I have a feeling that this isn’t being driven by political correctness:
Women who have transitioned into men and registered as male with their GPs will not be routinely offered NHS screening for breast and cervical cancer, even though they remain at risk of the disease.
Only trans people who register with their GP under their birth sex will automatically be invited to screening appropriate to their former gender, new advice states.
I think it’s very much more to do with this:
Public Health England said that screening invitations were automatically sent by computer, based on a patient’s registered age and sex.
Given the thousands potentially affected it’s cheaper not to do the screening and bugger the consequences than it is to reprogram the computers.
Surely they have the male risk of developing the disease now?
I imagine they’re screened for prostate cancer now instead.
They probably CAN’T ‘reprogramme the computers’, thanks to the political correctness that’s forced them to be recorded officially as women.
Am I understanding this right – the computers send out warning notices to anyone who is currently registered according to the sex of their choice? The problem is that people who have made the insane choice continue to have risks associated with their biological nature, not their political claims.
So what is to be done? The computer has to remember who was born a boy but deny it in public in order to send out warnings to people who will regard them as hate crimes? They don’t want to play with the big boys, then fine, they do not play with the big boys. They can play with the girls instead. Cancer doesn’t care and neither should we.
Its fairly trivial to add a new field of, say, “birth_sex” to a well structured relational database. Its also fairly easy to rewrite the queries to search them. A bit less trivial to change all the screen views and other presentations, but not difficult.
The difficulty is in getting the right data in to this new field and it will mean either asking the whole population or making the assumption that everyone has there birth sex unless they say otherwise. From what we’ve seen some of these people are so fucked up they’d either be in denial or claim they were being discriminated against because they had to make an effort and admit they aren’t really what they want to be.
However the really non trivial and expensive part of this is that it would be a government change to a very poorly let IT contract, or if it was done in house would get bogged down in bureaucracy.
Christ its never ending this tranny problems mularky, …never mind him checking his tits at the doctors.
What about him using a photo bus pass which shows him with a beard and no hair and now he has nice bob style blonde hair with tanzantie earings..
Nice find Tim.
If Female-to-Male sex changes work they’d just ignore letters from the doctor anyway
SMFS & BiND,
I suspect a (understandably) nervous civil servant might consider that recording “birth sex” could fall foul, not just of the Twitteritariat but of s9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
They are, IMHO, correct to be worried. It shouldn’t (the OP being a good reason why) but that’s not the way the law is written. Note that s9 says ” if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man”.
Note that I recently received an lengthy online form from HMG which I gave up on when it asked me what sex my father was …
According to wiki.
Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex. Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another. Transgender is also an umbrella term: in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer or non-binary, including bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity.
What the fuck….and to think it wasn’t long ago we had just had boys and girls.
Some years ago a man in Somerset sued because after transition to female he was not put on the list for smear tests.
His query as to why he wasn’t on the list received a terse reply: you don’t have a cervix.
He claimed it was illegal discrimination.
The Trust won the case, but not before they had £8,000 legal costs.
So what happens if someone gets cancer and claims they missed the test because there were no reminders?
Gray’s Anatomy is reassuringly silent on where a dragonkin cervix can be found.
TMB, what about an expansive ornate building? Shouldn’t be too challenging to find it there!
‘Only trans people who register with their GP under their birth sex will automatically be invited to screening appropriate to their former gender’
It is neither former, nor gender. It is their sex.
“A bit less trivial to change all the screen views and other presentations, but not difficult.”
The people who know how may no longer be around.
The Meissen Bison – “Gray’s Anatomy is reassuringly silent on where a dragonkin cervix can be found.”
Well it was never the same after they got rid of Doctor McDreamy, but perhaps we can blame Isaiah Washington’s well known views on homosexuals?
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” – Philip K. Dick
These people are actually loons, and not men trapped in women or vice versa.
Closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and going “la la la, I’m actually a woman, la la la”, doesn’t magically make it so.
Who’d’a thunk it?
I suppose it would be less judgemental to ask how many chromosomes they have, but that relays on having an educated population.
Indeed I think BiND’s idea of “birth sex” may hit legal or political or medical ethics trouble (after all, the point of the thing is that this birth designation is believed to be wrong and some feel very strongly it must be expunged).
