OT: Women's Healthcare Changes, US, Aug 1, 2012

[Artemisia]

Well, I didn't intend for this to become a long discussion about trans issues...however, the ACA actually helps the trans community some with regards to coverage.

And with that...Freemage- I absolutely have to have the surgery, but I can't afford it. It's a large reason as to why I've been having so many issues with depression.

[Freemage]

Well, I didn't intend for this to become a long discussion about trans issues...however, the ACA actually helps the trans community some with regards to coverage.

And with that...Freemage- I absolutely have to have the surgery, but I can't afford it. It's a large reason as to why I've been having so many issues with depression.

Oh, I know you've stated that you're in the 'need to have' category. I'm just saying that the law, across the board, should be recognizing your status as a woman well before that. Ie, you're "a woman in need of a specific procedure", not "a man waiting to become a woman physically" or somesuch.

[CJ]

Okay, I might just be stupid in the head. I admit that my knowledge of trans issues is, well, minimal.

But I promise I am asking these all on a biological/medical standpoint.

As gender A (female or male), there are "these" conditions that a person should be concerned about. However, if this person changes to gender B legally, then person is gender B. But shouldn't that person still be concerned about gender A's issues? Like higher chance in colon cancer, or risk of ovarian cancer? Higher chance in breast cancer (which I know is possible for genetic males to have)?

How should the paperwork issue be approached? I mean, person is gender B legally, but should still be covered for issues of having been born gender A, right?

This healthcare business just got so much more complicated in my head. Thanks guys. Now I don't know anything ever.

[Valerie]

Okay, I might just be stupid in the head. I admit that my knowledge of trans issues is, well, minimal.

But I promise I am asking these all on a biological/medical standpoint.

As gender A (female or male), there are "these" conditions that a person should be concerned about. However, if this person changes to gender B legally, then person is gender B. But shouldn't that person still be concerned about gender A's issues? Like higher chance in colon cancer, or risk of ovarian cancer? Higher chance in breast cancer (which I know is possible for genetic males to have)?

How should the paperwork issue be approached? I mean, person is gender B legally, but should still be covered for issues of having been born gender A, right?

This healthcare business just got so much more complicated in my head. Thanks guys. Now I don't know anything ever.

Saaaame. D:

This is all the same stuff I was wondering. I am happy to refer to a trans person by zir preferred pronouns and everything. Art is a woman. This is just a fact to me. But her body is not quite what we would generally think of as "female," and so I would think, from a medical standpoint, that has to be addressed in some way to keep her healthy. I mean, srsly, she's eligible for cervix screenings despite not having a cervix, and ineligible for breast exams, even though she's much more likely to get breast cancer than cervical cancer (since any person of any sex can get that).

And then there's the issue of other things that she, being listed as female, would not be checked for. Prostate checks, for example.

Art, I'm really sorry if this conversation is making you at all uncomfortable. I'm just confused.

[Artemisia]

it's ok, Val. I'm not offended.

Yes, I am at risk for prostate cancer- though not as much as I use to be. I am at a greater risk for breast cancer than anyone who was born physically male, though. I can also get all the normal ailments that women get except for issues relating to reproductive systems. There are a few things like checking the prostate that will be easier after sex reassignment surgery, though, and, yes, the prostate will remain intact after the surgery. After about two years on HRT and post surgical castration, the chances for things like breast cancer, colon cancer, osteoporosis, etc normalize to what would be normal for any other woman.

I should add that I cannot get ovarian or uterine cancer, but nor can I get testicular cancer.

The only part of the body that doesn't change on the hormones is the bone structures. Everything else from musculature to skin tone and hair changes.

What we don't understand, though, is why I suffer from all the ailments that the women in my family suffer from and none of the ones from the male side of the family. The only familial male trait that I have is curly hair. Just about everyone thinks I'm intersexed including many doctors, but I can't afford to have all the testing done.

I hope that helps explain it.

Gender-wise, Val, there are some people who prefer being referred to as zir or they, but it is very subjective. I know that they'll appreciate it, though

[Captain LeBubbles]

Gender-wise, Val, there are some people who prefer being referred to as zir or they, but it is very subjective. I know that they'll appreciate it, though

Well I maintain that most gender-neutral pronouns just sound silly and break the rhythm of the sentence, but that's just my own personal view of it. They and them works better, but it should be to the person in question to decide. (Speaking as an agender who's given the subject way too much thought).

As for the other thing, a person's doctor should be told these sorts of things, for the purpose of the patients health. But rather than treating it as a gender thing, they should treat it as a medical history, ie, "Patient A was born with this condition, and had x, y, and z done to correct it to the degree that they felt most comfortable with" rather than "Patient A was born a boy, and is a girl now".

Which... I'm pretty sure was what you lot are already saying? Just giving my seventeen cents.

[CJ]

Gender-wise, Val, there are some people who prefer being referred to as zir or they, but it is very subjective. I know that they'll appreciate it, though

Well I maintain that most gender-neutral pronouns just sound silly and break the rhythm of the sentence, but that's just my own personal view of it. They and them works better, but it should be to the person in question to decide. (Speaking as an agender who's given the subject way too much thought).

