Are you passionate about finding a cure for brain tumours? Didn't think that this 'niche FWR ' trans debate had anything to do with you?

[pombear]

Feel free to read the lovely Dr Fond's twitter thread about this:

twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1080940856587239425

No time to read a short twitter thread?

Maybe it's not your 'thing' engaging in FWR 'cos we're all 'T *RFS' and hateful and all that?

But maybe the brain tumour thing caught your eye?

Curious? Did the post title resonate with someone you know, relative, friend, etc with a brain tumour? But what's this got to do with FWR?

Just know this.

Science and medicine evidence demonstrate time after time that there are biological differences in humans, which can give us clues and help to treat conditions in a more targeted way, which includes brain tumours (as well as heart disease symptoms, etc etc)

Some people (trans rights activists - you'll see it abbreviated as TRAs on this part of the website) are SO passionate about denying biological reality that they want to a) pretend any biological differences are '"just social constructs" b) validate themselves so much (and usually, that's males wanting to validate themselves into the 'female' category of healthcare, be it blood donation or clinical research' that they're happy to transgress the biological categories, 'identify' into the 'other' regardless of what that might mean for healthcare research and treatments.

And therefore, as a result, their actions will skew research results, simply for their own validation.

(NB: I know I'm posting this on FWR, therefore most of those I'm talking to know this already!. Just so frustrated and sad that identity politics are potentially threatening health, research, and people's lives - cue a trans right activist perspective telling me that invalidating people's choice to identify as the other sex is threatening lives too)

@Hivpos thanks. I must admit that after seeing the BMJ article, I didn't look very hard at the situation in the UK, as I found the stats for the USA so distressing. I lost many friends to AIDS in the 1980s & early 90s & did a lot of anti-AIDS activism back then, so I'm appalled to learn that today in 2019 HIV is out of control to such an extent in any segment of the LGBTQ community - indeed, in any segment of the human community.

All the major LGBTQ organizations tell us that the health care needs of the transgender community aren't being met - but their focus always seems to be on hormones, mastectomies & SRS for trans youngsters, & on breast & butt implants, FFS, laser hair removal &, to a far lesser extent, SRS for males transitioning in adulthood. The fact that for many transgender women the most pressing medical need is for HIV-related health care somehow gets swept under the rug. This is so wrong, & given that 56% of black transwomen in the US have HIV it's racist too.

I mean, look at all the attention given to the Transgender Day of Remembrance, the one day that mostly white, well-off TRAs & LGBTQ organizations put the focus on transwomen who are mostly black & pretend to care about them. Whereas the US's relatively new National Transgender HIV Testing Day gets no attention from lobbying groups or the press at all.

I hope you are well & have access to excellent care.

EJennings thanks for your kind words. Growing up with siblings who were really sick (& losing another sister to cancer early as well) is a major reason the transing of children is such a worry & affront to me. Having a healthy-bodied child is such a gift! And turning healthy-bodied children into lifelong medical patients by stunting their development, mutilating them, pumping them full of Big Pharma & addling their brains with sexist gender ideology is a crime & just plain evil in my book. Other than that, though, I'm fine with it, lol.

So glad to hear your friend with CF is doing well!

UK description of blood donation which allows donors to declare their 'preferred gender' rather than biological sex.
previous linked article:
beyondthebinary.co.uk/giving-blood-as-a-non-binary-transgender-person/

2017 study, 'Blood transfusion from female donors with history of pregnancy linked to increased mortality risk in men'
(extract)
"Camila Caram-Deelder, MSc, from the Center for Clinical Transfusion Research in Leiden, the Netherlands, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of first-ever transfusion recipients from May 30, 2005, to September 1, 2015, in 6 major Dutch hospitals. Primary analyses were performed in a “no-donor-mixture” cohort: patients who received all their red blood cell transfusions exclusively from male donors, all exclusively from female donors without a history of pregnancy (never-pregnant donors), or all exclusively from female donors with a history of pregnancy (ever-pregnant donors)." (continues)

conclusion: “Male recipients who received a transfusion from an ever-pregnant female donor had a statistically significant increase in mortality compared with those who received a transfusion from a male donor or from a female donor without a history of pregnancy,” the authors stated. “There was no significant association between pregnancy status of female donors of red blood cells and mortality among female recipients of red blood cell transfusions.”

www.clinicaladvisor.com/hematology/males-have-increased-mortality-after-receiving-ever-pregnant-female-blood-transfusion/article/703282/

Significant as well as the conclusion is the Dutch study methods,
"Information on donor dates of birth, sex, and pregnancy before donation were provided by the national Dutch blood supply, Sanquin, and linked to recipients' data using the product identification codes of transfused red blood cells"

If UK blood supplies are recorded with the 'preferred gender' rather than sex doesn't this prohibit similar analysis?

