"my brother died of ovarian cancer"

[SCMocha]

attention-grabbing headline for this article from the independent:

inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/ian-duncan-deputy-speaker-house-lords-interview-brother-died-ovarian-cancer-1125221

ovarian cancer apparently "predominantly affects females" (!)

the article talks about the fault of health care providers for not understanding the needs of trans people, rather than focusing on the confusion that might arise from someone registering with a GP as 'male' who then doesn't get smear test notifications.

If you are considered at higher risk for ovarian cancer you can have the CA125 blood test. I did for years as my mother and one of her sisters died of this cancer. But I don't think it's a generalised screening test.

It is a very sad tale about Sean Duncan. Yet - Sean did not do all he could to help himself. His cancer was diagnosed in the US where he wasn't a legal immigrant it seems. So no health insurance etc. Eventually he was operated on, marriage failed and he returned to the UK. But here he didn't go for the checks he should have done. It's hard to read that the NHS and non-believers in gender identity ideology should take any blame for this (apart from the NHS going along with gender ID in the first place). We all, no matter who we are, need to take responsibility for our health. There are no magic medical wands.

I believe gender dysphoria is an MH issue, it can be nothing else. So we have people like Sean who find parts of their body very difficult to deal with because we have sexed bodies, however much some dislike that fact. This makes them reluctant to seek out the proper health care. We are in no way to blame for this. All of us here, I'm sure, do not ill-wish any trans people, want them to live long and fulfilling lives. However, to do this, they need to remain on the right side of reality and this they often are unable to do. Inevitable this will lead to problems.

This saga brings muddying of the language into sharp relief. It's what happens when we no longer have words to describe ourselves accurately. Who is going to be helped by reading that ovarian cancer predominantly affects females? Some men will maybe start to wonder why they aren't being invited for screening. If gender ideologists had even left the word 'female' alone, then at least we could all know who it applied to but no, they had to have that word too. As well as woman.

We need medical records to show sex, which means birth sex, very clearly and also 'gender identity' if required. I'm sure I read here recently about the timescale of different specialties in the NHS switching from 'sex' to 'gender' at the behest of the gender ideologues. It's been going on for some years, clearly, but some of the switching was as late as this year (sorry, I know this bit isn't very clear). But if anyone bears any responsibility for making this mess worse than it is, it's those people.

but some of the most obvious ones, like recording sex alongside gender, seem to cause crises of identity and lead to all this confusing language about what body-parts people have.

But instead of encouraging acceptance that sex is a gender neutral biological category, Stonewall encourages its champions to promote the idea that sex should be a taboo subject.

How sad is it that a man has died of a horrific disease and all people care about is the label he was given at birth.

I'm pretty sure that any medical staff involved in the care of someone with ovarian cancer can work out that they have ovaries. Let's not patronise those medical professionals who are doing more than people on a mumsnet thread are to help those suffering with and dying from cancer.

But instead of encouraging acceptance that sex is a gender neutral biological category, Stonewall encourages its champions to promote the idea that sex should be a taboo subject.

Exactly. And encourages people to believe that biological sex doesn't matter. Yes, it does. It did on this occasion and has done on many others.

'How sad is it that a man has died of a horrific disease and all people care about is the label he was given at birth'.

Raindrops - that 'label' given at birth had a very significant meaning. It meant, as you know, that chances were that the baby had ovaries. It was reality. It was the baby later known as Sean's reality. Because Sean struggled so much with that, it led to his early death.

You are being patronising yourself by saying '... any medical staff involved in the care of someone with ovarian cancer can work out that they have ovaries.' FFS.

I'm pretty sure that any medical staff involved in the care of someone with ovarian cancer can work out that they have ovaries.

And they would diagnosis it how?

You don't seem to have read the article or be aware of any of the issues.

If you had bothered to read the thread you would understand that Ovarian cancer is a 'silent killer' and is often diagnosed too late in women.

How much more difficult to diagnose in somebody if their doctor doesn't realise they have ovaries?

I'm not sure what has motivated your post, but your lack of engagement with the subject suggests it wasn't a desire to understand how trans people's health is compromised if doctors aren't aware of their biological sex and health history.