However “potential candidate for breast cancer screening” and “potential candidate for cervical cancer screening” fields might pass muster?
Also useful for those who refuse to recognise a gender (or who recognise themselves as agender or similar) and might cover some bases for those born with intermediate sexual characteristics (a small minority perhaps but one whose existence suggests that the screening needs may need to be recorded separately from the birth sex). Could one of our resident experts explain how people with that kind of background ought to screened – is it determined in a cautiously inclusive manner?
BiG: what about an expansive ornate building? Shouldn’t be too challenging to find it there!
Well obviously: an expansive ornate building will have a cervix lift.
If worst comes to worst, can they just identify as not having cancer?
I suppose it would be less judgemental to ask how many chromosomes they have, but that relays on having an educated population.
Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to ask which chromosomes they had?
Unless they’ve got Down’s, but that should be obvious without having to ask.
Yes, Bloke, we could add a “birth_sex” field. But that would be hurtful! Even the term “trans people” demands that we treat the patient’s insistence as the only relevant datum, and ignore the game of pretend; never ask, when setting up a cervical exam, whether the patient has a cervix. You cannot get good health care subordinating it to political taboos.
If the term ‘gender’ was – outside of the study of certain languages – relegated to the same status as the term ‘phlogiston’ we would all be much better off.
Well done, Sir
Pandering to any of the supposed “transgender” nonsense is stupid. More than that however, because TG tripe is the cutting edge of Marxist scum’s attempts to establish their subjectivist cockrot as a “legitimate” both metaphorically and as a matter of law, it needs to be dealt with very harshly.
A very small group of the mentally troubled are not a threat in themselves but socialist subjectivist bullshit will undermine almost everything if it is allowed to take root.
Therefore the state must be purged of all those who expound that men can become women via declaration and who further support demands to treat such troubled types as if their fantasises were true. No compromise with this nuttiness in any way whatsoever and to the gutter (sans/compo and pension) with all supporters of subjectivist evil in the state’s ranks.
To be clear–expressing concern for the mentally ill is fine. Supporting utterly false and insane Marxist doctrines is not. Do so in any way as a “public” employee–be it NHS, SCS whatever –and out you go.
Mr Ecks – Hear hear! Again, anyone is welcome to play pretend games at home, but it should be outside the scope of our governments to compel unwilling others to join in. Why does every issue need to be spun using language that treats misbehavior as a given and the rest of society as malleable?
One could mention that 100 men a year die of breast cancer. But calling in 10 million men for a test would be unreasonable. (Is there even a test? I suspect not).
Personally, I would prefer Civil Servants to obey the law of the country. Campaign to get the law changed – yes, please. But, whether you like it or not, both the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equalities Act 2010 are the law of the land.
Mr Ecks has fallen in to the usual trap of assuming that nobody will take advantage of the opportunities he has opened up (Obama executive orders etc) to bugger up his side of the (coughs) ‘debate’.
any second now the NIV will appear to tell us that transwomen can get cervical cancer and we are all wrong, backed up by some pseudo medical garbage taken off wikipedia.
So we modify the database at great (eyewatering) expense, to add fields for say “potential candidate for breast cancer screening” and “potential candidate for cervical cancer screening” so knowing the NHS, how many letters will be sent out to those of the male sex with no chance to great the error corrected!
SE–Were I PM then there would be forced thro’ a very quick “dustbin act”.
Laws that don’t serve would be thrown in a dustbin such that they are instantly non-operative awaiting full formal repeal. Or for that matter parts of particular acts. Formal repeal and the need to intimidate BluLabour scum would take too long.The laws you refer to would be amongst the first binned.
Yes–that is a dangerous path but your “work within the system”way SE–given that CM scum are now infesting just about everything–would achieve nothing. Except the defeat and destruction of everything decent and worthwhile. The laws you are so fond of will remain until they have served their purpose and the Corbins and McNasties are in place to rule without worrying about ANY laws EVER again.
Yes I and my dustbin act would be an a kind of Enabling act –until the crisis was past and matters had been fixed to ensure that (at least) socialist evil–the worst of history so far–will never triumph.
