Transgender stuff - what's going on?

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

9 hours ago, Moo said:

I don't known what they say in relation to prostate cancer, and I've never heard them say about people who menstruate, I've only read about it on the internet.  Though I think some sanitary brands may have started to de-womanise their products??

 

What do they say about ovarian cancer?

 

I don't even know who they are but I understand your point and understand some concerns.

Know of someone who is doing f2m. Missed smear tests due to the situation and has been diagnosed with Stage 3 or 4 cancer due to this. Was an oversight on behalf of those treating the person. Again fringe cases, but it’s not always about hope a person views themselves, your own body can disagree and fuck you over if you are not careful.

[Bjornebye]

14 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

When truth is labelled as hate speech or anti-semitic, it has implications for everyone. It's truly Orwellian. 

.

[Rico1304]

This is your fault SD (trying to maintain GF traditions. 
 

But it’s fucking bollocks. 
 

 

[Section_31]

15 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

This is your fault SD (trying to maintain GF traditions. 
 

But it’s fucking bollocks. 
 

 

 

I can't figure out who's insulating who here or who has broken what rule. 

 

 

[Rico1304]

Madness

 

 

[Aventus]

 

 

I wonder if this one will end up in a women's prison. 

 

The comments are interesting, seems like a lot of females aren't happy about this one being called a woman by the BBC. 

[Strontium]

"Oh no, please don't send me to prison with all those female criminals", no doubt said with the same sincerity as Brer Rabbit begging not to be thrown into the briar patch.

[Section_31]

It's time for Francis Rossi to retire with dignity.

[Rico1304]

The same people writing the headlines about men’s cervix’s are advising government and big business on policy.  

[VladimirIlyich]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

The same people writing the headlines about men’s cervix’s are advising government and big business on policy.  

Welcome to the tory party mate.

[Rico1304]

7 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Welcome to the tory party mate.

I doubt a writer for Stonewall is in the Tory party.  

[VladimirIlyich]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

I doubt a writer for Stonewall is in the Tory party.  

I have no idea who Stonewall are.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I’ve got no issue with ‘anyone with a cervix’. The debate around whether gender or sexuality should be used to describe people with a cervix is a less important issue than get people screened. 
 

They are females though. Obviously. Whether they identify as a man or woman doesn’t mean they’re biologically not male or female (tedious intersex disclaimer here). 
 

At this point it’s worth inventing a time machine and either wiping out the human race or doing away with the terms Male and female, and just referring to them as XX and XY. Biological: XX Gender: Who gives a shit. I vote option 1

[Pidge]

2 minutes ago, Numero said:

I’ve got no issue with ‘anyone with a cervix’. The debate around whether gender or sexuality should be used to describe people with a cervix is a less important issue than get people screened. 
 

They are females though. Obviously. Whether they identify as a man or woman doesn’t mean they’re biologically not male or female (tedious intersex disclaimer here). 
 

At this point it’s worth inventing a time machine and either wiping out the human race or doing away with the terms Male and female, and just referring to them as XX and XY. Biological: XX Gender: Who gives a shit. I vote option 1

As the article says, backed up by another cancer organisation, post-op transwomen should also consider pelvic screening as they are also at risk of cancer.  I think anyone other than a clinician getting bogged down in the exact semantics of such a diagnosis should probably just err on the side of inclusivity.

[Numero Veinticinco]

15 minutes ago, Pidge said:

As the article says, backed up by another cancer organisation, post-op transwomen should also consider pelvic screening as they are also at risk of cancer.  I think anyone other than a clinician getting bogged down in the exact semantics of such a diagnosis should probably just err on the side of inclusivity.

Well, they should be screened. But regarding the bit you bolded (referring to people with a cervix being female), transwomen - those born male - 100% can’t get cervical cancer. You need a cervix for that. They might get other types in tissues that they’ve made a ‘neo-cervix’ out of, and if they can they should deffo be screen for those. What it isn’t though is a cervix. 
 

And yeah, as I say anybody with a cervix should get cervical screening. Maybe others need other types. Screen every fucker for everything, I reckon. Still, biologically speaking, them cervix having weirdos are female. My point being who gives a fuck about gender identity when it comes to screening. It’s science, medical and biological, it’s more important. Get checked. 

