[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Old testiment you can't really twist to be anything other than what it is. No tolerance for homosexuality, transgenderism, women being anything other than baby ovens, etc.

Yeah, most of the **** people say the bible is against is just twisted nonsense. Same as most religions really...just used as an excuse for being homophobic or whatever. Also quite like how people twist the Quran to excuse/justify violence.

[ethanjames]

the bible also says multiple times to not judge others and treat everyone equally so like

[user104658]

Originally Posted by ethanjames

the bible also says multiple times to not judge others and treat everyone equally so like

In the new testament yes. The old testament is pretty much "kill everyone who doesn't conform".

[Vicky.]

What would Jesus do?

[Tom4784]

As with any job involving working with the public, an element of knowing how to talk to people effectively is an important talent for doctors and medical staff to have. It's common courtesy to refer to a trans person as their preferred gender. Plenty of doctors have their own thoughts on various issues but it shouldn't really come up when it comes to treating or diagnosing a patient's illness.

Health issues are a different kettle of fish as trans people can still find themselves falling ill with issues that affects their birth gender and in those cases, doctors should discuss the issue frankly but still acknowledge their preferred gender.

[ethanjames]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

As with any job involving working with the public, an element of knowing how to talk to people effectively is an important for doctors and medical staff to have. It's common courtesy to refer to a trans person as their preferred gender. Plenty of doctors have their own thoughts on various issues but it shouldn't really come up when it comes to treating or diagnosing a patient's illness.

Health issues are a different kettle of fish as trans people can still find themselves falling ill with issues that affects their birth gender and in those cases, doctors should discuss the issue frankly but still acknowledge their preferred gender.

this

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Health issues are a different kettle of fish as trans people can still find themselves falling ill with issues that affects their birth gender and in those cases, doctors should discuss the issue frankly but still acknowledge their preferred gender.

We have ridiculous incidents of transwomen being called for smear checks, and transmen NOT being called, because of how the system is set up. I don't really think that peoples sex should be changed on medical registers, as its quite dangerous. I mean, imagine a situation where a transman passes completely, and is also one of these that refuses to acknowledge that they actually are female, despite everything. Medical records say they are male too. And they have a heart attack. The symptoms of a heart attack vary a LOT between men and women, so this could actually be missed. Because the system is not set up to acknowledge that the person is trans, rather than the sex they want to be.

Everything needs changed tbh. Its possible to acknowledge sex, but still be respectful of a persons wishes for pronouns and stuff. Most trans people do not actually think that they have changed sex, and would be sensible with medical stuff, but there are some who reckon they have actually changed sex, even if all they have done is taken some cross sex hormones. It needs to be setup so there is a marker for trans. So their medical file or whatever says a transman is female, but trans. So doctors know to use him pronouns and that, but also know that they are not actually male (if at the same doctors for years the doc would know anyway, but I am talking people who register at a new doctors after surgery or whatever, and will put themselves as the opposite sex on registration forms). And the few transpeople who DO reckon their sex is irrelevant, really need to get over it, medical wise as its bloody dangerous to actually pretend you are the opposite sex.

This is also an issue with GRCs actually. They allow people to change their birth certificate to say they are the opposite sex. Birth certificates are historical documents, and are used for ID purposes. I actually don't see the need in altering them to basically..lie.

Sex and gender are different things, but unfortunately many professions, and transpeople, think they are the same thing.

[Scarlett.]

It's basic courtesy

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

We have ridiculous incidents of transwomen being called for smear checks, and transmen NOT being called, because of how the system is set up. I don't really think that peoples sex should be changed on medical registers, as its quite dangerous. I mean, imagine a situation where a transman passes completely, and is also one of these that refuses to acknowledge that they actually are female, despite everything. Medical records say they are male too. And they have a heart attack. The symptoms of a heart attack vary a LOT between men and women, so this could actually be missed. Because the system is not set up to acknowledge that the person is trans, rather than the sex they want to be.

Everything needs changed tbh. Its possible to acknowledge sex, but still be respectful of a persons wishes for pronouns and stuff. Most trans people do not actually think that they have changed sex, and would be sensible with medical stuff, but there are some who reckon they have actually changed sex, even if all they have done is taken some cross sex hormones. It needs to be setup so there is a marker for trans. So their medical file or whatever says a transman is female, but trans. So doctors know to use him pronouns and that, but also know that they are not actually male (if at the same doctors for years the doc would know anyway, but I am talking people who register at a new doctors after surgery or whatever, and will put themselves as the opposite sex on registration forms). And the few transpeople who DO reckon their sex is irrelevant, really need to get over it, medical wise as its bloody dangerous to actually pretend you are the opposite sex.

This is also an issue with GRCs actually. They allow people to change their birth certificate to say they are the opposite sex. Birth certificates are historical documents, and are used for ID purposes. I actually don't see the need in altering them to basically..lie.

Sex and gender are different things, but unfortunately many professions, and transpeople, think they are the same thing.

Yeah, you can't actually change your sex - transmen will always be female, transwomen will always be male.

For things like driving licenses, I don't see why it can't list preferred gender, but for medical records I think it should say FtM or MtF. While transwomen will need different medical care than other males, they'll also need different treatment to women, so it's important that practitioners know who they're dealing with.

But I think they should still use preferred gender tags, as long as they're "he" or "she", but nothing ridiculous like "ze" or "they"

[user104658]

Surely most female to male post-op transsexuals would have had a full hysterectomy, and therefore not have a cervix, and therefore not require smear tests?

Doctors should refer to patients as whatever they are officially registered as, and also they should be aware of the person's full medical history and medically treat that person accordingly. Notes about any actual physical transition will be in the patients file so their doctor will know from that... They aren't just going on whether it says "Mr" or "Ms" in the title.

