Sunlight in Australia

[octaurpus]

I am very, very surprised to see this. Trailer for an upcoming news story in Australia on one of our commercial networks. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=877974177284537&ref=sharing

By the way, the feminist position would surely be that no person’s body needs to go through extreme modifications to fit a perceived view of ‘gender’? You are here posting on a feminist board, surely you must describe yourself as a feminist?

I’d suggest you define what you believe a ‘gender critical position’ is? Because the term gender critical has been changed by extreme trans activists to now be meaningless. Those extreme activists have now included in that description people who seek to uphold gender roles, and who may support gender affirming treatments as a priority without any treatment of underlying comorbidities. Which is direct opposite of what feminists support.

Or was your intention to portray feminists as preventing bodily freedom of 26 year olds? Without acknowledging the realities of that 26 year old’s potentially significant health issues?

Surely that wouldn’t be your intention, would it?

I don’t see what relation it has to being gc to think that everyone deserves access to healthcare, and that includes clear suitable communication of the risks as well as the probable negative outcomes, and that a medical professional is required to professionally assess whether a particular treatment is the best option for their patient and whether all of the patients health conditions have been considered in the forming of that diagnosis. That should just be basic right? Or do you think that’s not ok and doctors should be able to just pick a few aspects of someone’s condition, decide a treatment will be great for those couple of aspects and then not fully inform the patient of the risks, just for shits and giggles I guess?
26 year olds are at liberty to make choices about their body. Doctors are professions obligated to ensure that choice is an informed one and also to only offer treatments that they feel are appropriate for the patient, considering all of their health needs in this decision. Many have woefully failed in this.

We are not a hive mind. There are differences of opinion within every group, including gender critical feminists.

Gender critical means what it says on the tin: critical of gender. Broadly speaking, gender critical feminists do not accept gender as a legitimate authority around which society should be organised. Gender is essentially a set of regressive stereotypes that our patriarchal society has chosen to attach to the two respective biological sexes, in most cases without good reason. Most of us see gender as a wholly regressive concept. And gender is a concept; most gender critical feminists do not actually believe that people have their own personal genders in any real sense, other than grammatically.

So with the above in mind, it stands to reason that if you do not believe in the legitimacy of gender, or in people having their own gender identity which may or may not match their biological sex (and nobody can actually explain what a gender identity is or how one can match or not match a particular type of genitalia), you probably also do not believe it is possible to bring someone's body into congruence with their gender identity through hormones or surgery.

Some gender critical feminists may take the view that fully informed consenting adults with adequate mental capacity should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own bodies even if others may believe it is stupid. Some gender critical feminists may even agree that for some trans people who suffer from really terrible dysphoria, medical and surgical transition is an appropriate course of action once all other possibilities for treatment have been tried and failed. And some gender critical feminists may take the view that since it is not possible to change someone's sex to match their personally experienced gender identity through the use of dangerous hormones and surgeries, which are expensive, have unwanted side effects and complications and turn previously healthy people into lifelong medical patients, these interventions should be banned completely.

All of these positions are compatible with being a gender critical feminist since none of them require the person to accept the legitimacy of gender as an organising force for society.

A grown woman asking for a sterilisation procedure will have to ask and ask and ask, and a GP would be very reluctant to refer on, in case she desists later and regrets this irreversible procedure. This is the case, as I understand it, in the UK.

So-called 'gender affirming healthcare' is a pathway to sterility, is it not? Even if you stop at cross-sex hormones and have no surgery, there are long-lasting irreversible effects that can affect your fertility for life. Then we have the various radical surgeries.

Disingenuous comments like this (assuming there’s an “not” missing) are useful in that they expose the simplistic thinking, lack of ability to understand the concept of what constitutes vulnerability and narrow focus of gender ideology.

(It’s worth noting that women of all ages are refused routine gynaecological procedures because they might not know their own minds, and that for many it’s a struggle to be prescribed much-needed HRT.)

Can't speak for 'gender critical', but my own view is that 'gender affirming' surgery is exactly the same as 'eunuch affirming' surgery.

On this I agree with WPATH. Do you?

The affirmation model is “mandated by law” WHAT?

I wouldn't be performing any surgery, since I'm not a medical professional.

But doctors who are suitably qualified making decisions with their patients is between them. There are standards doctors must adhere to in terms of providing sound advice and being clear on risks. The option is open to any patient who feels they have not been treated with due care and standards to sue for medical negligence.

A history of trauma, or ongoing mental health difficulties, do not remove someone's capacity to consent to medical treatment, or to understand risks. It's really, really dangerous and offensive to go down the route of suggesting that medically indicated treatments should be withheld on the basis that someone's depression, or ADHD, renders them incapable of consenting.

