Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

Emily - I've generally been on your "side" (again I hate using that term and concept within a discussion with as much variance and nuance as this one but such is as it is...) but you define your..... femininity I guess why too much via the hardships your sex has to face.

Basically you always seem to come back to acting as if people aren't real women if they aren't having their lives constantly made worse just by being women. Like you aren't a woman until you suffer because you're a woman.

You are not defined by your struggles and trials as much as you think you are, especially not on the biological sex and social gender.

Having men hate you. Being scared of rape. Being discriminated because of your gender. These don't make you a woman.

They don't "make me a woman" but those social interactions are a pretty fundamental element of the experience of being a woman.

Would you make that same statement to a black person, who repeatedly comes back to the challenges and barriers they face as a black person being an intrinsic element of their lived experience and their identity as a black person in the US?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hmm... and yet somehow your attacks are all against biological females who disagree with your views. I note a conspicuous lack of aggressiveness toward biological males who disagree with your views. One might be inclined to connect some dots there and draw inferences regarding your view toward females.

You may not recall, but I was happily cheering on Graham Lineham's fall from grace back when that was relevant. Not sure what he's up to since he's been kicked off twitter. I expect it's the normal routine for bigots that have to hawk their wares on the back alleys of the internet after getting the boot from the major venues. Does he have a Parler account yet or is he still begging for sympathy on mumsnet?

 

[LondonJohn]

Except that (re)defining "woman" and "man" as social kinds based on differential social norms would foreseeably normalize and entrench the gendered norms themselves.

But this kind of argument could be extended indefinitely.

The fact is that in today's world, there are different societal approaches and expectations that are separated along man/woman lines. And so long as this continues in some form or other, there will always be a small number of people who (genuinely, validly) identify with the gender which is different from the one which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

Sure, if society ever reaches the point where there is literally zero distinction in the way that men and women are viewed & treated (and other associated factors such as expectations, social behaviours and so on), then there will be no such thing as gender dysphoria. But as of now, that's a hypothetical scenario which is a) a long way away, and b) unlikely to ever happen in any case (IMO).

 

[LondonJohn]

Not during stabilization procedures themselves of course, it's not like, say, electrical cardioversion is performed differently on males and females. But for diagnosing the actual underlying condition? Yes, a differential diagnosis may very well rest on the patient's sex, as several diseases either occur only in one sex, occur significantly more frequently in one sex, or have different symptomology depending on sex.

I suspect that even a cursory physical examination by a competent physician would allow them to form a reasonably accurate provisional conclusion as to whether the person in front of them was biologically male or female.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, it is. If you are female, you will ALWAYS be asked if you are or could be pregnant. And the vast majority of the time, they're going to do a pregnancy test even if you say no. If you are unconscious and unresponsive, they will do a pregnancy check as a matter of course. Sure, they might set a broken leg and staunch bleeding... but if you need to be sedated or anesthetized, or have major surgery done, they absolutely need to know if you're pregnant.

There are a LOT of medicines and procedures that can be deadly to a fetus, and often be damaging or fatal to the mother.

But as you point out, a simple medical test - whether a blood/urine test or an ultrasound or other imaging test - will easily determine whether the unconscious person in front of them is pregnant or not. Of course in the case of a trans woman, imaging will also show that the person is not biologically female. But if the concern is around whether the person is pregnant, it's extremely easy to confirm or exclude this variable - no matter who is lying unconscious in that hospital bed.

 

[LondonJohn]

I seriously can't help but laugh here. Male people, who are not doctors, opining on whether or not pregnancy testing is a routine emergency procedure with no actual knowledge of the issue.

Better to ask a doctor or even a female person, wouldn't you think?

Ah good. We're back to the "males are not capable of holding valid opinions about anything to do with females" schtick again.....

 

[theprestige]

Yes, medical bracelets are somewhat common for conditions that might suddenly render a person unresponsive.

Trans status is not such a condition. There are scores of other conditions in which people do not bother to declare through tokens on their person, many of which have much more profound health implications.

No. Medical bracelets are for conditions that need to be taken into account, even when the patient is unresponsive.

My partner has a condition that can be life-threatening if it is not taken into account by first responders. It is not, however, a condition that is likely to render them unresponsive. The concern is that if they are rendered unresponsive for any reason - concussion, smoke inhalation, allergic shock, etc. - they won't be able to warn first responders about their condition. Hence the bracelet.

Why would anyone need a bracelet warning about a condition that might suddenly render them unresponsive? If they're responsive, they can just tell people about their condition. And if they're unresponsive, the bracelet warning is too little, too late. I don't think you thought this through.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But as you point out, a simple medical test...

Which they won't do if the person in front of them is listed as male on the intake form.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you dispute my characterization? The genie is out of the bottle. Trans people aren't going away.

Do you want bearded, testosterone pumping trans-men in the locker room, or trans women? If biological sex is all that matters, the choice is clear.

True.

And on a more general level, proponents of transgender rights shouldn't have to be putting up with this constant (and entirely bogus and unsubstantiated claim) that somehow a) expressing a belief in transgender rights, and in particular the rights of trans women, is necessarily b) expressing a total lack of sympathy for females.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No. Medical bracelets are for conditions that need to be taken into account, even when the patient is unresponsive.

My partner has a condition that can be life-threatening if it is not taken into account by first responders. It is not, however, a condition that is likely to render them unresponsive. The concern is that if they are rendered unresponsive for any reason - concussion, smoke inhalation, allergic shock, etc. - they won't be able to warn first responders about their condition. Hence the bracelet.