The Allies used –almost, save torture etc–the same methods and weapons as the Nazis. Because you can’t beat the wicked and murderous with anything less than an intent and determination equal to their own. And violence if needed as you also can’t beat the violent non-violently.
The difference is in intent. My plan would be for a world of freedom not tyranny. But that freedom will never appear if inadequate tactics allow the wicked to prevail.
Since there is not a chance in Hell of me–or anyone else not up statism/socialism’s arse– being PM you have nothing to worry about.
“any second now the NIV will appear to tell us that transwomen can get cervical cancer and we are all wrong, backed up by some pseudo medical garbage taken off wikipedia.”
As opposed to pseudo medical garbage picked out of your own butts? 🙂
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
But you’re going to carry on going “La. La. La.” anyway?
“What the fuck….and to think it wasn’t long ago we had just had boys and girls.”
How long ago was Elagabalus? 222 AD? You must be older than you sound!
“Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to ask which chromosomes they had?
Unless they’ve got Down’s, but that should be obvious without having to ask.”
Well done! You saved me the effort! It’s nice to see someone who has a clue, for a change.
“Also useful for those who refuse to recognise a gender (or who recognise themselves as agender or similar) and might cover some bases for those born with intermediate sexual characteristics (a small minority perhaps but one whose existence suggests that the screening needs may need to be recorded separately from the birth sex). Could one of our resident experts explain how people with that kind of background ought to screened – is it determined in a cautiously inclusive manner?”
Brilliant! Exactly the point!
Besides the transgender, there are a whole bunch of people who are intersex, hermaphrodite, Klinefelter syndrome XXY, Jacob’s syndrome XYY, XXYY, tetrasomous XXXX and other curious intermediate states – that I think even *you* guys would find difficult to definitively categorise – and they clearly have specialised medical needs not satisfied by the binary tickbox mentality. It would be like booking Siamese twins in for separate appointments…
But well done to Tim for keeping up the steady stream of TG obsessiveness! You can’t blame me!
The problem with adding database fields for “may be suspeptable to breast cancer”, “may be suseptable to cervical cancer”, is that you have hundreds of fields instead of just the one sole “biological sex” field, and you have to be on the ball enough to send “ovarian cancer screening” to the people with the “may have ovaries” field if that field even exists, instead of to the half of your patients with the “biology=female” field.
God spot, I missed the “Y” in my question.
fuck off NiV you monomaniacal bore.
Fuck off yourself, Tony.
“Besides the transgender, there are a whole bunch of people who are intersex, hermaphrodite, Klinefelter syndrome XXY”
When I was studying math, we never got to “a whole bunch.” What is that, about 8 people?
Klinefelter syndrome occurs in males. There is nothing indeterminate about them.
“When I was studying math, we never got to “a whole bunch.””
Somehow, that doesn’t surprise me.
NiV – “How long ago was Elagabalus? 222 AD? You must be older than you sound!”
Surely the point about Elagabalus is that when a Roman historian wanted to record (or more likely invent) a story designed to discredit an Arab, they came up with what they thought was cast iron proof of his insanity. How little did they know.
“Besides the transgender, there are a whole bunch of people who are intersex, hermaphrodite, Klinefelter syndrome XXY, Jacob’s syndrome XYY, XXYY, tetrasomous XXXX and other curious intermediate states”
None of that whole bunch have anything to do with the transgender community at all. As much as apologists like to pretend otherwise.
“Surely the point about Elagabalus is that when a Roman historian wanted to record (or more likely invent) a story designed to discredit an Arab, they came up with what they thought was cast iron proof of his insanity.”
Surely the point is they they were obviously not inventing anything, since they described the exact same symptoms we see today so precisely? Humans have always had such cases. Only a Roman Emperor had the power to tell the rest of society to stuff their rules.
“None of that whole bunch have anything to do with the transgender community at all. As much as apologists like to pretend otherwise.”
Transgenderism is just one more in the collection, although they’re all distinct from one another. TGs have nothing to “apologise” for.
But you’re missing the point. The point is that the NHS’s current crude criteria for sending letters out will clearly go wrong in other cases as well. And in those other cases, where you’re not blinded by your frothing hatred and delusion, you may possibly be able to see that this is just another bureaucratic snafu that can (and will) be fixed by a slightly more detailed database categorisation to catch the edge cases.
