anyone, let alone these patients, who are choosing to create an imbalance in their system. "This is the largest study of the health of transgender individuals on hormone therapy ever done," one of the authors, Dr. Darios Getahun, told NBC News. "Doctors and patients need to be aware of the possibility for increased health risks for transgender women."

Although it made me giggle with "towing the line" which should be toeing the line.

Not often I agree with SarahAr but yeah, there's an agenda going on there for sure and it's not one I would want to be associated with.

Apart from anything else it doesn't actually give any details of the study despite the claims it makes about it.....

I not a scientist but am on HRT and the risks are very clearly explained.

I am taking oestrogen which my body is lacking, but used to have. It seems to make sense to me that it could be harmful to those whose body has never had its own female level supply.

Sources do matter, and I had not heard of this organisation so, apologies if I was wrong to post it given their other views.

However, are these risks real or entirely imagined because of a religious right agenda?

*One of the most often cited reasons by medical providers for hesitation in providing hormone therapy to transgender individuals is the fear of harm. The review demonstrates that hormone therapy is relatively safe, at least as far as the modest literature out there can determine. Providers should be reassured that the harms that do exist are relatively rare and can often be avoided with conventional monitoring.

The take-home points from the review are:

1. The current literature suggests that transgender hormone therapy is safe for most situations and reasonable to monitor.

1. The current literature is quite thin, with a need for large, more carefully done studies to address concerns regarding more subtle harms.

The findings align with the hormone approach found in both the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care and The Endocrine Society Guidelines. The primary difference between this review and the two guidelines is the failure to detect increased cancer risk despite the concerns raised in the guidelines.*

www.endocrineweb.com/professional/gender-identity/transgender-hormone-therapy-safe-when-monitored-certain-risks

I’m not even going to click on the link before I answer this (lest I’m accused of bias.) in fact I won’t click on it at all.

Of course taking exogenous hormones is harmful. Hormones are powerful things and drive all sorts of cellular processes - including cancers. Oestrogen in particular can be harmful in excess - even the normal physiological levels women have if they’re overweight for example are enough to drive various processes involved in cancers. There are also BIG cardiovascular risks involved.

Women taking testosterone are harmed by it in a number of ways. Kidney damage seems to be a big one for example. Hysterectomy is recommended after just a few years on testosterone.

The contraceptive pill, and all hormonal contraception in all its forms is associated with changes in cancer risk - some forms are slightly lower and some higher. There are also significant cardiovascular effects.

It’s incorrect to say that oestrogen does no damage. It can do damage to either sex at the levels found physiologically, never mind being exogenously administered.

5000 people seems a pretty substantial study to me, given numbers overall are small.

nanweat

How do you reconcile that with the considerable body of literature on the cancer driving effects of oestrogen and the cardiovascular effects of oestrogen?

Breast cancers for example and obesity/alcohol intake - the link is increased oestrogen levels.

The pill and cardiovascular risks - decades of work on this.

Of course more research is needed - the current generation of people being treated are guinea pigs and there’s some very dodgy Wild West medical practice going on.

bowlofbabelfish ....
"Of course taking exogenous hormones is harmful. Hormones are powerful things and drive all sorts of cellular processes - including cancers. Oestrogen in particular can be harmful in excess - even the normal physiological levels women have if they’re overweight for example are enough to drive various processes involved in cancers. "

47 years worth of studies....
Cancer Prevalence Is Not Increased in Transgender Adults Using Hormone Therapy
The overall cancer incidence in transgender men and women did not differ significantly from that in control groups in studies to date. The incidence of breast cancer in transgender individuals taking estrogen is not different from secular trends in males and is lower than secular trends in women. A rare but possible increase prostate cancer (0.04%) has been reported in transgender women, however, the findings are limited by decreased screening and the relative young age (average, 29.3 years) in subjects at the start of therapy.4

Hyperplasia in the female reproductive tract has been reported in studies that are low powered. However, newer data suggest that testosterone therapy in transgender men may be associated with tissue atrophy of the epithelium of the cervix and endometrium, not with malignancy as might have been presumed from the hyperplasia data.

It is also important to follow cancer screening guidelines for transgender individuals’ natal gender.

So do transmen on testosterone require a hysterectomy rather than choosing one because of the risks of not? @Bowlofbabelfish

Are those trans of both genders closely monitored throughout their lives once on hormones?

My HRT is just a quick chat once a year - no bloods or anything. Assume they get much, much closer monitoring given the clear risks.

47 years. But, that, presumably is people transitioning later when risks are higher anyway.