But thanks for clarifying that yes, the approach now seems to be that all gender affirming surgery, even on adults with capacity to consent, should be withheld.

Of course doctors must communicate risks. And patients can sue for negligence where they do not.

It's interesting that this woman doesn't seem to have done that. Is that possibly because maybe, just maybe, the risks were explained?

The fact that a patient later regrets medical treatment is not, in itself, evidence that the medical treatment was wrongly advised or that the risks were not explained.

Let’s think of medical treatments people might get. How many people REGRET it? Who says I wish I hadn’t had that broken arm set, I’m mad I took those antibiotics and cured my chest infection. This kidney transplant may have saved my life but i think it was a poor decision. No second round of chemo for my stage 1 cancer thanks, I regret the first round. Palliative care/hospice stage of course you might decide to withdraw treatment but that’s a bit different. I think we have an enormous problem in itself that there is a growing group of people REGRETTING their medical transition. This isn’t normal, somethings been done wrong. It’s more
like mesh implants for women than good medical care.

Let’s think of medical treatments people might get. How many people REGRET it?

I expect that regret is high for some forms of plastic surgery.

"the approach now seems to be that all gender affirming surgery, even on adults with capacity to consent, should be withheld."

And your reading comprehension level is also now really clear, or you are deliberately mischaracterising what any of us have said. Which given your history on this board, it is more likely to be the latter and not the former.

"But doctors who are suitably qualified making decisions with their patients is between them. There are standards doctors must adhere to in terms of providing sound advice and being clear on risks. The option is open to any patient who feels they have not been treated with due care and standards to sue for medical negligence."

This entire thread is about women who have stated that the doctors involved were negligent. That in their cases, there was no investigation into their history and no understanding why these women, with strikingly similar reasons for transitioning, were wanting to transition. And that often the first point of contact then simply referred to another specialist who also did not do the work that you are stating with supreme confidence is being done. And then in some cases they were then referred to surgeons who also did not do what you are stating is done in every single case.

What kind of person then falls back on the 'well, if it is not done properly, you can always take them to court.' Fuck! Do you honestly think that makes you sound like a reasonable human? Oh.... well the standards of care weren't followed but hey, sue them while you live your life in pain and have potentially shortened that life that you are living in pain.

Go you!

"A history of trauma, or ongoing mental health difficulties, do not remove someone's capacity to consent to medical treatment, or to understand risks. It's really, really dangerous and offensive to go down the route of suggesting that medically indicated treatments should be withheld on the basis that someone's depression, or ADHD, renders them incapable of consenting."

No. Having a history of trauma or mental health difficulties do not remove people's capacity to consent. However, it should be also made very very clear that there are significant issues that may require treatment FIRST. To make sure that the desire for the surgery or the life changing testosterone / puberty blockers is not stemming from the trauma or other health issues in the first place.

What you are seeming to forget in your post is that firstly, these are still experimental treatments. There is still no evidence that these treatments, of which are elective, are relieving the symptoms of gender dysphoria. There IS evidence to the contrary.

You also seem to forget that these treatments are part of treatment, supposedly, for gender dysphoria. And are progressive usually, as in they happen in sequence. Part of the issue is that that 'progressive' treatment used to include extensive exploratory therapy as per the Dutch Protocol. Which is much lauded amongst the trans health service providers as the gold standard, and that level of care is not being reached. And this thread is about the TV report about the women who are raising the alarm that the quality of health service is now very low and they have been harmed.

This is not a thread about getting a relatively minor and low risk cosmetic surgery that a person with a history of trauma or mental health difficulties might seek. This is a thread discussing what is being told to trans people are 'life saving' while they are essentially elective procedures and that the original diagnosis of 'gender dysphoria', that is the mechanism to accessing these procedures, is not being carefully diagnosed after multiple sessions. These woman are saying that people are falling through the cracks.

I think most people reading your post will see that you have oversimplified the issues to portray the posters answering your post negatively.

I'm particularly educated by the TRSOH combination of "I'm Soooooo Kinddddd" and "Fuck the silly cow for regretting, any fool would have understood the risks."

I am sure it is. I agree.

Just adding though, that there is of course a difference between a cosmetic procedure that has gone wrong and someone is left with unexpected pain etc, and the removal of healthy body parts that leave life long pain that is unexpected but is in reality a very normal side effect of that surgery.