Two of the most common cancer killers are almost exclusively sex based:breast and prostate.
www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/mortality/common-cancers-compared

So yes sex is relevant.
Regardless of other factors.

@RaindropsOnRosie

How sad is it that a man has died of a horrific disease and all people care about is the label he was given at birth.

I'm pretty sure that any medical staff involved in the care of someone with ovarian cancer can work out that they have ovaries. Let's not patronise those medical professionals who are doing more than people on a mumsnet thread are to help those suffering with and dying from cancer.

The point is that if the NHS/GP surgery thought that they were male, they wouldn't have been looking for ovaries, would they?

It wasn't an arbitrary label they were given at birth, it was a biological marker that would indicate the internal workings of the person that would suggest they needed screening for female cancers and not male ones.

Don't be so obtuse.

I'm pretty sure that any medical staff involved in the care of someone with ovarian cancer can work out that they have ovaries. Let's not patronise those medical professionals who are doing more than people on a mumsnet thread are to help those suffering with and dying from cancer

Well yes, of course medical staff realise a patient with ovarian cancer has ovaries.

But that is post diagnosis. When you have a patient that looks male, says he’s male, and all the medical records also record male, why would you even think of ovarian cancer? Men don’t have ovaries.

Likely it would be discovered on reporting symptoms and further investigations. But in this case, Sean had no medical insurance so would not have sought help until symptomatic and likely quite severely, by which time ovarian cancer would be very advanced.

I think it's a relevant point, and one worth raising, that trans people can fall through medical cracks by GP surgeries registering them as their adopted F/M marker rather than their biological one. I'd imagine a lot of these cases arise from administrative oversights, with F/M markers being accepted as self-reported by patients who don't think about the implications, or staff not knowing what to do when registering a patient so just improvising. It points to a training issue which should be addressed across the NHS, and an awareness issue among trans people which should be likewise. As others have said, having a 'gender' marker shouldn't be too difficult, or even a 'does your gender identity correspond...' question which could just flag trans people to GPs expecting a patient to avoid awkward situations that might prevent them seeking medical care. Any who become aware of this danger and deliberately obscure their own medical records for identity / validation reasons... well, not much to be done there.

None of this ^ is actually relevant in Sean's case, of course, where the NHS had nothing to do with it, and gender markers / smear test alerts weren't a factor at all. But it's a relevant point nonetheless, and probably that's the main reason Duncan's raising it.

Quick a campaign costing millions of pounds needs to be set up to highlight that men can also get ovarian cancer. Or just remind all people born as females to have regular check ups?

The individual might identify as a man now (I often identify as a unicorn) but since born with the sex bits then needs to be aware that these things might happen - personal responsibility for checking doesn't end when an artificially constructed penis is obtained.

" believe gender dysphoria is an MH issue, it can be nothing else. So we have people like Sean who find parts of their body very difficult to deal with because we have sexed bodies, however much some dislike that fact. This makes them reluctant to seek out the proper health care. We are in no way to blame for this. All of us here, I'm sure, do not ill-wish any trans people, want them to live long and fulfilling lives. However, to do this, they need to remain on the right side of reality and this they often are unable to do. Inevitable this will lead to problems."

Yep. He/she/them is an adult.

My niece is a transman and I've recommended she retain her female sex marker on her records so she's screened for female cancers. I've also pointed her in the direction of Buck Angel who's talked so openly about their own health.

I didn't realise that testosterone increased the risk of heart attack so much. It's terrifying.

If I have read it correctly, Sean first had cancer in the US, and health insurance etc was an issue.
But the cancer that lead to Sean's death recurred when he was in the UK and could have accessed the NHS. But wasn't going for check ups. Raising awareness is important but if someone has already had the illness, knows they should be having check ups but aren't then NHS terminology is not the problem.

*Quick a campaign costing millions of pounds needs to be set up to highlight that men can also get ovarian cancer. Or just remind all people born as females to have regular check ups?

