| |
|
Okay, another unsatisfactorily reactive post. With me fresh out of Duckie and somewhat pissed. I'm quite good at posting pissed, though...
I'm sorry; the latter post was late at night and I was tired. Please, though, I'd appreciate your not second-guessing the reasons for my post - my intentions were only to clarify further what I'd already said, and I don't see my response to be any more reactive than your immediate assumption after my first post that I was attacking the psychiatric profession as a whole.
And I maintain that, if we're claiming six months of oestrogens is 'reversible', it's also unlikely to bring about changes sufficiently drastic to mean that, if one is "shouted at all day in the street", losing their job, etc. (and, in my experience, this is not the average experience of social gender transition), then they're not gonna attract the same negative attention on hormones. If they can't effect any sort of successful social transition without hormones, then they're unlikely to do spectacularly well with: six months' worth doesn't make that much difference in terms of buffering peoples' reactions. I think that aspect tends to be overstated by those who're (understandably) anxious about social transition.
Indeed, six months isn't that long. However, my two main points are centred around:
- Even though the majority of transwomen are likely to need fairly long-term use of hormones to produce enough effect to "pass" nearly all of the time, the physical effect from shorter-term use is still, for many, enough to have a significant psychological effect; My comment was not "buffering people's reactions", but "buffering against people's actions.
- I consider the use of hormones to generally be a more humane and effective diagnostic tool; indeed, I think judging by the letters of support from several Charing Cross doctors to Russell Reid before his initial hearing before the GMC, this isn't a particularly controversial opinion. Also, given the fact that many transwomen would much rather reach a certain level of femininity before starting "full-time" socially in all aspects of their life, I believe they should be allowed to do so, even if it does mean being on hormones for a fairly long time beforehand. In particular, removal of facial hair is a point many wish to reach before going out in the street in their preferred clothes, and without anti-androgens, electrolysis is not particularly useful, as it tends to just grow back after a while.
What part, if any, of the above do you personally disagree with? What is your preferred course of treatment?
Except that we've already discussed the 'going stealth' phenomenon - and it's therefore perfectly reasonable to suppose that those who've had a completely positive, straightforward journey through Charing Cross (or any other gender clinic) are choosing not to post about it online.
Like I say, there's a self-selection bias.
Except that people were, on the whole, giving much more mixed opinions of their own GPs' helpfulness, and were on the whole fairly positive about their experiences with the private sector - often from people with experience with both. I don't see why people would be positive about one and not the other unless, in general, people's experiences with one were much more positive than with the other. There's no reason why only those with positive private experiences or negative Charing Cross experiences would post. And, really, some of the incidences of obnoxiousness and insensitivity (one particular name being mentioned rather a lot, but I'll not mention who unless you particularly want me to) mentioned would be extremely shocking and unprofessional even if they only happened to a minority of patients.
James Bellringer's one of the guys who carries out the surgery - which, as we've agreed, tends to be characterised as a sort of epiphany. It's perhaps not that surprising that he's viewed in a positive light - in contrast to the bean-counting 'gatekeepers'.
That's true - in general people are more likely to have particular problems with certain psychiatrists than certain surgeon's. But I gather that, compared with other UK surgeons, James Bellringer's work is considered particularly good.
I've no idea how such "damage control" might be arranged. In the case of the Guardian article, I actually don't think it can be dismissed as media sensationalism (and apologies if you're not referring to it); I think it does a good job of covering many of the disparate angles, and conveying a broad sense of the ethical issues involved.
I'm not sure about the reasons for this particular article, but again - for the previous article written by the same person, he did appear on a TS board simply asking for negative experiences, which to me certainly seems like aiming for a sensationalist angle. And, given the lack of articles from the Guardian which might, say, help the public to understand the transsexual condition better, I don't consider it particularly acceptable that they keep churning out articles with at best a slightly negative slant. |
|
|