Adding further to Spart's post, that there is also a difference between an elective plastic surgery that is not reconstructive, or high risk, and a double mastectomy that is now considered a normalised part of 'gender affirming treatment'. One that is based on so few preceding treatment sessions that simply affirm a patient and that does not seek to establish greater understanding of why a patient might feel they are dysphoric.

Don't forget... 'you can always sue them and that will permanently relieve your distress and pain, obviously....'

That is the very same argument we see with some posters who tell us that safeguarding is no reason to keep males out of female single sex spaces. Women and girls can always report their rapes and sexual assaults to the police after they happen.

We can just look at the evidence out there.

Nearly half of women who had breast reconstructive surgery after mastectomy had some regret about that decision - one in five had 'moderate to strong regret'. Similarly, about one in five men who had prostate surgery in response to prostate cancer regretted their decision.

None of this indicates that the doctors offering reconstructive surgery or prostate removal were negligent or wrong, or that they didn't explain the risks.

And certainly none of it should deprive people who want reconstructive surgery, or want their cancer treatment to include prostate removal should be denied that where it is clinically indicated.

Who said that?

Just adding though, that there is of course a difference between a cosmetic procedure that has gone wrong and someone is left with unexpected pain etc, and the removal of healthy body parts that leave life long pain that is unexpected but is in reality a very normal side effect of that surgery.

I got distracted but what I wanted to say was that women who I have known who have regretted PS have had the surgery because of perceived bodily imperfection - often the result of internalised hatred of their bodies, men's desires and patriarchal standards of female beauty.

There is a correlation here with GA surgery I think.

The point is that if it was the case that doctors were routinely failing their patients who then regret their decisions, don't you think we'd see at least some court judgments to that effect?

So there's two possibilities here:

(a) there are a small cohort of people who - like with many other treatments - regret their decision and conclude later that the decision was the wrong one for them (despite doctors doing all they reasonably should to maximise the chances of the correct decision); or

(b) doctors are failing to uphold standards on a widespread basis.

If it was (b) then we'd expect to see lots of medical negligence cases and we'd expect to see them won. The fact that we are not - in the same way that we are not seeing lots of medical negligence cases for breast reconstruction surgery - suggests that (a) is a more plausible explanation than (b).

Shall we just point out that you are now discussing mastectomies and prostrate surgeries that are in the vast majority done to save the life of a patient from cancer and using those surgeries as some kind of comparison to discuss the removal of healthy body tissue as part of an experimental treatment plan for mental health issues.

AND you are missing the point that you are discussing 'reconstructive' surgery AFTER a mastectomy and not the initial mastectomy in the first place.

From your study:

"Bivariate analyses indicated that decision regret was associated with negative body image and psychological distress – intrusion and avoidance."

So, this study is not discussing the ongoing pain and movement issues to do with a double mastectomy?

You have posted a study that is behind a paywall.

Did those women get mental health support before and after the initial mastectomy? And before and after the reconstruction?

Does it also then discuss what implants were used and what impact that had on the outcome?

Your comparisons are not relevant to the topic at hand.

In fact, this thread has gone waaaaaay off topic.

Oh good. So now we have moved from 'you can always sue the surgeon and that will make you feel so much better and obviously relieve your life of pain and limitations' to 'it mustn't be happening because no one is suing'.

Good to know.

And great to see that you acknowledge the abuse that each detransitioner has faced when they announce their legal proceedings.... oh... wait... you haven't done that.....

How convenient and predictable that they are 'not relevant'.

Of course none of your comments are particularly relevant to the point I am making. Which is that sometimes patients make decisions they wish they hadn't.

Using that fact to claim that doctors acted negligently doesn't stack up (of course in some cases, a doctor may have acted negligently - but that is something only a court is able to determine, not Mumsnet posters).

And using that fact to deny patients treatment on the basis that a small minority later go on to regret the treatment also doesn't stack up.

It isn't relevant because we are discussing experimental treatments to which there is currently not one skerrick of evidence that those treatments improve a person's mental health outcomes, yet is based only on their diagnosis of a mental health outcome - gender dysphoria.

In discussing reconstructive outcomes, to make it 'relevant' you need to take it back to the initial health issue it was addressing. You have simply plonked something down that is about breast reconstruction as if you plonking it down makes it relevant.

"And using that fact to deny patients treatment on the basis that a small minority later go on to regret the treatment also doesn't stack up."

Please produce the evidence that the treatment you are here attempting to shame us for discussing is improving the mental health of the patients that are undergoing it in the long term.

Do you have any? No? Yet, there are peer reviewed studies that show that these experimental treatment do not improve the long term mental health and in some cases, cause worse mental health and physical health outcomes.