[SAFESPACE] LGBTIQQA Thread - Queer Support!

[Jessica]

...

I feel so much like doing a "back in my day" right now, it's not even funny. :\

I hope you can find a better endo. That one doesn't sound too bad from my own personal experience, and would have been perfectly happy with her if I had her 6 years ago. But, times have changed, and I hope you can find someone who'll give you hormones without any requirements.

My doc wouldn't give me hormones until I came out to my family, and started living as a woman more often then not. I didn't have a dedicated endocrinologist. I'm pretty sure I went to one of the more liberal places to get a doctor when I did as well.

*shrug*

I'm glad standards have changed.

[poxic]

First out transgender person to run in a provincial election.

'Sabout bloody time. Hope she gets in.

[Feddlefew]

Hi FreyasSpirit,

I think if you can start some type of real life experience as a female would be great - so start with selected situations and see how it goes. I usually prefer most patients to have full time real life experience before starting hormone therapy, but the decision is often individual and may depend on the psychological assessment. I hope this helps.

Makes me glad I made an appointment with another endo.

Yup, that one isn't worth your time. Good call

I'm a little confused by this. Where does the belief that a person needs to spend time pretending to be the opposite sex before they can go on hormones come from?

[Zeroignite]

Hi FreyasSpirit,

I think if you can start some type of real life experience as a female would be great - so start with selected situations and see how it goes. I usually prefer most patients to have full time real life experience before starting hormone therapy, but the decision is often individual and may depend on the psychological assessment. I hope this helps.

Makes me glad I made an appointment with another endo.

Yup, that one isn't worth your time. Good call

I'm a little confused by this. Where does the belief that a person needs to spend time pretending to be the opposite sex before they can go on hormones come from?

It's typically a means to restrict treatment unless you meet their idealization of what a man/woman is, rather than what is best for your health and saftey.

[poxic]

There have been people who regretted SRS. Not many, but it does happen. The "live as preferred sex for X amount of time first" thing came from a wish to help people be sure of what they wanted. It probably hurt more than it helped, for many trans people.

TRIGGER WARNINGS LIKE HELL:

Spoiler:

Here's a sort-of-famous example of a man who underwent SRS to change his body to a female one, then decided he was "deluded" and went through more surgery to return to a male body. Mr. Kane now has a very uncharitable view of transgender people, and the Daily Mail is not known for being kind to alternative ... anything, basically. Please don't read the linked article if it would upset you. And I can't see how it wouldn't upset someone who is still fighting their own battle for sanity as a trans or possibly-trans person.

Here's another article that is more charitable, but still quite possibly triggering. The journalist covers people who regret their transition and those who don't, plus some who wavered back and forth before finally finishing transition. It's more balanced and compassionate than the article linked above, though YMMV. For those who are interested but wary: click on the link but don't look yet. (Close your eyes if you have to.) Scroll all the way down (or ctrl+end), then scroll slowly back up until you see the page links. Click on page 3. That page is good reading, respectful and hopeful. <3

[Lostdreams]

Spoiler:

For those who are interested but wary: click on the link but don't look yet. (Close your eyes if you have to.) Scroll all the way down (or ctrl+end), then scroll slowly back up until you see the page links. Click on page 3. That page is good reading, respectful and hopeful. <3

A link to page 3 directly.

[Brace]

Spoiler:

Looking at the pure statistics (which tell us infinitely more than the inane self-important metaphysical babble of supposed psychology "professionals"), there are exactly two kinds of people who ever regret transition:

1. Older people (25+, with a huge jump up in representation after 30)
2. People who have identified as crossdressers (IE, as their birth gender) for most of their lives

These are essentially the only two risk groups, period. Studies of people who managed to transition in their teens show a literal 100% satisfaction rate. Furthermore, the type of regret experienced is rarely the tabloid "I made a mistake about what gender I am", and is almost always more subtle and more centered around the failure to meet unrealistic expectations about the efficacy of hormones or surgery, or the social difficulties of transitioning for those who don't pass (which late transitioners largely do not; sorry). Category 2 are essentially the only source of the sensationalist stories of stereotypical regret we get on occasion, and they are also essentially the only empirical prop which holds up the socially motivated and bogus concept of "autogynophilia".

Also I am extremely sick at the moment, and have to try and power through 8+ hours of homework. On the plus side though someone gendered me correctly today, plus I now have my semesters supply of hormones safely tucked away in my apartment.