Why would anyone need a bracelet warning about a condition that might suddenly render them unresponsive? If they're responsive, they can just tell people about their condition. And if they're unresponsive, the bracelet warning is too little, too late. I don't think you thought this through.

Fair enough.

My point remains, being trans is not something that is at all similar to something that might be listed on a medical bracelet. There's no good reason for trans people to carry to carry notice of their trans status, as has been suggested here. There is no inherent, severe medical risk unique to trans people that I'm aware of.

The scenarios being spun up here border of fantasy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Medical bracelets are for conditions that need to be taken into account, even when the patient is unresponsive.

My partner has a condition that can be life-threatening if it is not taken into account by first responders. It is not, however, a condition that is likely to render them unresponsive. The concern is that if they are rendered unresponsive for any reason - concussion, smoke inhalation, allergic shock, etc. - they won't be able to warn first responders about their condition. Hence the bracelet.

Why would anyone need a bracelet warning about a condition that might suddenly render them unresponsive? If they're responsive, they can just tell people about their condition. And if they're unresponsive, the bracelet warning is too little, too late. I don't think you thought this through.

I carry information that I am epileptic, which may cause me to become unresponsive. The reason I have it is because the things that a doctor should check as potential causes for my lack of responsiveness should be different than they would be for a normal person.

For me, checking for neurological damage is a higher priority than it would be for someone who is not epileptic. It also makes IV anticonvulsants something higher on the list to try for stabilization. Similarly, T1 diabetes can cause unresponsiveness... and checking insulin and glucose levels is a priority for an unresponsive diabetic.

For some people, a condition that can render them unconscious needs to be known because it changes the triage path of the responders.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No you attack women who disobey or refuse to repeat your claims, calling them TERFs is just your way of "othering" them and justifying your behaviour. For someone who refers to historical oppression so much you sure are completely unaware that racists claim not to be attacking black people but only the "thugs" among them, or that misogynists claim not to be attacking women but only the "uppity" among them (or "TERFs" as the new terminology goes).

Othering people for abhorrent ideas is not something I'm ashamed of. Bigots should feel stigmatized and pressured to change.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And on a more general level, proponents of transgender rights shouldn't have to be putting up with this constant (and entirely bogus and unsubstantiated claim) that somehow a) expressing a belief in transgender rights, and in particular the rights of trans women, is necessarily b) expressing a total lack of sympathy for females.

How about people who express a total lack of sympathy for females? I sit okay to [point out that people who express a total lack of sympathy for females continue to express a total lack of sympathy for females?

 

[LondonJohn]

Lol, you "assure" me, as if you have some great depth of knowledge when it comes to the practice of medicine.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If there's a significant threat to the life of the person lying on the bed in front of them, emergency medical professionals are unquestionably going to focus on saving that person's life as their sole immediate priority. It's only if/when the person's life is out of immediate danger that any consideration would be given as to whether the person is pregnant or not.

And I'd suggest that the only circumstances in which the health/life of an unborn child within a pregnant female might come into the equation in this context would be if a) it looks like the pregnant female's life will be unable to be saved, and b) the baby will have a good chance of life if it's delivered of the female before the female dies.


Anyhow..... this is all heading down a strange cul-de-sac, and it's extremely peripheral to the main subject at hand here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Othering people for abhorrent ideas is not something I'm ashamed of. Bigots should feel stigmatized and pressured to change.

Oh tnoes! The absolutely abhorrent idea that females should not be asked to surrender their rights and protections!

 

[Emily's Cat]

If there's a significant threat to the life of the person lying on the bed in front of them, emergency medical professionals are unquestionably going to focus on saving that person's life as their sole immediate priority. It's only if/when the person's life is out of immediate danger that any consideration would be given as to whether the person is pregnant or not.

You seem to have a habit of speaking quite authoritatively on topics where you have no authority whatsoever.

From whence comes your deep knowledge of what emergency doctors do and what their priorities are?

 

[LondonJohn]

No... but some of you have certainly christened yourselves the attackers of the other sex.

I assume you mean males attacking females?

If that assumption is correct, then where has this been happening? (And remember, it'll need to be evidence of causation rather than correlation wrt the "female" element...)

 

[LondonJohn]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6330912/



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419301/

CRTL+F: pregnancy. No hits.

Plenty of discussion about overdose, diabetes, cardio-respiratory distress, trauma, brain injury, nervous disorder, etc, not much concern about sex-specific ailments.

Indeed.

Fancy a male happening to know more about this matter than a female*!


* Though I'm sure that this is in itself "worthy" of attack from certain standpoints.....

 

[LondonJohn]

No you attack women who disobey or refuse to repeat your claims, calling them TERFs is just your way of "othering" them and justifying your behaviour. For someone who refers to historical oppression so much you sure are completely unaware that racists claim not to be attacking black people but only the "thugs" among them, or that misogynists claim not to be attacking women but only the "uppity" among them (or "TERFs" as the new terminology goes).

I'm sorry: attacking the views of people who vociferously deny transgender rights

is not

attacking females (or women).


(And fortunately, plenty of female women understand and support transgender rights)

 

[theprestige]

Fair enough.

My point remains, being trans is not something that is at all similar to something that might be listed on a medical bracelet. There's no good reason for trans people to carry to carry notice of their trans status, as has been suggested here. There is no inherent, severe medical risk unique to trans people that I'm aware of.

The scenarios being spun up here border of fantasy.

Fair enough. I don't see trans status as being a medical bracelet kind of thing.

Though it would have probably helped the transman admitted with pregnancy complications that were poorly triaged, if his trans status was at least recorded on his admitting paperwork. Or if he'd thought to volunteer that information while being triaged.