[Eddie.]

Yes.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Surely most female to male post-op transsexuals would have had a full hysterectomy, and therefore not have a cervix, and therefore not require smear tests?

Post op, yes I would imagine so, though not many transmen actually are post op. Not many trans people fullstop are post op, but transmen even less so (the surgery for transmen is not quite as advanced as for transwomen, the results are...not quite as good) and you do not have to be post op to 'change sex' either on your GP register or on a birth certificate.

And if they put their sex as male when registering, they are not called for smears...obvously as males do not need smears. Other way, transwomen are called for smears, and some actually look forward to getting the letter asking them to come for one as its the ultimate validation Along with other checks that are normally done on males, not being sent to them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...trans-men.html

Or if you prefer the document itself than a mail link

https://assets.publishing.service.go...ng_leaflet.pdf

Its not an issue if the trans person is actually honest about their sex. But if they registered somewhere and put themselves as the opposite sex, they would not be called for sex appropriate screening, as its all automated.

Of course, they are harming noone but themselves if they refuse to acknowledge their sex in a medical setting, so maybe this shouldn't concern me. But the system is ****ing stupid, again. I am not sure its 'PC' as much as its...old systems that there is either no cash to update, or noone is concerned enough to upate them.

Basically, this could be solved by GP systems and such also acknowledging that sex and gender are different bloody things, rather than mixing up the two. Though maybe if someone is going to some lengths to deny their actual sex, then I guess they would not go for sex specific health checks to start with...hmm


Edit. All of this^ is neither here nor there though when discussing if GPs should use preferred pronouns. AsI said earlier, I think they should, but they should also be able to refer to a patients sex when its necessary to do so.

[Ammi]

..yeah of course GPS, health workers etc should acknowledge, recognise and respect etc...I mean if a GP won’t acknowledge, then there isn’t really much faith in the outside society ever acknowledging...obviously it’s important to also (with specific male born and female born things that might be being looked at in diagnosis and treatment)...to know the whole history from birth in medical situation because if any possible relevance there...but that doesn’t have any bearing on acknowledging, it’s just something that it’s essential to be aware of which a GP would be...


...I guess it’s a little bit like a person who is adopted-ish, kind of...there may be some genetic factors being looked at in a diagnosis with the symptoms presented etc...so any ‘tests’ would not be appropriate to being looked at with the adoptive parents...that’s an essential thing to know at certain specific times...but in the general overall though, medical workers and GPS would still acknowledge and respect etc that those adoptive parents are the parents of the patient...it’s something that society totally acknowledges too but just has to catch up a bit with transgender ...these things take time, I guess...any refusal to acknowledge will only delay and hinder that time though...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Basically, this could be solved by GP systems and such also acknowledging that sex and gender are different bloody things, rather than mixing up the two. Though maybe if someone is going to some lengths to deny their actual sex, then I guess they would not go for sex specific health checks to start with...hmm


Edit. All of this^ is neither here nor there though when discussing if GPs should use preferred pronouns. AsI said earlier, I think they should, but they should also be able to refer to a patients sex when its necessary to do so.

Literally all that would be needed is an extra database field for "sex at birth" . I also don't think it means doctors would have to refer to that in any forceful sort of way. Like they dont have to say "You'll need your prostate checked BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE REALLY A MAN MR SMITH! And men have prostates!"

There really isn't any extra hassle in saying "because you have male reproductive organs" or "because you had male reproductive organs at birth and your prostate has not been removed" etc.

Lazy doctors who can't be bothered saying a few extra words .

[Cal.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Yes I think they should, however if something is sex specific, they should of course be able to refer to the patients actual sex. There are a few illnesses/symptoms and such that are sex specific, and it does noone any favours to pretend this is not the case or the patient is actually the opposite sex, which they are not.

.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Literally all that would be needed is an extra database field for "sex at birth" . I also don't think it means doctors would have to refer to that in any forceful sort of way. Like they dont have to say "You'll need your prostate checked BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW YOU'RE REALLY A MAN MR SMITH! And men have prostates!"

There really isn't any extra hassle in saying "because you have male reproductive organs" or "because you had male reproductive organs at birth and your prostate has not been removed" etc.

Lazy doctors who can't be bothered saying a few extra words .

...hence the NHS cutbacks maybe...lazy sausages only have themselves to blame...

[Cal.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't think religious beliefs should come into medical stuff tbh. Like, doctors should not be able to refuse to refer for abortions and such because of what they believe.

This also!

We’re just going back to witch doctor territory otherwise.

[jaxie]

I think people should always be polite and not offend anyone who wishes to be addressed a certain way, however, I don't think that should be enforced in any way as then you are pushing against people's right to think for themselves. I also think less fuss should be made about slip ups, a gentle reminder is enough. Mistakes are not deliberate.

Religion is responsible for many stupid ideas but what can we expect most of the rules were written thousands of years ago when people were less enlightened. They were also made up by people with their own agendas and for rabble control. I can't imagine any deity, if there was such a thing, would sit around thinking up silly rules for it's shiny new creation. Go forth and multiply but women are sin and we cant let them tempt us. Go forth and multiply, but cover up those women in case they make you lustful. Enough said.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Off the top of my head... The old testiment quite explicitly against it (body is created by god and therefore sacred, men shouldn't wear females clothes and vice versa) whereas the NT is more along the lines of the physical body being irrelevant / we are "all one" and the true self resides in the soul etc. so could probably be interpreted as pro-trans if one was so inclined.

Old testiment you can't really twist to be anything other than what it is. No tolerance for homosexuality, transgenderism, women being anything other than baby ovens, etc.

But NT gets top trumps over OT or something like that, because jesus read the OT and was like "nah that's mean".

OT is OTT then, can’t say I have ever read it.