[Aaeriele]

yay for the good parts of that hope you feel better soon, too

[Jessica]

Yay for trans candidate!

Boo for Libertarian party.

[Brace]

I feel like the primary weakness of libertarianism is that it doesn't approach its goals in a teleological fashion. IE, they want smaller government, so their solution is to take a sledgehammer to existing government and damn the consequences. Libertarians have no exit strategy, in other words.

[Jessica]

It also doesn't take into account any problems that are not caused by the government, and treats them as if they don't exist. As if all of society's issues are a direct cause of government regulation.

[Brace]

It does take those problems into account, it just holds that they're comparatively negligible or can be solved by the market (or that government intervention would worsen them or create other (usually economic) problems, so it's best to leave them in place instead of creating a bigger problem). The issue is more that libertarianism blindly places priority on economic equilibrium over any possible good which may be acquired by a movement away from equilibrium. IE, if anti-discrimination laws hurt the profit margin of businesses somehow then they are bad, if pollution controls place US manufacturers at a global disadvantage then they are bad, etc, even though this is a one-sided equation; libertarians refuse to do a cost-benefit analysis of social goods. They just look at the costs associated with various forms of government intervention and go "that is expensive!" It may be a pragmatic way of handling a budget, and in principal it would certainly lead to a limitation of economic complications as market equilibrium is undeniably a good thing; but as for whether or not it is the best thing and what degree of deviation from it can be functionally absorbed by a state, libertarianism is in ignorance and perhaps even opposed to contemplating.

I am a recovering libertarian, btw, so if I sound like I am writing a partial apologetic it is because I sort of am :p

[Vaniver]

It's not clear to me that discussion is best held in this thread.

[Jessica]

*me is done*

[Ulc]

It's typically a means to restrict treatment unless you meet their idealization of what a man/woman is, rather than what is best for your health and saftey.

To be fair, I can totally see how a well-meaning doctor can arrive at that conclusion. It's important to remember that there is no such thing as risk-free medical procedures. Even the smallest operation occasionally leads to death due to unfortunate circumstances (no-on knew that this particularly patient had poor blood clotting, combined with a allergic reaction to the anaesthesia agent, and a doctor sneezing at just the wrong time), and as far as medical treatments go, hormones are far from the safest - they all interact in a very complex series of positive and negative feedback systems, that we generally know little about.

Keeping that in mind I can totally see a doctor thinking "hmm, withholding this for a month has no immediate medical effect, and the medication isn't needed for lifesaving and any mental health issues seems to already have happened, and are exceedingly unlikely to get worse in a month. On the other hand, there is a small, but real, segment of people that might find out that transitioning isn't what they actually want, in which case we have avoided giving them treatments that will follow them for years and years, and has a series of not entirely predictable harmful side effects"

Turns out that the mentioned segment is practically non-existent and that being refused to start on hormones actually is fairly hurtful, and the doctor is actually wrong, but not necessarily malicious. And if I hadn't been reading this thread, and thus knew better, because my education on these issues are from here, rather than textbooks, I'd totally have arrived at the same conclusion.

[Jessica]

The Gender Bill Of Rights
(if you can view the link, please do. If you can't, full text is below the spoiler)

Spoiler:

The Gender Bill Of Rights
By Asher

Here’s something I’m working on. I thought maybe you lovely people would have some feedback, and be able to remind me if I am forgetting anything. I’m not interested in scaling this back or making it more “realistic,” only in making it more radical and comprehensive. I’m also interested in wording it in ways that emphasize the ways in which this would actually benefit everyone, including cis men and women, heterosexuals, and others who might generally feel alienated from discussion of transgender liberation.

(I also know there are also a few gender bill of rights type documents floating around out there already. I felt moved to make my own.)

THE GENDER BILL OF RIGHTS

These rights are inalienable, mandatory, and to be taken seriously at all times. This is a model of gender that is fully individual, consensual, voluntary, and free from state intervention. This model of gender has been designed not to oppress anyone and in fact has been designed to benefit all who are affected by gender in this society (that is to say, everyone), including men, women, non-binary people, agender people, cis people, trans people, intersex and non-intersex people, hetero, queer, and asexual people. We are a long way from adopting this model, and to do so would take time. But doing so can ultimately only benefit us all.