Boring, ordinary, routine, insignificant. The only reason for Tim to bring it up is so that we can have this conversation.
But you’re going to carry on going “La. La. La.” anyway?
I’m looking at the evidence.
If you have a Y-chromosome, you’re male. If you don’t you’re female.
But since I don’t regularly carry around a chromosome-o-matic measuring device, I have to rely on mechanisms that have evolved naturally over thousands of years – looking at primary and secondary characteristics. i.e. does the person I’m talking to have a dick/beard/combination o above/etc? Yes = male. No = female.
Now there are a vanishingly small number of people who don’t fall neatly into these categories – hemaphrodites mainly.
I think the main problem is interpretation. You see them as being trapped in the other body, I just see them as nuts. No amount of pointing at scientific papers is going to convince me that a bloke with a dick is a woman. By arguing that, you’re fighting thousands of years of evolved instinct and programmed behaviour. Similarly, a man walking around, tattooed to an extreme with dead snakes in his hair, still just triggers the pattern recognition circuits that say “human, male” (and also “nutter”) – not the ones that say “dragon”.
You can’t program these circuits by rote memorisation.
If these people want to dress up and pretend to be mythical creatures/other genders, and butcher themselves in the process, fine. Have at it. But I WILL NOT take part in their stupid games. I’m already pissed off that I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for it by the NHS and their trans operations. I wouldn’t object to sending them to a psychiatrist, which is what they need.
There is also the public safety factor. By allowing blokes with dicks who say they’re women into female spaces, like toilets, you’re opening the door easier for some psycho to go and attack women. It will happen. It already happens, but lets not make it easier.
“Boring, ordinary, routine, insignificant. The only reason for Tim to bring it up is so that we can have this conversation.”
“But I WILL NOT take part in their stupid games.”
Exactly. We resist the NiVs of the world trying to redefine normalcy.
If they have had enough surgery, they won’t have breasts or cervixes, so what the heck. They also won’t have testicles, so no testicular cancer either. Win Win.
Or maybe there is a virtual cancer that happens in organs you don’t have?
“Nope. I’m looking at the evidence.”
Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Are you looking at the evidence, or are you picking your own definitions?
“No amount of pointing at scientific papers is going to convince me that a bloke with a dick is a woman. By arguing that, you’re fighting thousands of years of evolved instinct and programmed behaviour.”
Agreed. Science often disagrees with instinct and intuition. And there are always people who will go with their programmed instinct and intuition.
“If these people want to dress up and pretend to be mythical creatures/other genders, and butcher themselves in the process, fine. Have at it. But I WILL NOT take part in their stupid games.”
It depends where you draw the line, but yes I’d agree with that – on the understanding that you accept that nobody else has to take part in what they see as YOUR stupid games, including a lot of the stuff you don’t regard as a game.
The problem with authoritarians is that they always write the rules on the assumption that they’re the ones in charge. You need to consider what happens when people who don’t like you and your kind say the same sort of thing.
“I’m already pissed off that I’m forced at gunpoint to pay for it by the NHS and their trans operations.”
This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. You don’t get to tell doctors what to do, who they can treat, and how. You don’t get to pick and choose.
I know people who hate smokers with a holy passion, and are truly pissed off that they’re forced to pay for their lung cancer treatment. I’ve seen people say the same about drunks and fat people. You can be fat if you like, but don’t make me pay extra for your NHS treatment. You can get drunk on a Friday night if you like, but we’re not going to pay for you to be pumped out or stitched up, and if you die as a result so what? You can smoke if you like, but then you don’t get me to pay for it if you get cancer. And so on.
You can even have the same thing with the rich. They can afford private health care – why should we poor people earning a pittance pay for the treatment of some millionaire? Why should we divert desperately needed resources to someone who doesn’t need them, when others are dying for lack of resources? And so on.
Nobody wants to pay for the treatment of people they don’t like. And there are a lot of people who don’t like *you*. So where do you want us to be able to draw the line?
