Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

O for pete's sake!  That's on the same preposterous level as insisting there are men who will transition in order to gain entry into women's safe spaces and commit horrors upon women. 

What in the world is preposterous about someone coming to believe a false thing like they have had their biological sex changed and are no longer subject to illnesses specific to that sex? We have a very smart professional person on this board managing to believe this, so what prevents a trans person from also believing this?

FYI, the Canadian health service put out a FAQ to inform transwomen that most of them do not actually need to have a cervical exam, except for the small proportion that have had a particular type of neo-vagina creation procedure that could leave them subject to cancer based on the tissue that was repurposed to help create the neo-vagina.

 

[Zorral]

Show me how many cases there are.  You also just stated that trans people are not smart.

[kissdbyfire]

When we get a jab or go to the dentist, we are informed of “dos and donts”, not to mention all types of cirurgies and procedures. Isn’t it reasonable to expect the professionals involved in the process to pass on this type of information? IMO failing to do so would be malpractice. And given the terror docs have of malpractice suits and how hard they work to cover their arses (not a criticism, just a fact) I would imagine this type of information is given w/ possibly other medically pertinent stuff. 

[DMC]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

DMC, I am curious. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to disagree with @Ran--and with Dawkins--about the binary nature of sex. Assuming I have that right, can you tell me why you disagree? Was there a time you thought sex was binary and then changed your mind? If so, what convinced you? I'd like to try to understand.

I responded to Ran because he was denigrating Kal for having a different approach to what “biological sex” actually means and to show there are peer-reviewed studies that have concluded the definition is not necessarily as narrow as insisted upon here, e.g “biological sex is 100%” about procreative abilities.

To answer your question, yes, I disagree that biological sex is absolutely binary and solely defined by gametes and/or gonads.  The first paper I cited (Bauer 2023) in particular emphasizes multidimensionality in measurement, which as a researcher myself makes sense to me.  As for what or when I changed my mind I honestly can’t give you a precise answer, but yes it is generally due to personal experience and being exposed to people during my adult life that I did not interact with growing up.

[karaddin]

Good news - trans woman develop prostate cancer at a tiny fraction of the rate of cis men, so no need to panic on that front. 

If you are truly concerned about the potential for undiagnosed health issues threatening trans women you might want to get concerned about things that will cause people to withhold their medical history from doctors, like kicking them off hospital wards because at one irrelevant point in the past they produced the wrong kind of gamete. That's exactly the kind of shit that leads to not telling doctors your full history and potentially receiving the wrong treatment as a result. 

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I responded to Ran because he was denigrating Kal for having a different approach to what “biological sex” actually means and to show there are peer-reviewed studies that have concluded the definition is not necessarily as narrow as insisted upon here, e.g “biological sex is 100%” about procreative abilities.

To answer your question, yes, I disagree that biological sex is absolutely binary and solely defined by gametes and/or gonads.  The first paper I cited (Bauer 2023) in particular emphasizes multidimensionality in measurement, which as a researcher myself makes sense to me.  As for what or when I changed my mind I honestly can’t give you a precise answer, but yes it is generally due to personal experience and being exposed to people during my adult life that I did not interact with growing up.

Thank you. I understand a bit better.

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, Ran said:

What in the world is preposterous about someone coming to believe a false thing like they have had their biological sex changed and are no longer subject to illnesses specific to that sex? We have a very smart professional person on this board managing to believe this, so what prevents a trans person from also believing this?

You'll have to ask @Heartofice why he believes what he believes. That's certainly not what I believe, if you're referring to me as a cool gotcha. They were the one wanting to refer to biological sex as a euphemism for sex assigned at birth. 

But yes, I would imagine that it shouldn't be that weird to think that if you have your genitalia changed you would not be subject to illnesses specific to that genitalia. If you don't have ovaries it would be difficult to get ovarian cancer. Is that a real gotcha then? My point all along is that if you're going to view certain characteristics as defining biological sex then you need to also assume that the lack of them also implies a lack of that biological sex. I don't personally view it as so easily cut and dried, and as usual making things that are complicated simple makes things stupid and more wrong. 

 

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Good news - trans woman develop prostate cancer at a tiny fraction of the rate of cis men, so no need to panic on that front. 