1. You have a right to have your gender treated as valid, equal and real.
2. You have a right to be referred with proper forms of address, including pronouns, honorifics, correct names, and appropriate gender descriptors.
3. You have a right to change how you feel about, talk about, relate to and wish others to relate to your gender, or indeed to change your gender itself, in any way, at any time.
4. You have a right to not have a gender.
5. You have a right to privacy about your gender or lack thereof.
6. No one’s gender should ever be assumed. No one should ever be assumed to have a gender.
7. You have a right to full control over your gender beginning at birth. No surgical alterations should be made on unconsenting infants in order to fit them into a certain paradigm of gender. Gendered names, pronouns, and descriptors should never be used until children can decide for themselves how they wish to be known to the world.
8. Education should be unbiased towards any gender or lack of gender. Children of school age have a right to role models of any or no gender.
9. You have a right to be attracted to anybody of any gender or lack of gender, and to carry on sexual or romantic relationships with any number of consenting individuals regardless of gender.
10. You have a right to engage in any consensual sex act, regardless of your gender.
11. You have a right to say no at any time to anyone, regardless of your or their gender.
12. You have a right to raise children, regardless of your gender.
13. You have a right to access contraception, permanent birth control, and abortion as needed, regardless of your gender.
14. You have a right to express any emotion that you feel, regardless of your gender.
15. You have a right to dress and present yourself in any way that you desire, regardless of your gender.
16. You have a right to total control over your own body and sole authority in making decisions about it.
17. The state of your body should not be considered a factor in the validity of your gender. Levels of hormones or number of surgeries that you may or may not have undergone should have no influence on how your gender is viewed by others.
18. You have a right to employment and fair wages, regardless of your gender.
19. You have a right to housing, regardless of your gender.
20. You have a right to education, regardless of your gender.
21. You have a right to healthcare, regardless of your gender, including the right to vital psychological and medical services which may relate to your gender, including hormone therapy and transgender surgeries of any kind. Access to these necessary services should be unabridged.
22. No one’s gender should ever be pathologized.
23. You have a right to relieve yourself in public bathrooms which are safe, private, and desegregated.
24. You have a right to expect that the state, if a state there must be, shall not interfere with, demand information about, or mistreat you on the basis of your gender. You should not be identified to the state or to others by information about your gender. There is no need for gender markers on any form of legal identification.
25. No organization, governmental or otherwise, has the right to demand information about your gender. Medical professionals need only know details about their patient’s anatomy, and appropriate polite forms of address to be used with their patients, including correct names, pronouns and honorifics, nothing more.
26. To the legal system, if a legal system there must be, your gender should be immaterial. You should not be placed in solitary confinement based on your gender. You should not be placed in segregated facilities of any kind based on your gender. You should have a fair trial, regardless of your gender. You have a right to a jury of your peers, i.e. transgender people have a right to not be judged by cisgender people who may be viciously biased against us.

[Aaeriele]

Turns out that the mentioned segment is practically non-existent and that being refused to start on hormones actually is fairly hurtful, and the doctor is actually wrong, but not necessarily malicious. And if I hadn't been reading this thread, and thus knew better, because my education on these issues are from here, rather than textbooks, I'd totally have arrived at the same conclusion.

Right. But ignorance can be just as harmful as maliciousness, even if the former is intended to be harmful.

This is why it's better for doctors to realize when they don't have enough information about something, and to find legitimate sources of information to inform themselves (such as actually trusting their patients).

[podbaydoor]

8. Education should be unbiased towards any gender or lack of gender. Children of school age have a right to role models of any or no gender.

Thing is, in history class, there are lots and lots of instances of, obviously, sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc. that went on in history and that will be unavoidably taught. How would a thoughtful teacher or curriculum writer go about approaching this - teaching the facts of history without being biased towards gender or lack of gender? (I'm thinking of racism as an example - generally in the Western world it has been accepted that racism is bad and slavery is bad - and yet we are still taught in ways that subtly reinforce some notions of race - whitewashed history and so on.)

[Vaniver]

I'm curious how they see #6 cashing out, especially when combined with #2. What information do I need to provide people for them to refer to me as male? Does the burden of providing that information infringe my right to be referred to as male?

[Josephine]

That just means that you should use neutral words if you don't know, and to ask at first convenience what the person prefers.

[Feddlefew]

I'm not certain I like #7, the names bit at least. There are very few names in English which are androgynous, and I would imagine most kids can't grasp the difference between sexes, let alone genders, for the first 3-4 yeast. I understand it's about not forcing children into a narrow mold regarding their social roles, but I can't image people wanting to forgo naming their kids for the first few years of their lives.

[felltir]

Anecdotal: When I used to occasionally want to pass as a female, having the name "Alex" was a godsend.

