GPs seem to have swallowed the trans dictionary - does that mean Doctors no longer believe in biological reality?

[stumbledin]

I came across this by chance while searching on a different topic.

Would you trust a doctor who refered to cisgender?

www.rcgp.org.uk/about-us/news/2019/february/gender-reassignment-is-a-specialist-area-of-medicine.aspx

'GPs should not have to bear the brunt of poor access to specialist services by being put in a position where they are being asked to prescribe treatment that they are not trained to prescribe or monitor safely without expert support.'

The point of this statement is to say that GPs want nothing to do with prescribing cross-sex hormones.

I realised that, but the issue is they felt the only way they could say it was to frame it in trans inclusive terms. ie the language erases women, specifically female biology.

I certainly wouldn't have confidence in a GP who didn't feel able to say that female biology is unique to those what are born with the female sex.

but there is a distinct lack of high-quality research in the area, and a lack of reputable clinical guidance available.

GPs (however they refer to their patients) are holding the line against patients turning up in their surgery demanding life-altering hormones on the basis of self-diagnosis, for which I, for one, am glad.

I would lose respect for any gp who refers to me as cisgender

Loathing the use of "cis", but there have been numerous calls by online TRAs for GPs to initiate hormone treatments in primary care. At least this statement sends out a clear message that this is not going to happen as a matter of course (although GMC guidance suggests that GPs might issue "bridging prescriptions" pending specialist review. Because of the perceived risk of suicide and potential risk of buying shit off the internet. Incredible how this reasoning doesn't apply to any other mental or physical health condition, afaiaw).

If a GP referred to me as cisgender I would report them for misconduct and harassment. I'm a woman, not a subset of woman - an actual woman, the ONLY kind of woman.

A recent column from a doctor in the New Statesman: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2019/02/only-general-diversity-training-uk-medical-students-are-underexposed-trans

extract attached

@LondonPainter

What a ridiculous article. A "trans" person who has not taken any hormones or had any surgery - why on earth would it be safe or appropriate to use reference ranges for the biological sex they "believed" themselves to be? So their feelings aren't hurt?? Just baffling.

I'm not sure how hormones or surgery (and the effects of surgery on hormone profiles) would cloud the picture - but I'm pretty sure that a transperson would not fully acquire the physiological/biochemical profile of the sex they "believe" themselves to be, even so.

Just to say I have been here for some time, posting under another name...
In the case of this doctor, yes I would. I’ve worked with him and know him both personally and professionally. He is an excellent GP, and a lovely man. I suspect if he knew the way in which some women (myself included) felt about the word c*s he would be very apologetic to have used it. As an aside I’m hoping to have a chat with him about how the local CAMHS service lists Mermaids as a suitable source of info for gender questioning children and their families and I’ll certainly be asking him about where/who is providing the info for the online learning module mentioned.
GPs were issues with guidance some years ago by the GMC that suggested (and contravening advice in all other specialist areas that we practice within our competency as generalists rather than specialists) that we consider prescribing drug treatments for patients while they are awaiting specialist review. There was a lot of consternation a,ongst regular GPs and a lot of concern over what was going on behind the scenes to prompt such advice. I think the RCGP position is really helpful on this occasion.

The guidance re. "bridging prescriptions" etc still appears on the GMC ethical guidance website.

If a GP referred to me as cisgender I'd immediately tell them that I think that word is akin to hate speech.

Erk!

"In the vast majority of cases, trans patients will present to the GP with the same conditions that cisgender patients do"

If my GP ever refers to me as "cisgender" he may find himself in A&E before he knows what happened! [Wink]

We should all complain to the RCGP about referring to us all as "cisgender"!!!!

RCGP Press office: 020 3188 7633/7574/7575
Out of hours: 0203 188 765
[email protected]

If a GP referred to me as cisgender I would report them for misconduct and harassment

Oh do fuck off. I'm a GP, I am as GC as they come, but I am putting my career on the line every time I say anything even vaguely GC. The Royal College of GPs, the GMC and the GPs' Committee of the BMA have all swallowed the Kool Aid. If I get suspended by the GMC for saying anything perceived as anti-trans, I can lose my job. If I inadvertently disclose a trans person's birth sex, even for sound medical reasons, I commit a criminal offence. It's a minefield.

If a senior GP has courage to speak out against pressuring GPs to prescribe hormones, in the face of all the medical authorities lined up against him, that should be applauded. It probably took enormous effort to get this agreed statement agreed by the RCGP, given their usual uncritically pro-trans stance.

I'd love to know how many times you've risked losing your job & livelihood to speak up against trans ideology, CKoRn. Bloody easy to be brave behind a pseudonym.

We should all complain to the RCGP about referring to us all as "cisgender

Or maybe we could do something a little more constructive, and thank the RCGP for coming out against GPs being pressured to prescribe trans hormones/PBs?

Yes, language is important and I hate 'cis", but shooting down someone who is supporting caution in prescribing for one poorly chosen word is a spectacular own goal.

Funny that you are not addressing my concerns.

I personally think cisgender is hate speech.

It's not up to me to change this. It's up to you as a GP to respond to it.

Which I guess would be with silence.

I suspect they’ve been fed this stuff and indoctrinated/forced to use it, even if they believe it to be nonsense. In addition, the use of cisgendered probably seems harmless. Until I recognised the cynical way cis was being used, I didn’t feel it was a big deal either.

That may not have filtered through, but I’m certain the huge majority of doctors have a sound understanding of biological sex and (I dare say) most probably continue to consider transition as a treatment for a mental health disorder and are waiting for sanity to return.

Incidentally, as the word cisgender would only come up in relation to trans issues, I should imagine the majority of women could go a lifetime without ever hearing a doctor use the word in relation to them. I hope the medical profession never reach the point where they stop using woman to mean exactly that.

I have sent an email to RCGP explaining that "cisgender" is a fictitious term when applied to humans.

I have every sympathy with any pressure that is applied to our GPs and all other medical professionals to be 'politically correct'. They, of all people, know that no human can ever change their sex.

You will also know that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 acknowledges that no human can ever change their sex; that it creates a Legal Fiction.

Those who have studied molecular chemistry will know that "cis" and "trans" relate to the location of molecules in any structure. [It is also sometimes used in relation to location in geography.] Beyond that "cis" and "trans" have no real meaning and certainly do not have any application to humans.

XXcstatic

"If I inadvertently disclose a trans person's birth sex, even for sound medical reasons, I commit a criminal offence. It's a minefield. "

The GRA 2004 is a civil law, not a criminal law, so no crime can be committed in regard to that law.

Also see the Equality Act 2010 exceptions:

Schedule 3: Services and public functions: exceptions

Section 27: Single-sex services
Parts 5, 6 and 7

See also: Section 28: Gender reassignment

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3

XXcstatic

See also: medium.com/@anneharperwright/sex-gender-the-nhs-1e8f4e6363a6

XX I think that's a pretty rude thing to say to placemats. I hope you're not my gp. Or anyone I know's.

XX I think that's a pretty rude thing to say to placemats

I think it's pretty rude casually to talk about ending a GP's career (which is what a complaint for misconduct can mean) because you object to the word 'cis', or any other word, for that matter. It's the exactly the sort of behaviour we despise in TRAs. Depressing to see our own side adopting the same tactics.

JackyHolyoake That's not correct.

Most of the GRA is civil law, but Section 22 creates an offence for disclosure by anyone who has the knowledge in an official capacity, e.g. an HCP:

It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person

See also link is from one of the main medicolegal indemnity associations.

If you want people to be enlightened then perhaps don't tell them to fuck off.