Your point about blood tests is a good one. No doubt it will be the GP's fault when the first TW's cancer gets missed because their haemoglobin level was interpreted as normal for a woman.
I take your point and I'm interested in this narrative review of anaemia.
"Anaemia is common, particularly in women and the commonest underlying cause, iron deficiency, is often overlooked. Anaemia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing anaesthesia; however, women are defined as being anaemic at a lower haemoglobin level than men. In this narrative review, we present the history of iron deficiency anaemia and how women’s health has often been overlooked. Iron deficiency was first described as ‘chlorosis’ and a cause of ‘hysteria’ in women and initial treatment was by iron filings in cold wine. We present data of population screening demonstrating how common iron deficiency is, affecting 12–18% of apparently ‘fit and healthy’ women, with the most common cause being heavy menstrual bleeding; both conditions being often unrecognised. We describe a range of symptoms reported by women, that vary from fatigue to brain fog, hair loss and eating ice. We also describe experiments exploring the physical impact of iron deficiency, showing that reduced exercise performance is related to iron deficiency independent of haemoglobin concentration, as well as the impact of iron supplementation in women improving oxygen consumption and fitness. Overall, we demonstrate the need to single out women and investigate iron deficiency rather than accept the dogma of normality and differential treatment; this is to say, the need to change the current standard of care for women undergoing anaesthesia."
associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ftr/10.1111/anae.15432
As for wading through various materials that seem designed to confuse and heighten the risk of error rather than educate and contribute to patient safety, a fair amount of unhelpful reporting comes into play. I'd originally seen the first line of this (mis)reported elsewhere but it wasn't until MedPage and reading the study that all became clear.
Diabetes Risk Higher for Transwomen vs Cisgender Females
— But risk wasn't any higher compared with cisgender men
…
Transwomen may face a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes than cisgender women, a new study suggested.
Among those already diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at baseline, a total of 32% of transwomen were on gender-affirming hormone therapy, the group reported in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
Transwomen also saw a 40% higher risk of developing incident type 2 diabetes during the average 3.1 years of follow-up compared with cisgender females (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8).
However, transwomen didn't have any excess risk for developing diabetes when compared with cisgender men (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.5), which the researchers said "likely reflects the known gender disparity in [type 2 diabetes] risk in the general population."
And in an analysis restricted only to transgender and gender-diverse people receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy, transwomen didn't see a significantly higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes (OR 1.0, 95% 0.7-1.3) nor risk for incident diabetes (HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.4) versus cisgender females. This suggests that the excess diabetes risk for this population wasn't driven by hormonal therapy, the researchers said.
www.medpagetoday.com/endocrinology/diabetes/95937