[Jessica]

This week the National Post (a more conservative leaning paper in Canada) ran the advert talked about in this article. It's pretty disgraceful that this sort of thing still happens. Pissed me off when I heard about it yesterday.

Stupid jerks. I'm glad people are bringing it to light, and doing something about it.

[Aaeriele]

Ugh, that ad is utter BS, Jessica. I agree with you that it's good people are doing something, but ugh, it should never have existed.

[H.E.L.e.N.]

Re: gender bill of rights and names: I think it'd be better to not-assume that names that have traditionally been gendered actually define/represent any given individual's gender. Just because I am born a Paul doesn't mean I'm a boy, etc. (Also some names, like some gender-role specific stuff, fluctuate over time.) I identify as somewhat gender-variant and any combination of my names is relentlessly feminine-associated, but what I've come to is that they're not feminine-associated for me.

Also I'm not sure about the crossover between this thread and people who live in the greater Boston area, but I'm totally going to this event.

[Vaniver]

That just means that you should use neutral words if you don't know, and to ask at first convenience what the person prefers.

Which means that my right to be referred to by my proper pronouns is my obligation to tell people what pronouns to use before they use them. There's a tradeoff involved- I suspect the optimal solution is closer to this suggestion than what appears to be the current standard- but I think this suggestion ignores the tradeoff.

I can see why the ad mentions transexual, transgendered, and two-spirited (huh?), but am not really clear on how informing kids about intersexuality is part of the culture war. It often leads to medical complications that're a lot easier to treat before puberty than afterwards. (A dear friend of mine is intersexed and still dealing with the biological and psychological trauma of not receiving any medical attention for it while growing up.)

[Jessica]

You have a right for people to not assume you're male because you look male. Since people don't have telepathy, generally that requires asking people what gender they consider themselves as and what pronouns they prefer. I don't really see a problem, except that people will choose neutral language before getting the information from the person first. The point is that neutral pronouns aren't misgendering, they are simply not gendering. So, once it has been specified, people can then gender you properly.

Two-spirited is a term from the first nations people for someone who is transgendered. Or, more specifically, it's a cultural term for a third gender, someone who has a male spirit, and a female spirit. It's a preferred label for some members of the first nations in Canada (and probably some parts of the united states).

Intersexed people (in my opinion, and the opinion of a portion of intersexed people I've listened to) have the right to choose how their body will be altered to suit their needs, not to have that choice made for them by doctors in the first few minutes of life (or even later on). Yes, there is a benefit to certain surgeries being preformed earlier then later, but to decide for someone what they will want when they are conscious beings before they can choose is a problem. I'm certain there are many people who have one of the numerous intersexed conditions who are happy with the choice their doctors made when they were children. I know a few myself as well. But, there are also those who are very angry that they had no choice in the matter, and would have rather been given a choice before someone cut into their flesh. As to why the society for the family doesn't want to teach children about them... probably just because it's a word they heard and though must be bad. But, I don't know.

[Vaniver]

The point is that neutral pronouns aren't misgendering, they are simply not gendering. So, once it has been specified, people can then gender you properly.

Right, I agree this is a sensible way to do things. My qualm is that the negative right to not be misgendered and the positive right to be gendered can come into conflict, which is something you typically don't want rights to do. The wording of the 2nd right to me implies that someone could see neutral pronouns as misgendering them, because they're (say) male instead of neuter, and that it would be better to present the policy of "use neutral until a preference is established" than rights which map to that policy under some interpretations but not others.

Two-spirited is a term from the first nations people for someone who is transgendered.

That makes sense!

Intersexed people (in my opinion, and the opinion of a portion of intersexed people I've listened to) have the right to choose how their body will be altered to suit their needs, not to have that choice made for them by doctors in the first few minutes of life (or even later on). Yes, there is a benefit to certain surgeries being preformed earlier then later, but to decide for someone what they will want when they are conscious beings before they can choose is a problem. I'm certain there are many people who have one of the numerous intersexed conditions who are happy with the choice their doctors made when they were children. I know a few myself as well. But, there are also those who are very angry that they had no choice in the matter, and would have rather been given a choice before someone cut into their flesh. As to why the society for the family doesn't want to teach children about them... probably just because it's a word they heard and though must be bad. But, I don't know.

I doubt there's a way to make everyone happy in this situation, and don't know enough about the varieties of intersexuality to make any detailed recommendations. I imagine there are some types that obviously should receive medical attention and some that obviously shouldn't receive medical attention, and then other types where a careful risk management decision has to be made.