I don't want to quibble, but because this is relevant to health of transwomen, the "tiny fraction" is that transwomen appear to be 42% as likely as cisgender men to develop prostate cancer (14 in 10,000 vs 33 in 10,000). This is a not a negligible change, it's a reducton little over half, but I think "tiny fraction" might be taken to mean it's non-existent. If you were likely to be subject to screening at some point in your life before transition, you should still get screened post-transition.

 

[Zorral]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My point all along is that if you're going to view certain characteristics as defining biological sex then you need to also assume that the lack of them also implies a lack of that biological sex.

My own mother, no less, told me in no uncertain terms, that if I didn't get pregnant and have babies, I wasn't a woman. That's what her church was starting to say.  This, despite possessing uterus, etc. all these items, despite having periods starting at age 11, etc.

I find these sorts of wide-eyed we care for the health and well being and safety of anybody out and out liars, or at the very least deeply in denial about their own motivations and certainly don't want the rest of us to know (coz rhese ilks don't give a shyte about safety of anyone, from unborn children to women, to antisemitism, and certainly not women AT ALL anymore than LGBTQ+AI people).  However, yes, lets grab on this manufactured issue in order to further divide and hurt more and more and more people -- for political power and even for, you know the lols.

 If any of these sorts of ilks cared at all we would have gun control, decent health care for all, not only women, not only pregnant women, etc. -- but we hardly have health care for anybody, and particularly anybody who isn't rich.  So these ilks should  just stop with this bad faith pretense of care about anybody's welfare because the bad faith declarations are as transparent as just Windexed windows.

Edited May 2 by Zorral

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

My own mother, no less, told me in no uncertain terms, that if I didn't get pregnant and have babies, I wasn't a woman.

Neither a kind nor a right a thing to say. I hope she repented of that at some point.

[Zorral]

Just now, Ran said:

Neither a kind nor a right a thing to say. I hope she repented of that at some point.

I didn't give a damn, knowing better, and as I said, not giving a damn.

Ya, by the end she was sorry for the many and variety of harms she caused with her faith in her religion, which ultimately let her down.  She even came to the shocking irreligious conclusion that Gay Men were actually OK.

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Neither a kind nor a right a thing to say.

But not at all uncommon. Nihal Arthanayake dedicated a large part of his show to this phenomenon just the other day.

 

Edited May 2 by Spockydog

[Ran]

Just now, Spockydog said:

But not at all uncommon. Nihal Arthanayake dedicated a large part of his show to this phenomenon the other day.

Had to Google him, as we don't get BBC Radio here. Interesting. Is it one of the episodes listed here? I was thinking it was the Haidt episode but that was aired yesterday, so I'm guessing it's something older.

[Zorral]

BTW -- her church taught her, as so many have believed since the Greeks lost their dominance in the world of thinking and culture, that gay men weren't men either.  This despite. you know, having all the items, including prostates. I'd kinda like some of those who are still saying this stupidity to meet some gay men from around the way and see them with their manly weapons and their fists, for that matter -- since so many of them think gay men aren't men because, you know, they can't fight (tell it to Alexander, Hadrian, etc.)  

IOW, we contemporary enlightened ilks really should know better than have this endless scroll as to who is what, where and why, gender, sexually, etc.  But no we'd rather go around hurting people, insulting people because -- l guess it makes us feel good. 

Edited May 2 by Zorral

[Spockydog]

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

Had to Google him, as we don't get BBC Radio here. Interesting. Is it one of the episodes listed here? I was thinking it was the Haidt episode but that was aired yesterday, so I'm guessing it's something older.

I think it was Monday or Tuesday. But I can't be at all certain. Might have been last week, lol.

He was talking to women who have decided, for whatever reason, not to have children. We heard how society drills into girls, from a very early age, the idea that motherhood should be their ultimate goal in life. And how, if you weren't a mum, there must be something wrong with you.

They also spoke about the demands of parenting being vastly different, depending on your role. Apparently, many women who have chosen to remain childless would have kids if they could take the "traditional" role of father.

