Dr Michael Laidlaw's testimony in support of South Dakota bill to prohibit pediatric medical transition

[GrinitchSpinach]

Dr Laidlaw has posted a rendition (it's not from the actual hearing) of his testimony in support of Rep. Fred Deutsch's Vulnerable Child Protection Act. He packs a ton of info and graphics into a short five minute presentation:

There are some good references in this but I think that he discredits himself by his use of unpleasant & sensationalist language - describing a neovagina as a "pelvic wound" just makes you sound like a hysterical religious ideologue, not a serious medic.

but I think that he discredits himself by his use of unpleasant & sensationalist language - describing a neovagina as a "pelvic wound" just makes you sound like a hysterical religious ideologue, not a serious medic

Neo- vaginas are often described on here as "unhealed wounds" "open wounds" and similar language.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3655425-An-open-wound-horrific-detransitioner-story?msg_id=89045763#89045763

How can anyone listen to that & not be enraged about what is being done to children? Girls as young as 13 having healthy breasts removed, kids being made infertile by unnecessary medical procedures-treatment for gender dysphoria has gone badly wrong. How many healthy young bodies will be mutilated because Drs prefer to perform surgeries rather than address the underlying psychological problems?

Isn't it just medical terminology though? It remains a wound because it is purposely kept from healing over?

‘Pelvic wound’ is a much more accurate description than ‘neovagina’ which suggests something similar to a vagina rather than the actual outcome

Someone should send that to shirleyann Somerville and nichola sturgeon

He said “surgeries for males include dissecting the penis and inverting it into a pelvic wound”

Surgeons have to create a wound into the pelvic area to insert a blind fistula. It has to be managed to prevent it shrinking or closing up.

That thread you linked to in outrage over the title is about a surgery that did not heal, so it was in fact an open wound. It was described by the person who had the surgery;

*I tried to have sex with a man 8 months after my bottom surgery and I felt disgusted with myself for having him penetrate a pool of bacteria. Blood came out of the cavity during penetration and I could see he was uncomfortable with the looks of the vulva and with the feeling of the vagina on his penis.

He knew I was trans, I told him, but he had never dated a trans woman before.

I was diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis around 1 year post op. The vaginal cavity was full of unhealthy bacteria, despite me douching with isobetadine regularly.

At this point it became very clear to me that what I have between my legs is nothing more than a surgically created wound.

I honestly don’t understand how this surgery is even legal. It butchers a healthy body and comes with life threatening side effects.*

Surgery is actually pretty barbaric, making the words sound prettier doesn't alter reality.

Pelvic wound is far better than ‘bottom surgery’ which is utterly revolting in its coy coverup of the truth. Imagine how this ‘neovagina’ -
is actually made.

but I think that he discredits himself by his use of unpleasant & sensationalist language - describing a neovagina as a "pelvic wound" just makes you sound like a hysterical religious ideologue, not a serious medic

“Wound” accurately describes the post-op course though. The body will try to close any surgically created incision, there will need to be an active effort to ensure that doesn’t happen.

“Neovagina” makes it sound like a vagina has been created, which of course isn’t the case

I was diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis around 1 year post op

You can only get BV if you have a vagina so medics are lying to trans patients as routine.

This person had a bacterial infection of some sort. I very much doubt they were prescribed that small pill or gel you need when you get BV.

I didn't intend to start an argument about whether SRS is a good idea

I just mean - professionals avoid emotive language like this. That doesn't mean you have to use stupid euphemisms like "bottom surgery". Just describe the procedure in bald factual terms: penile inversion etc. Otherwise you sound like a quack. Dr Laidlaw isn't a quack, so he's doing himself a disservice.

I dunno lass how can it be penile inversion if there is not enough penis to work with.

As has happened

I didn't intend to start an argument about whether SRS is a good idea

Apart from possibly Thelnebriati's post no one has considered whether SRS is a good or bad thing. The other posts are defending the use of " pelvic wound" as an accurate description. It's a description often used on this board.

I don’t agree at all that describing it as a “pelvic wound” does him a disservice. It’s completely accurate. It’s not just penile inversion. You have to create a space to invert it into. The only way to do this is to surgically open the male perineum - create a wound - and use the penile tissue in a creative way to try and prevent that wound from closing. This is done with dilatation and treatment of any infection. For life.

Personally I think creation of a sinus describes it best: a sinus in medical terms, is a blind-ended cavity within the body.

I think it’s only emotive because it generates the emotions of shock and horror when people are confronted with the realities of what these surgeries entail. But if the truth generates those emotions, why the fuck are we doing it? And most of all, why are we doing this to people who have barely turned 18 whose bodies have never been allowed to reach sexual maturity and have no concept or experience of what they are giving up?

We have to use language that clarifies reality because many people are not capable of seeing it for themselves. I was brought up a Catholic and have spent my life since losing my faith wondering how so many people can believe so many untrue, often contradictory and sometimes blatantly cruel fantasies.

The SD legislature will vote on this bill today. I found some more of the testimony in support:

Parent reports of shockingly rapid (hormones or blockers prescribed on first visit) medical intervention:
www.kelseycoalition.org/pubs/Testimony-in-Support-of-The-Vulnerable-Child-Protection-Act-Presented-Before-the-South-Dakota-House-State-Affairs-Committee

WoLF’s Natasha Chart and Kara Dansky on ethical and legal implications:

”Sterilizing children, or trying to cure psychiatric and social problems with the removal of sex organs, is a social trend that should have been left in the eugenics era,” Chart said, “and hopefully this malpractice can be put to rest once again.”

womensliberationfront.org/south-dakotas-vulnerable-child-protection-act-passes-committee/

“surgeries for males include dissecting the penis and inverting it into a pelvic wound”

He isn’t calling a neovagina a pelvic wound.

He’s saying you have to make an incision in the pelvic region in order to invert the penis. Incision might have been a better word, but perhaps he’s aiming it at non-medics. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt here.

This bill passed the SD House yesterday and now heads to committee in the state Senate.

www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/29/live-2-p-m-house-vote-transgender-treatment-bill/4602636002/