Jerrica Kerkley, CMO of Plume, said during a recent Q&A that there is “never any clinical need for a hysterectomy in a person taking testosterone.” an audacious lie that isaac (formerly cluniac) has preserved on video.
exulansic, it's so important you describe it as 'at doses needed to feminize.' that's a whole lot, i imagine. a gyn who is virulently anti-HRT for post-menopausal women [who was wearing a 'she/her ID button], i said to her, 'but you are giving hormones to these trans identified men.' she said, 'but we only give the same exact amount that a premenopausal women has in her system.' but that 'same amount' is the amount she refuses to give an older woman. and she in fact refused to give *any* HRT to an older woman. a woman with low genetic cancer risk btw. it is simply illogical.
this is why it's so critical that you have made the point i haven't seen anyone else make--that estrogen given to a man has a greatly different disease risk than when given to a woman. and testosterone vice versa. they're not made for it.
and what is this 'dose needed to feminize,' specifically? most of these men do not have their genitals lopped. so the estrogen has to be enough to counter all the testosterone being produced.
I wonder what the rate of prostate cancer is. That one's a lot harder to find and I'm sure all the urinary issues that go along with genital surgery don't make the symptoms easy to spot.
i was looking at the pages for 'UCSF transgender care center' the other night. there is mention of risks of messing with hormones, in various places. one page smoothly brushes it all over. another page, perhaps written by someone else, has such a long and obfuscatory set of paragraphs about risks, including cancer, that one might even think they were hand-waving and attempting to claim informed consent offered, in the same text. it was tangled enough i stopped trying to follow it--which may have been the aim--much less i think anyone who doesn't read medical studies a lot following it. a very great deal of minimizing and qualifying. most ordinary people do not really understand well how to assess risk, in general--we're not taught how to. so a whole pile of plausible deniability here.
they also seem to want customers so badly that they make a point of saying that even being homeless isn't a barrier to them doing entirely elective cosmetic surgery on a person. [never mind why they are homeless, like mental illness/addiction/severe physical illness/destitution, and whether maybe it would be good to get that person solidly ensconced in stable circumstances first.
yes. a lot of links. you will need to plow through them to see how they handle these questions. keeping in mind that many websites are, at bottom, public relations.
Monstrous mutilation. 😠😡🤬 😢
Jerrica Kerkley, CMO of Plume, said during a recent Q&A that there is “never any clinical need for a hysterectomy in a person taking testosterone.” an audacious lie that isaac (formerly cluniac) has preserved on video.
WOW
girl i ain’t lying: skip to 8:27 if you like https://youtu.be/LfkaNXQbr9I
yes, that is one of Isaacs best videos I think. Some very revealing trans lies and propaganda revealed.
So great that Isaac is still putting out quality content when his health allows.
Jesus Christ.
the docs should be testing people for the commonly known cancer-risk variants before giving hormones.
what is the breast cancer rate in men? it's low. good to clarify this and then multiply.
exulansic, it's so important you describe it as 'at doses needed to feminize.' that's a whole lot, i imagine. a gyn who is virulently anti-HRT for post-menopausal women [who was wearing a 'she/her ID button], i said to her, 'but you are giving hormones to these trans identified men.' she said, 'but we only give the same exact amount that a premenopausal women has in her system.' but that 'same amount' is the amount she refuses to give an older woman. and she in fact refused to give *any* HRT to an older woman. a woman with low genetic cancer risk btw. it is simply illogical.
this is why it's so critical that you have made the point i haven't seen anyone else make--that estrogen given to a man has a greatly different disease risk than when given to a woman. and testosterone vice versa. they're not made for it.
and what is this 'dose needed to feminize,' specifically? most of these men do not have their genitals lopped. so the estrogen has to be enough to counter all the testosterone being produced.
Oh, nothing, just a little cancer from all the pseudoscience
I wonder what the rate of prostate cancer is. That one's a lot harder to find and I'm sure all the urinary issues that go along with genital surgery don't make the symptoms easy to spot.
i was looking at the pages for 'UCSF transgender care center' the other night. there is mention of risks of messing with hormones, in various places. one page smoothly brushes it all over. another page, perhaps written by someone else, has such a long and obfuscatory set of paragraphs about risks, including cancer, that one might even think they were hand-waving and attempting to claim informed consent offered, in the same text. it was tangled enough i stopped trying to follow it--which may have been the aim--much less i think anyone who doesn't read medical studies a lot following it. a very great deal of minimizing and qualifying. most ordinary people do not really understand well how to assess risk, in general--we're not taught how to. so a whole pile of plausible deniability here.
they also seem to want customers so badly that they make a point of saying that even being homeless isn't a barrier to them doing entirely elective cosmetic surgery on a person. [never mind why they are homeless, like mental illness/addiction/severe physical illness/destitution, and whether maybe it would be good to get that person solidly ensconced in stable circumstances first.
Can you send them to me? exulandback@gmail.com
yes. a lot of links. you will need to plow through them to see how they handle these questions. keeping in mind that many websites are, at bottom, public relations.