Someone on that twitter thread has suggested that someone who lied about their sex would be detected by researchers when they showed up and excluded from the trial.

My impression is it wouldn't be that simple, but maybe someone who understands the process of medical research better could explain why?

A lot of the time people think this stuff can't be an actual problem because... common sense, and they don't understand about the bureaucracy that's being manipulated to prevent common sense from getting a look-in.

Maybe it prevents similar analysis from making sense but researchers and doctors don't actually care as long as they have a job of work to do and they get paid for it.
Why should they raise their heads above the parapet?

Those HIV stats are truly scary. Why the silence around it? Why isn't the gay lobbying community using their experience to do similar work with the trans community about awareness raising and the importance of testing? That's what Stonewall should be doing, not telling everyone there's a lovely big umbrella that anyone can fit under

Someone on that twitter thread has suggested that someone who lied about their sex would be detected by researchers when they showed up and excluded from the trial.

The medical profession has a duty to stop obfuscating the fact that humans can't change sex.
The implications of muddling sex and gender identity are potentially wide ranging and serious not least for the individuals that trans-rights policies are intended to protect.
There seems to be a failing in the duty of care.

Someone on that twitter thread has suggested that someone who lied about their sex would be detected by researchers when they showed up and excluded from the trial.

before a patient enters the trial they are screened (basically a full medical history is taken along with various tests.) The investigator (ie the doctor in charge at the trial site) retains responsibility for any patient’s passing of screening.
the sponsor (the company who pay) would have a strong incentive in most trials to have such a patient recorded under the correct sex. A drug can easily cost a billion dollars to get to market - a couple of percent of the trial patients being recorded as the wrong sex could make some trials fail. Inaccurate data is in no ones interest.

Incidentally one of the screening hurdles is drugs you’re already on (and if they’d be likely to interfere with the trial medication or vice versa.) if you’re on a cocktail of drugs and have an altered physiology, you may not be a candidate for a trial anyway.

Note that this is not saying trans people shouldnt be in trials. Trials should reflect the population the drug will be used in. What is important is that the physical/metabolic/other data from that patient is correctly recorded. How you’d do that would need careful thought from many of rhe experts who contribute (medical/psychiatric/admin/data/safety etc.)

There isn’t much interest in HIV among TRAs because TRAs - activists rather than simply transgender - are mostly employed in IT, the media and politics, so aren’t in the most vulnerable group (sex workers).

@OlennasWimple what it it that you find scary? It really does depend what you read.

As for being HIV being mentioned as out of control", in the UK we actually have achieved 90:90:90 - that is over 90% of all people living with HIV diagnosed, over 90% on treatment, and over 90% undetectable. Reliable source here: www.tht.org.uk/news/new-phe-stats-show-uk-has-reached-uns-hiv-target-2020-terrence-higgins-trust-response.

As far as trans goes, there is no "silence" about it. No-one is hiding anything. This came out only a couple of days ago www.poz.com/article/cdc-refines-estimates-hiv-among-trans-men-women

There is actually a lot of work being done about awareness raising and testing - mostly actually within the gay and trans community. I get more frustrated in that there is not so much done in the straight community, as (and as I discovered) we are actually all potentially at risk. PrEP is more available to gay and trans people than hetero for example, then there are sex workers....and so on.

As for finding cures to anything, what is interesting is that medication for HIV is also being used in studies for things like MS, though as yet, no benefits found - eg this: www.mssociety.org.uk/research/explore-our-research/emerging-research-and-treatments/explore-treatments-in-trials/raltegravir#

@Vegilante - yes, fine thanks, on meds, undetectable, U=U (ie no risk to others) and very thankful to be living in this day and age - I think the 80s and early days of HIV passed me by when I was working abroad - aware but oblivious that it could ever happen to me!

Boys with Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia have to be treated for an entire extra year compared to girls:

www.childrenwithcancer.org.uk/childhood-cancer-info/cancer-types/acute-lymphoblastic-leukaemia/

Sex matters. Cancer didn’t give a single fuck how you identify.

Biological sex matters to everyone for so many reasons. Nobody has the right to obscure statistics that we all depend on, just to validate themselves. That’s an obviously selfish, anti-society and misanthropic dick move.

There is nothing wrong with research, the census etc recording trans people by their unchangeable biological sex. (Then if relevant to the study or data collection, personal presentation preference,‘how people identify’ can be recorded).

But if we are recording that info, then 100% of the people being recorded would need to be asked how they identify. Is that really worth it? (Unless it’s specifically a data collection that is to do with personal identity of course.)