More transphobia and denial from John Hopkins. They seek to hurt trans people again apparently.
online.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgend...
online.wsj.comPosted Jun 13, 2014, 6:33 AM UTC
015
online.wsj.comI think there's a reason this is published in the WSJ instead of in a medical journal or someplace else more appropriate. The WSJ is all but a right wing rag at this point.
2
Article is paywalled, but despite the excellent data in favor of hormone treatments, I've not seen any studies that suggested similarly positive surgical outcomes. A lot of patients reported subjective satisfaction, but it doesn't seem to improve well-being in the same way.
0†
When it is trans people's genitalia, it has to be statistically proven to improve well being. When it is other people's genitalia, it is just assumed that having matching genitalia is the best thing.
6
97% success with HRT and 90% success with vaginoplasty, actually.
The problem however is that a lot of that 90% can be linked to improved societal outcomes. Operativity is mandatory for many to enjoy any semblance of the basic human rights we enjoyed before transition. Add that to the vicious genital-focus of most transmisogynists and you see how there can be a post-operativity prevalence of 20% and an avowed desired operativity prevalence of an additional 60% for a $20,000 procedure in a country where 95% of households own a car with an estimated average purchase price of $30,000
Some of us are making the rest of us lie to make us look respectable (read: cisassimilative) for the 'phobes.
2
97% success with HRT and 90% success with vaginoplasty, actually.
Yeah that still sounds pretty good.
6
Yeah, I explained why the second number is juiced, and can't be projected from the 20% of the population who's accessed it already.
1
I think that's true in the case of the general public, but I don't mean to imply that here. SRS is a major surgery that carries substantial risks, and there are ethical issues with a major surgery that has not been shown to produce positive results.
1
The problem I was referring to is the different standard for trans people. It is assumed in the general public that having matching genitalia is the best thing to the extent that surgeries have been done without consent.
It is considered so valuable and necessary in the general population that doctors would risk their ethics to do that, but with trans people the standard apparently has to be that there be a statistical improvement (based on reported subjective experience.......)
There are too many factors going into this topic to just say that if trans people don't report such a profound change as they did when they first started hormones it can't be really worth it.
Edit: Let's not forget, it is a subjectively reported improvement. And not all those individual subjects even want surgery. Yet many do report subjective improvement as well as needing it.
2
It is assumed in the general public that having matching genitalia is the best thing to the extent that surgeries have been done without consent.
Yes, and I think that is incorrect. Such surgeries - I assume you refer to 'corrective' intersex surgery on infants - are falling out of favor, so the medical community is coming into agreement on this one.
It is considered so valuable and necessary in the general population that doctors would risk their ethics to do that, but with trans people the standard apparently has to be that there be a statistical improvement (based on reported subjective experience.......)
Except in the case of the aforementioned surgeries, what situations are you referring to?
There are too many factors going into this topic to just say that if trans people don't report such a profound change as they did when they first started hormones it can't be really worth it.
Such as? I'm not just talking about not as profound, I'm talking about no statistically significant improvement at all.
Let's not forget, it is a subjectively reported improvement. And not all those individual subjects even want surgery. Yet many do report subjective improvement as well as needing it.
I'm aware of the reports, but subjective reports are worth relatively little with respect to such an emotionally-charged subject.
2
Person uses the odd word 'transgendered', does the usual nonsense of focusing almost exclusively on genitals, then includes some fear-mongering over children. Whole thing just reads like a right-wing knee jerk reaction from somebody who wants to use their status as a medical professional to speak about issues they clearly don't understand and to concern troll.
The part I don't like is dragging John Hopkins into it. Their ill treatment of trans people has caused problems with insurance coverage for decades. They seem to want to continue the hurt.