[doogly]

People often speak of presenting as a gender. Is that not a way to attempt to communicate your preferred identification? Is presentation just something we are stuck doing in a heavily gendered society, that is not included in the goals we are discussing?

[PictureSarah]

Doogly just asked the question I wanted to ask. If I see somebody who is female-bodied, and dressed in a conventionally feminine way, I generally just assume that they are cis women. If I see somebody who is female-bodied, but is dressed in a conventionally male way, I don't really assume anything, because they could be cis women who just prefer to dress like that, or they could be trans men, or any number of things. Is that a bad way to go about things? In any case, I am happy to be corrected/informed if the subject comes up.

[Aaeriele]

Doogly just asked the question I wanted to ask. If I see somebody who is female-bodied, and dressed in a conventionally feminine way, I generally just assume that they are cis women. If I see somebody who is female-bodied, but is dressed in a conventionally male way, I don't really assume anything, because they could be cis women who just prefer to dress like that, or they could be trans men, or any number of things. Is that a bad way to go about things? In any case, I am happy to be corrected/informed if the subject comes up.

I think in situations where gender is actually relevant, that's an "okay" way to go about it, though it'd be "better" to just ask the first time you meet someone.

However, in the vast majority of situations, gender isn't really relevant, so there's not really a reason to make an assumption in the first place. Getting into the habit of using gender neutral pronouns for people you don't know for sure gender of isn't a bad habit to be in - I try to just use singular 'they' for any arbitrary person I haven't asked about pronouns or have a very educated guess on.

[ZoraPrime]

It's my first reply in the LGBT thread and I might already stick my foot in my mouth over nitpicking... but, I'll give my two cents anyways.

So, to contribute to the discussion at hand with the gender bill of rights. I find it mostly agreeable, but some rights I find to be at times unrealistic. I mean, take rule number six. I can understand the sentiment here: people have the right to identify with the gender that they feel is theirs and shouldn't be obligated to identify with their sex under societal norms. The issue I have with that is in real life, I'm going to be assuming people's genders. If I assume wrong and am corrected, that's fine. I assumed wrong, and I'll stand corrected. And my reason is that 95% of the time, I can make a safe assumption. But the issue I have here is the notion that we should ascertain's peoples genders before making any assumption, when the reality is that we assume first, ascertain later. And if you're on the receiving end of that, I can't really say that I have sympathy. Let me make this a bit clearer. I'm not neurotypical. Or, maybe I am, and I'm just pulling your leg. That isn't important. What's important here is that up until I said that, you would have assumed that I'm neurotypical. Why? It's just the assumption people make. There's no reason for me to think that he isn't neurotypical, and he seems mentally sound, so he must be neurotypical (granted, when written out like this, you can see how fallacious it sounds). Applying this to gender, if someone looks like a women, you'll assume they are a women, because you have no reason to think they are not. Likewise with men. And if someone is androgynous in appearance, it would more likely than not be rude to go up and ask what their gender is, since being androgynous isn't necessarily revered, so some people may take the implication of being androgynous the wrong way. I'm just using rule six here as an example, but it's times where, well, part of being in a particularly small minority is that you're going have to deal with people making assumptions. It isn't realistic to expect people to change how they think or perceive, and really, the only thing you can do is act how you respond to those assumptions.

Granted, I only have a problem with maybe 1 out of 10 rules. Another way might be the notion of desegregated bathrooms. First off, you'll probably only going to find segregated bathrooms (or desegregated bathrooms for that matter) at public institutions. And most public institutions already have a male and female bathroom set up. So the two options is to desegregate every bathroom, but that may cause some issues for people who prefer segregated bathrooms. Such as that would be no urinals (or having urinals in stalls), and I'd imagine a lot of people would be upset with that. And the third option is to add a third desegregated bathroom, which is a major expense for most institutions. And for publicly funded institutions (e.g. schools), not a very good expense. But, seriously, I'm just nitpicking here and honestly agree with most of the listed items for the most part.

Now, to shut the fuck up :U

Okay, honestly, I just like to nitpick.

Spoiler:

And for those of you are curious of if I'm neurotypical or not...

[spoiler]I'm not telling

[spoiler]Okay, so I'm not neurotypical and I am telling.

[/spoiler][/spoiler]

[lanicita]

Mod note: This discussion is getting a bit too close to a debate for a Safespace. Please remember that we are not here to debate, but to support.