The individual might identify as a man now (I often identify as a unicorn) but since born with the sex bits then needs to be aware that these things might happen - personal responsibility for checking doesn't end when an artificially constructed penis is obtained.*

Is anyone suggesting a 'campaign costing millions to highlight that men can also get ovarian cancer'? I think all that's being suggested is your second line, 'just remind all people born as females to have regular check ups'. I see nothing wrong with a charity running an awareness campaign along those lines, nor ensuring that hormone-related health risks are highlighted to people undergoing transition, and proper advice given to them about making sure they keep on top of things.

Maybe if the powers that be start believing that men can get ovarian cancer they'll start funding a proper screening service for it.

@RaindropsOnRosie

How sad is it that a man has died of a horrific disease and all people care about is the label he was given at birth.

I'm pretty sure that any medical staff involved in the care of someone with ovarian cancer can work out that they have ovaries. Let's not patronise those medical professionals who are doing more than people on a mumsnet thread are to help those suffering with and dying from cancer.

It’s not a label. It’s a biological sex, which no one can identify out of.

Biology doesn't care about pronouns.

I see a few people bringing in smear tests here. AFAIK smear tests can do nothing to detect ovarian cancer, unless things have changed since I last checked that.

Sean's story reminds me a bit of the TM in Canada/US who was in labour but nobody realised in time that he was actually female and pregnant. And the baby was lost. Real consequences in real lives which need careful thinking about and planning for. But the answer is not to blame clinical or admin staff. Denying reality will get most of us in the end.

Here's another example of a trans patient failing to ensure that their doctors had all the information they needed to treat their illness: www.bbc.com/future/article/20200814-why-our-medical-systems-are-ignoring-transgender-people

He blames the doctors who treated him as the gender he presents as and didn't think it was relevant when being treated for serious kidney disease to tell them he was born female:
"It was really cute and awesome that I was treated as male, but in being this way, they didn’t necessarily take into account the body,” says Whitley, who points out that, though he has been taking testosterone for around 15 years, it’s a relatively small dose. “I was born female and I identify as male – they should have probably have set my limit as somewhere in the middle.”

A very sad story emphasising the need for proper counselling for psychological issues connected to gender dysphoria; issues which appear ,as in this case, to prevent trans people addressing their own health issues relating to their actual sex. Obviously ,amongst Primary Care Practitioners, there should be an awareness of this problem of patients deliberately ignoring potential health issues and PCPs should receive education in the potential health risks incurred by the taking of cross sex hormones.A first step would be to ensure that in their health records trans people have accurate sex markers and that their gender identity is flagged up. The need for the validation of their gender identity should not be allowed to put their health in jeopardy.

@ancientgran, if your grandmother and two aunts died of ovarian cancer, you should be screened to see if you carry the gene as well.
Apologies if you are already in the program, but as a retired doctor I just want to make sure you have been risk assessed.

I remember reading that before, bakingdemon, and being really annoyed at the 'cute and awesome' bit of the quote. Nearly died, but hey! never mind, it was cute and awesome to be treated as a man. The first hospital he went to wanted him off testosterone as exogenous T is contra-indicated with kidney problems but he wasn't having that: went shopping around until he landed a hospital that would allow the T. How much responsibility should an individual have for their own life and health? Obviously the assistant professor has a different answer to that from me.

That article says 'gender' throughout when it should be SEX.

@Nachthex

I see a few people bringing in smear tests here. AFAIK smear tests can do nothing to detect ovarian cancer, unless things have changed since I last checked that.

Sean's story reminds me a bit of the TM in Canada/US who was in labour but nobody realised in time that he was actually female and pregnant. And the baby was lost. Real consequences in real lives which need careful thinking about and planning for. But the answer is not to blame clinical or admin staff. Denying reality will get most of us in the end.

I was one of the people who mentioned smear tests, as one quick example of a healthcare consideration which needs to reach all women and "other people with a cervix". For me it's the example that comes quickly to mind as I get reminder letters about it. I thought my post was clear that I was speaking to a general point about ensuring the right sort of inclusion in healthcare (ie. aiming to categorise all patients as the correct biological sex whilst also not creating an environment where a trans person has to explain themselves at every contact, noting that contact with HCPs can be a vulnerable moment for any of us), whilst also acknowledging that the sad circumstances of Sean's illness and death were not this straightforward.