Edited May 2 by Spockydog

[felice]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't want to quibble, but because this is relevant to health of transwomen, the "tiny fraction" is that transwomen appear to be 42% as likely as cisgender men to develop prostate cancer (14 in 10,000 vs 33 in 10,000). This is a not a negligible change, it's a reducton little over half, but I think "tiny fraction" might be taken to mean it's non-existent.

85% of the prostate cancer cases in the study were woman who weren't taking estrogen. Anyone who doesn't have a healthy estrogen level is still at risk, but otherwise the rate is closer to 2 in 10,000. And median age was 61 years, median duration of estrogen use 32 months, which means most of them were probably exposed to excess testosterone for decades. It seems likely that the rates would be significantly lower for women who take estrogen consistently from a younger age. One more reason appropriate HRT should be freely available for whoever needs it.

[karaddin]

22 minutes ago, felice said:

85% of the prostate cancer cases in the study were woman who weren't taking estrogen. Anyone who doesn't have a healthy estrogen level is still at risk, but otherwise the rate is closer to 2 in 10,000. And median age was 61 years, median duration of estrogen use 32 months, which means most of them were probably exposed to excess testosterone for decades. It seems likely that the rates would be significantly lower for women who take estrogen consistently from a younger age. One more reason appropriate HRT should be freely available for whoever needs it.

Which actually highlights yet another avenue that more research is needed - none of the research I was able to check with a quick search differentiated between 1) estrogen only therapy, 2) estrogen + progsterone treatment (less common but still plenty of women on it), 3) estrogen + antiandrogen, 4) estrogen + have undergone reassignment surgery. These are all relevant variables that may conceal pretty disparate outcomes, but filling these gaps in research is never the priority. 

[polishgenius]

Has this discussion about gomads and gamettes and what biological sex means actually achieved anything for anyone, like? It seems completely off the main point we started on about whether it's right or fair to separate trans women from women's wards. 

Like I get that that issue is tricky to tackle head on for some, and being a man my opinion on this is basically an outsider's view- but it's a policy that comes pretty much directly from the fact that some women feel uncomfortable around men because men are bastards. Sure, that's true. But I think we can all agree that no-one is transitioning to be a creep? Like even the most sceptical people here aren't saying that. It's a wildly transphobic view to hold and while people definitely hold it I don't think it's any of us. 

The thing is, without that taking that mental step, a policy like that exists only to punish trans women for something a man might have done or prevent something a hypothetical man might do. Nothing to do with anything about the women being excluded. And like I say- there's absolutely no reason why any of the other patients on the ward would even need to know that a specific patient is trans, so what are we even doing there?



On the latter discussion about medical accuracy and all of that- sure, but it strikes me as a bit disingenuous to use it here because, it's not trans people or pro-trans-rights people who typically object to language designed to make sure things like that don't happen. Like that is literally the point of language like 'person with a cervix' or 'birthing person' etc- but when language like that is used there's a stink kicked up. 

 

Also: does anyone, anyone at all, genuinely believe that trans people don't know that the biological sex you are born with isn't important or can easily be done away with? That's the thing about being trans. That's what gender dysmorphia is about! They've lived it their whole lives, they don't need to be taught about it ffs!

[BigFatCoward]

24 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Has this discussion about gomads and gamettes lachieved anything for anyone?

Also: does anyone, anyone at all, genuinely believe that trans people don't know that the biological sex you are born with isn't important or can easily be done away with?

1. It's made me realise I'd agree with any premise, no matter how much I disagreed if it meant I never had to read it again. 

2. No, but I believe some people who aren't trans believe that. 

[felice]

35 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Which actually highlights yet another avenue that more research is needed - none of the research I was able to check with a quick search differentiated between 1) estrogen only therapy, 2) estrogen + progsterone treatment (less common but still plenty of women on it), 3) estrogen + antiandrogen, 4) estrogen + have undergone reassignment surgery. These are all relevant variables that may conceal pretty disparate outcomes, but filling these gaps in research is never the priority. 

Yep. And also distinguishing between the specific types of hormone and delivery methods; studies on premarin don't necessarily apply to estradiol, Provera isn't progesterone, and pills aren't absorbed the same as patches or injections. There is a ton of room for more and better research on many aspects of trans health care.