What about risks to children / teenagers who do not now go through normal puberty and then take cross- sex hormones? Are they not at increased risk?

I mean risks of heart attack / stroke are higher as you age. Sorry, not very clear.

What about risks to children / teenagers who do not now go through normal puberty and then take cross- sex hormones? Are they not at increased risk?

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it.

Here is a link to the abstract about the study from Roase's link. It's only just been published and so is not referenced in the article that nanweat has linked to, which appears to be about a review of studies.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29987313

Thank you. Seems to be a study of large numbers so must carry some weight, medically. Certainly not a risk you would want for your teenagers who might have 60-80 years ahead of them of these hormones.

Despite its title WPATH is just an American pro-trans activist organisation. It is not WHO or anything like it.

Results:

Transfeminine participants had a higher incidence of VTE, with 2- and 8-year risk differences of 4.1 (95% CI, 1.6 to 6.7) and 16.7 (CI, 6.4 to 27.5) per 1000 persons relative to cisgender men and 3.4 (CI, 1.1 to 5.6) and 13.7 (CI, 4.1 to 22.7) relative to cisgender women. The overall analyses for ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction demonstrated similar incidence across groups. More pronounced differences for VTE and ischemic stroke were observed among transfeminine participants who initiated hormone therapy during follow-up. The evidence was insufficient to allow conclusions regarding risk among transmasculine participants.
Limitation:

Inability to determine which transgender members received hormones elsewhere.
Conclusion:

The patterns of increases in VTE and ischemic stroke rates among transfeminine persons are not consistent with those observed in cisgender women. These results may indicate the need for long-term vigilance in identifying vascular side effects of cross-sex estrogen.

I can't see the full paper so it's not entirely clear what criteria were used for the trans or reference groups, but I assume 'cisgender men/women' does not refer to these individual's beliefs and simply references data on the specific health outcomes for men and women in the Kaiser Permanent dataset compared to those individuals who have identified as transgender (the limitation showing that it's not a completely 'clean' comparison of individuals taking cross sex hormones to those that have not taken any hormones (although perhaps women taking HRT were excluded).

Is it common to use databases to undertake research like that? Half of me thinks, ooh, how clever. The other half worried that my medical records are being data mined to prove / disprove / research things without my consent.

Maybe US private healthcare is cheaper if you allow them to use your data.

However, it does demonstrate the vital importance of accurate medical records in determining a diagnosis and future health care needs for the individual and resources to be provided by society.

How old are you rose? (No need to answer!) basically at 50 they’re fine with it, at 60 it depends on your personal risk factors and at 70 they will likely get antsy about it.

Remember that’s replacement of your hormones - back to the physiological levels your body was used to. It’s not extra/the wrong sex etc.

Transmen are not required to get a hysterectomy - the advice has been that they may be at greater risk/requirement because testosterone can induce a state that’s like PCOS. It can also increase the risk of endometriosis and fibroids so the main physical reason transmen have them seems to be pain related.

Atrophic cells in an environment with altered hormone levels - that doesn’t ring any alarm bells nanweat?

One would expect transmens breast cancer risk to be averagely lower simply because of the mastectomy rate.

The prostate cancer rise in interesting (and I’ve read that paper and it’s an unusual aggressive type of I remember correctly) but at this stage I don’t think there’s enough solid evidence either way.

What do you think about cardiovascular risk? That’s the main risk with women and exogenous hormones.

nanweat seriously? A so-called systematic review that includes case reports, narrative reviews, ‘as well as papers from select bibliographies’. Hardly a systematic review!

Are those trans of both genders closely monitored throughout their lives once on hormones?

I truly hope so. The main issue is that no one has a lifetimes worth of data on these groups of people with big enough datasets to draw any conclusions. Effectively it’s flying blind. We just don’t know.

Medically they are a vulnerable population with unique needs.

The need to screen and treat on the basis of biological sex PLUS hormonal background is important.

Puberty blockers should not ever be used on healthy minors for gender questioning - that’s my personal opinion and one I doubt I’ll be swayed from.

Databases - tricky one in the Uk there’s a move to link up all patient records and have databases that can be used for research. Coverage is patchy, everyone is still fighting over who gets access to what and how to anonymise properly. Basically they should ask consent to use any of your data that cannot be anonymised. There are huge ethical issues over who has access and it’s all a bit of a balls up.

I am very, very nearly 50 @Bowlofbabelfish and will carry on for as long as they will let me!

GPs vary massively in how accepting they are of HRT. If you’ve got a good one then long may they remain!

As you’re so young then they are probably Ok with annual checkups :)

You won't be saying that next week @Bowlofbabelfish