The principle is that *everyone* has to pay taxes, so *everyone* gets the benefits of tax spending, without exception or discrimination, or limitation only to the “deserving” (by whatever definition). The only alternative I’ll accept is that *nobody* has to pay, and *nobody* gets treated. Because otherwise you can look forward to a world where *you’re* the one judged undeserving, and denied treatment even while you still have to pay taxes.
I mean, why should we give tax-funded NHS treatment to people who don’t support the NHS being tax-funded? Do such mad/evil/hypocritical people *deserve* to be treated?
Can you see where such a line of argument goes?
” I wouldn’t object to sending them to a psychiatrist, which is what they need.”
The same principle applies. The majority can likewise declare transphobia to be a mental illness (a form of delusional system immune to any amount of contrary scientific evidence) that potentially makes them a danger to others (the level of transphobic violence is still high, we need to take precautions). and send anyone found to suffer from it to the psychiatrist. They can also deny them employment, take their children into care, stop them voting, or even get them committed. There’s precedent for it.
Of course your *biggest* problem with this line of action is that the psychiatrists you sent TGs to would just send them home because the psychiatric profession have repeatedly declared that it’s NOT a mental illness.
And *you* don’t get to tell them otherwise, no matter *how* convinced you are by programming and instinct.
“There is also the public safety factor. By allowing blokes with dicks who say they’re women into female spaces, like toilets, you’re opening the door easier for some psycho to go and attack women. It will happen. It already happens, but lets not make it easier.”
The problem with this assertion is that it’s already been found to be wrong. MtF TGs have been allowed into women’s toilets in the UK since the Equality Act of 2000. The “bathroom laws” in the US have been applied in 19 states and over 200 jurisdictions. *No* increase in crimes against women in toilets has been observed.
Again, I don’t expect pointing to such surveys and statistics will make any difference. Some people just can’t break their programming. But you’re not going to make very much progress arguing for a change of policy by ignoring the statistics that everyone else is basing their political decisions on. They’ll just write you off as a bunch of loonies and ignore you.
“Exactly. We resist the NiVs of the world trying to redefine normalcy.”
It’s already been redefined. You are no longer “normal”, statistically speaking. More than half the population of the UK already say prejudice against TGs is “always wrong”. That’s normal now. *You* don’t get to redefine it by fiat, either.
I sympathise with your frustration. It’s never fun when society moves on and leaves you stranded. It’s the wisdom of your strategy I’m questioning.
“It’s already been redefined.”
Only in your mind. WE get to decide what’s normal to us.
“Only in your mind. WE get to decide what’s normal to us.”
Ah! Marxian Subjectivism, as Ecksy would put it! Everyone gets to decide what’s ‘normal’ for themselves! Look at our feeelz! 🙂
I think you mean “normative”.
NiV, you are going La La La.
I don’t have the time now for a full response, but I can do so in the morning if you wish.
Regarding the NHS, you make a very compelling argument for abolishing it. (which I agree with) how about an insurance based system where people can choose who pays for and provides their health care? That way I could choose an insurer that won’t pay for stuff I don’t agree with, instead of having the state force me to. I might even have to pay more, which I would be willing to do. But I should have that choice.
And the comment about hypocrits with insurance who use the NHS, well I have private health insurance. It requires me to go the NHS GP first. They then pay for actual treatment. Though just to let you know, I don’t use doctors in this country. Haven’t come across a good one yet (aside from one surgeon who was ok), I go abroad. So still not a hypocrit. As far as am I aware, this is standard amongst health insurance for the UK. Happy to be corrected if it isn’t.
“Regarding the NHS, you make a very compelling argument for abolishing it. (which I agree with) how about an insurance based system where people can choose who pays for and provides their health care?”
Fine by me.
“And the comment about hypocrits with insurance who use the NHS, well I have private health insurance.”
Fair enough. I can’t argue with that. If it’s your position that the masses ought to be able to forbid those rich enough to afford health insurance from being treated on the NHS, and you live by that rule yourself, I can’t criticise you for inconsistency.
I prefer libertarianism myself, but I have to concede that an authoritarian who sticks to the principle even when they’re a victim of it is at least being honest and principled about it. I’m impressed! It’s the first time as far as I can recall that anyone has taken that counter-position! Very good!
And thanks. It’s been educational.