[Pidge]

4 minutes ago, Numero said:

Well, they should be screened. But regarding the bit you bolded (referring to people with a cervix being female), transwomen - those born male - 100% can’t get cervical cancer. You need a cervix for that. They might get other types in tissues that they’ve made a ‘neo-cervix’ out of, and if they can they should deffo be screen for those. What it isn’t though is a cervix. 
 

And yeah, as I say anybody with a cervix should get cervical screening. Maybe others need other types. Screen every fucker for everything, I reckon. Still, biologically speaking, them cervix having weirdos are female. My point being who gives a fuck about gender identity when it comes to screening. It’s science, medical and biological, it’s more important. Get checked. 

This is rather my point, artificial or not it's a cervix and would be screened by the same staff so there's no reason to get held up or upset over the semantics. It's between the individual and the clinician. The important thing is that the messaging around such screening shouldn't exclude anyone.

[Rico1304]

2 minutes ago, Pidge said:

This is rather my point, artificial or not it's a cervix and would be screened by the same staff so there's no reason to get held up or upset over the semantics. It's between the individual and the clinician. The important thing is that the messaging around such screening shouldn't exclude anyone.

How does it exclude anyone?  Thats nonsense.  As if a man who transitions (and the vast majority don’t have any surgeries) suddenly forget they were women for the first 20 odd years of their lives.  Women feel they are being erased, I wonder why?  

[Guest]

Hearing that Kate Hudson is going to raise her newly born daughter genderless. Does that mean she is not going to refer to her child as daughter? I would assume all babies are kind of genderless as all they do it cry, laugh, shit and eat. But at some point this does change. Am I being stupid or is it actually possible to raise a person into world as genderless?

[Pidge]

7 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

How does it exclude anyone?  Thats nonsense.  As if a man who transitions (and the vast majority don’t have any surgeries) suddenly forget they were women for the first 20 odd years of their lives.  Women feel they are being erased, I wonder why?  

It isn't nonsense at all, two clinical organisations mentioned in the PinkNews article state the importance of people understanding who such cancers affect. Providing this information helps people understand their risks and feel comfortable in discussing them with their doctors.

[Numero Veinticinco]

14 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

How does it exclude anyone?  Thats nonsense.  As if a man who transitions (and the vast majority don’t have any surgeries) suddenly forget they were women for the first 20 odd years of their lives.  Women feel they are being erased, I wonder why?  

Women or some women who are vocal about this subject on twitter? Women, as it turns out, aren’t one homogeneous clump of people with the same view. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Pidge said:

It isn't nonsense at all, two clinical organisations mentioned in the PinkNews article state the importance of people understanding who such cancers affect. Providing this information helps people understand their risks and feel comfortable in discussing them with their doctors.

Just for clarity, Mate; here’s what they said... 

 

If you’re a trans woman, you may not have given much thought to Pap tests and cervical cancer. And if you haven’t, that makes a fair amount of sense. After all, in order to get cervical cancer, you need to have a cervix — that is, the organ that connects the vagina to the uterus.
 

If you’re a trans woman and have not had bottom surgery, you aren’t at risk for cervical cancer.

 

If, however, you’re a trans woman who has had bottom surgery to create a vagina (vaginoplasty) and possibly a cervix, there’s a very small risk that you can develop cancer in the tissues of your neo-vagina or neo-cervix.

 

The risk depends on the type of surgery you had, the type of tissue used to create your vagina and cervix and your personal health history. Talk to your healthcare provider to figure out your specific cancer-screening needs as part of your overall pelvic health following surgery.

[Strontium]

I've taken to using the terms Tails and No-Tails.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

I've taken to using the terms Tails and No-Tails.

Leave Sonic and his friends out of this. 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, Pidge said:

It isn't nonsense at all, two clinical organisations mentioned in the PinkNews article state the importance of people understanding who such cancers affect. Providing this information helps people understand their risks and feel comfortable in discussing them with their doctors.

Is it a ‘disgusting transphobic lie’? 

[Aventus]

8 minutes ago, Fluter in Dakota said:

Hearing that Kate Hudson is going to raise her newly born daughter genderless. Does that mean she is not going to refer to her child as daughter? I would assume all babies are kind of genderless as all they do it cry, laugh, shit and eat. But at some point this does change. Am I being stupid or is it actually possible to raise a person into world as genderless?

Charlize Theron has two adopted transgender daughters. Apparently they came out as girls when they were about 3 years old, because that's the kind of stuff 3 year old boys think about. 

 

Having one transgender kid must be quite rare, two in the same family though is crazy odds.