As for the other thing, a person's doctor should be told these sorts of things, for the purpose of the patients health. But rather than treating it as a gender thing, they should treat it as a medical history, ie, "Patient A was born with this condition, and had x, y, and z done to correct it to the degree that they felt most comfortable with" rather than "Patient A was born a boy, and is a girl now".

Which... I'm pretty sure was what you lot are already saying? Just giving my seventeen cents.

Yes, that's what we're talking about and, yeah, that sounds logical. I think. >.<

But goodness knows if I know anything. This sounds like years of doctors and lawyers discussing things to make sure that every patient benefits and receives what they need. -.-

[Artemisia]

Gender-wise, Val, there are some people who prefer being referred to as zir or they, but it is very subjective. I know that they'll appreciate it, though

Well I maintain that most gender-neutral pronouns just sound silly and break the rhythm of the sentence, but that's just my own personal view of it. They and them works better, but it should be to the person in question to decide. (Speaking as an agender who's given the subject way too much thought).

As for the other thing, a person's doctor should be told these sorts of things, for the purpose of the patients health. But rather than treating it as a gender thing, they should treat it as a medical history, ie, "Patient A was born with this condition, and had x, y, and z done to correct it to the degree that they felt most comfortable with" rather than "Patient A was born a boy, and is a girl now".

Which... I'm pretty sure was what you lot are already saying? Just giving my seventeen cents.

Yes, that's what we're talking about and, yeah, that sounds logical. I think. >.<

But goodness knows if I know anything. This sounds like years of doctors and lawyers discussing things to make sure that every patient benefits and receives what they need. -.-

A transsexual is suppose to go through a minimum of two years of therapy coupled with hormone replacement therapy and possible surgery. I've been 'in transition' now since 99. . .I've been living as a woman full time since '04 and on HRT since '08. I had my orchiectomy (surgical castration) in '10.

[CJ]

As for the other thing, a person's doctor should be told these sorts of things, for the purpose of the patients health. But rather than treating it as a gender thing, they should treat it as a medical history, ie, "Patient A was born with this condition, and had x, y, and z done to correct it to the degree that they felt most comfortable with" rather than "Patient A was born a boy, and is a girl now".

But goodness knows if I know anything. This sounds like years of doctors and lawyers discussing things to make sure that every patient benefits and receives what they need. -.-

A transsexual is suppose to go through a minimum of two years of therapy coupled with hormone replacement therapy and possible surgery. I've been 'in transition' now since 99. . .I've been living as a woman full time since '04 and on HRT since '08. I had my orchiectomy (surgical castration) in '10.

To clarify: I believe it will take years for doctors and lawyers to discuss how health care should work specifically for trans people, since, simply, a trans body is more complicated than a [non-trans?] body. You can't put trans in a box as simply as you can put "born and always will be female" or "born and always will be male" in a box. Cis women have to worry about THESE things. Cis men have to worry about THOSE things.

Trans men/women have to worry about THESE things, THOSE things, and SOME OTHER THINGS OVER HERE (due to the procedure, hormones, etc.)

And since it is a process, the transition, that's going to affect the healthcare needed as well.

[Artemisia]

As for the other thing, a person's doctor should be told these sorts of things, for the purpose of the patients health. But rather than treating it as a gender thing, they should treat it as a medical history, ie, "Patient A was born with this condition, and had x, y, and z done to correct it to the degree that they felt most comfortable with" rather than "Patient A was born a boy, and is a girl now".

But goodness knows if I know anything. This sounds like years of doctors and lawyers discussing things to make sure that every patient benefits and receives what they need. -.-

A transsexual is suppose to go through a minimum of two years of therapy coupled with hormone replacement therapy and possible surgery. I've been 'in transition' now since 99. . .I've been living as a woman full time since '04 and on HRT since '08. I had my orchiectomy (surgical castration) in '10.

To clarify: I believe it will take years for doctors and lawyers to discuss how health care should work specifically for trans people, since, simply, a trans body is more complicated than a [non-trans?] body. You can't put trans in a box as simply as you can put "born and always will be female" or "born and always will be male" in a box. Cis women have to worry about THESE things. Cis men have to worry about THOSE things.

Trans men/women have to worry about THESE things, THOSE things, and SOME OTHER THINGS OVER HERE (due to the procedure, hormones, etc.)

And since it is a process, the transition, that's going to affect the healthcare needed as well.

Ok, got you, and you're right.

[Bardlp]

Ooooh! Yes! They covered HPV vaccinations for children! *Pumps fist*

Of course they cover a vaccine that was so painful I nearly puked from the first in the series. If anybody else has a similar reaction, the comedy value means it should be free!

Gender-wise, Val, there are some people who prefer being referred to as zir or they, but it is very subjective. I know that they'll appreciate it, though

Well I maintain that most gender-neutral pronouns just sound silly and break the rhythm of the sentence, but that's just my own personal view of it. They and them works better, but it should be to the person in question to decide. (Speaking as an agender who's given the subject way too much thought).

I still think English should just get over the fact that we've been using "they" as a singular for seven hundred years and make it official. Or steal some more grammar and vocabulary from Chinese. Either way.