I can't give this a like. It's such a horrible yet truthful read. Many medical interventions can achieve ever more amazing improvements in people's health and wellbeing. Unfortunarely people now expect that these irreversiblel medical interventions can give them a physical solution to their mental unease without evidence that it will.
When extrinsic estrogen is given to boys/men, it's not just euphemistic but actually WRONG to refer to that hormone treatment as "cross-sex" or "wrong-sex". The implication is that these boys/men are being given some sort of simulacrum of a typical Girl's or Woman's hormonal environment—which is not remotely true in any way whatsoever.
Between puberty and menopause, a Girl's/Woman's estrogen levels vary WILDLY with Her menstrual cycle—from a low level that's about the same as the male average (during menstruation) to a high level that's almost 10x that much (shortly before ovulation). No resemblance AT ALL to the elevated, but steady-state, estrogen levels of boys/men on "HRT".
After menopause—or more accurately, from late perimenopause onward—Women's estrogen levels are significantly LOWER than those of same-age men. In this, there is so little variance in either population that this isn't just about averages, but reliably about ••individuals••: If you plucked a randomly chosen N-year-old Woman and N-year-old man off the street, where N > 50 or so, then Her estrogen levels are essentially guaranteed to be lower than his. (This is also the reason why osteopenia and osteporosis are overwhelmingly female health issues.) So, if a middle-aged or older autogynephilic man genuinely wanted "wrong-sex" or "cross-sex" hormones, then he would actually want to go on estrogen BLOCKERS—like anastrozole—rather than estrogen supplementation.
But, none of this was ever meant to be "cross-sex" or "wrong-sex". The reality is the same as what you so accurately point out about spironolactone—it's just about growing moobs (gynecomastia), to feed a sexual fetish.
Typical snake oil sales tactic. Putting lipstick on a pig. I recall arguing (very briefly) with a person about FGM, and how it’s highly illegal and unethical. Making it a “medical procedure” doesn’t change what it is. I saw the same with opiates and the horrific crisis that it currently is. The difference was who the dealer was…a white coat on the MD or whatever the heroin dealer was wearing.
I think there is a huge advantage in continuing to combine the terminology preferred by the transgender movement with factually correct descriptions of the failure of the operations to produce functioning genitals – either of the persons’ actual sex all of the sex that they want to become. The same is true of the damage done by the suppression of the persons’ natural hormones and the replacement of these with artificial hormones in levels that occur in the opposite sex as well as medications used to treat common adult cancers.
The approach suggested in this article is a simplification and move towards more emotive language. It’s not possible to talk to anybody who has a Trans kid or is associated with them using this kind of language because it sounds like and is the language of attack. Talking accurately about what is done to the young person’s physical genitals is deeply shocking to most people and it carries an aura of medical authority which sinking into using words in the way suggested here does not.
The reason why genital mutilation carried out on gender non-conforming people is not considered FGM in the UK is that a specific exemption was made for it in the law. Thereby the cruel and unusual punishment of mostly gay and lesbian people was allowed to continue. Please see my article for details. https://open.substack.com/pub/genspect/p/a-double-standard-in-the-uks-genital
I can't give this a like. It's such a horrible yet truthful read. Many medical interventions can achieve ever more amazing improvements in people's health and wellbeing. Unfortunarely people now expect that these irreversiblel medical interventions can give them a physical solution to their mental unease without evidence that it will.
I favour the term hormone abuse to “HRT”.
When extrinsic estrogen is given to boys/men, it's not just euphemistic but actually WRONG to refer to that hormone treatment as "cross-sex" or "wrong-sex". The implication is that these boys/men are being given some sort of simulacrum of a typical Girl's or Woman's hormonal environment—which is not remotely true in any way whatsoever.
Between puberty and menopause, a Girl's/Woman's estrogen levels vary WILDLY with Her menstrual cycle—from a low level that's about the same as the male average (during menstruation) to a high level that's almost 10x that much (shortly before ovulation). No resemblance AT ALL to the elevated, but steady-state, estrogen levels of boys/men on "HRT".
After menopause—or more accurately, from late perimenopause onward—Women's estrogen levels are significantly LOWER than those of same-age men. In this, there is so little variance in either population that this isn't just about averages, but reliably about ••individuals••: If you plucked a randomly chosen N-year-old Woman and N-year-old man off the street, where N > 50 or so, then Her estrogen levels are essentially guaranteed to be lower than his. (This is also the reason why osteopenia and osteporosis are overwhelmingly female health issues.) So, if a middle-aged or older autogynephilic man genuinely wanted "wrong-sex" or "cross-sex" hormones, then he would actually want to go on estrogen BLOCKERS—like anastrozole—rather than estrogen supplementation.
But, none of this was ever meant to be "cross-sex" or "wrong-sex". The reality is the same as what you so accurately point out about spironolactone—it's just about growing moobs (gynecomastia), to feed a sexual fetish.
Typical snake oil sales tactic. Putting lipstick on a pig. I recall arguing (very briefly) with a person about FGM, and how it’s highly illegal and unethical. Making it a “medical procedure” doesn’t change what it is. I saw the same with opiates and the horrific crisis that it currently is. The difference was who the dealer was…a white coat on the MD or whatever the heroin dealer was wearing.
Yes. I think I too will call it “genital mutilation procedure” going forward.
Me too
I think there is a huge advantage in continuing to combine the terminology preferred by the transgender movement with factually correct descriptions of the failure of the operations to produce functioning genitals – either of the persons’ actual sex all of the sex that they want to become. The same is true of the damage done by the suppression of the persons’ natural hormones and the replacement of these with artificial hormones in levels that occur in the opposite sex as well as medications used to treat common adult cancers.
The approach suggested in this article is a simplification and move towards more emotive language. It’s not possible to talk to anybody who has a Trans kid or is associated with them using this kind of language because it sounds like and is the language of attack. Talking accurately about what is done to the young person’s physical genitals is deeply shocking to most people and it carries an aura of medical authority which sinking into using words in the way suggested here does not.
“transition”
The reason why genital mutilation carried out on gender non-conforming people is not considered FGM in the UK is that a specific exemption was made for it in the law. Thereby the cruel and unusual punishment of mostly gay and lesbian people was allowed to continue. Please see my article for details. https://open.substack.com/pub/genspect/p/a-double-standard-in-the-uks-genital