ZoraPrime, there are a lot of people in this thread are working very hard to combat these assumptions. You are trying to explain the view of the majority, but this thread is more for understanding the view of the minority -- in this case, the people who might be negatively affected by the assumptions that you and others make. I agree that it might be unrealistic, but I think the point of it was more to show the ideal that many people (both people who do and people who don't deviate from gender norms) hold.

(Also, if you ever have a question about whether something is appropriate to be posting, please feel free to PM a mod first with the text of what you want to say, and we can help you decide.)

[lanicita]

Another option which would cost exactly $0 (zero) dollars would be to remove the sign designating gender from exactly 1 (one) bathroom. It is something I could do with a flathead screwdriver in 10 seconds.

Part of post edited out.

[Carnildo]

To be fair, I can totally see how a well-meaning doctor can arrive at that conclusion. It's important to remember that there is no such thing as risk-free medical procedures. Even the smallest operation occasionally leads to death due to unfortunate circumstances (no-on knew that this particularly patient had poor blood clotting, combined with a allergic reaction to the anaesthesia agent, and a doctor sneezing at just the wrong time), and as far as medical treatments go, hormones are far from the safest - they all interact in a very complex series of positive and negative feedback systems, that we generally know little about.

Keeping that in mind I can totally see a doctor thinking "hmm, withholding this for a month has no immediate medical effect, and the medication isn't needed for lifesaving and any mental health issues seems to already have happened, and are exceedingly unlikely to get worse in a month. On the other hand, there is a small, but real, segment of people that might find out that transitioning isn't what they actually want, in which case we have avoided giving them treatments that will follow them for years and years, and has a series of not entirely predictable harmful side effects"

And according to my mother (a licensed psychologist), this is exactly the reasoning they used for delaying hormone therapy: by requiring the patient to live as their target gender for a time before starting HRT, they avoid giving a risky and sometimes irreversible treatment to people for whom it is inappropriate. The fact that such people mostly don't exist took decades of data-gathering and some fairly insightful statistical analysis.

[Aaeriele]

And according to my mother (a licensed psychologist), this is exactly the reasoning they used for delaying hormone therapy: by requiring the patient to live as their target gender for a time before starting HRT, they avoid giving a risky and sometimes irreversible treatment to people for whom it is inappropriate. The fact that such people mostly don't exist took decades of data-gathering and some fairly insightful statistical analysis.

Unfortunately even after that data-gathering and analysis, there's still a lot of gatekeeping going on.

[Carnildo]

And according to my mother (a licensed psychologist), this is exactly the reasoning they used for delaying hormone therapy: by requiring the patient to live as their target gender for a time before starting HRT, they avoid giving a risky and sometimes irreversible treatment to people for whom it is inappropriate. The fact that such people mostly don't exist took decades of data-gathering and some fairly insightful statistical analysis.

Unfortunately even after that data-gathering and analysis, there's still a lot of gatekeeping going on.

Unless a new treatment is a dramatic improvement over the old one (think "anticoagulants as a treatment for stroke"-level dramatic), it takes about thirty years for a new treatment to become universal. We've got about twenty years to go on HRT.

[Aaeriele]

Unless a new treatment is a dramatic improvement over the old one (think "anticoagulants as a treatment for stroke"-level dramatic), it takes about thirty years for a new treatment to become universal. We've got about twenty years to go on HRT.

Doesn't mean that's a good thing, or something we can't be pissed about, or something we should have to accept.

Please, unless you're going to say something non-apologetic, don't post it here. We don't need to be "explained to" for why the system is shit.

[Vaniver]

Doesn't mean that's a good thing, or something we can't be pissed about, or something we should have to accept.

Please, unless you're going to say something non-apologetic, don't post it here. We don't need to be "explained to" for why the system is shit.

I may be atypical, but I find it useful to know why obstacles exist. If this gatekeeping is someone following best practices advice of ten years ago instead of best practices advice of last year, then that informs how to move forward (for example, finding the studies that show a lack of regret and presenting them to the endocrinologist in a non-judgmental way).

(That said, having a second endo ready to go is a great plan; telling someone else how to do their job rarely goes over well.)

[H.E.L.e.N.]

Unless a new treatment is a dramatic improvement over the old one (think "anticoagulants as a treatment for stroke"-level dramatic), it takes about thirty years for a new treatment to become universal. We've got about twenty years to go on HRT.

Edit: I don't know what necessarily counts, but treatment of mtf people with hormones goes a bit earlier than that.