Er, why would the prostate need to remain when all the (reproductive) boy bits have been chopped off? Sounds like they WANT these people to suffer from prostate cancer! And given almost all very old men die WITH prostate cancer (but not of it), it's kind of stupid to leave the prostate in, isn't it? And there's the fast-growing prostate cancers in usually younger men to consider as well (or in this case, younger men who have had surgery to pretend to be 'women')...
Then again, IMO it's pretty stupid to do the gender reassignment surgery in the first place but hey, horses for courses. My only consolation is that these people won't be able to breed afterwards.
I'm guessing it's incredibly difficult to remove the prostate given its location???
The real question for me though is, given that this is a Veterans Affairs study, how did so many men who enlisted in the military - about the most macho career choice you can think of - end up deciding that they would rather dress up as women???????
They go into the military for the perks they get . Free education, free meals, free healthcare etc. Few seem to go into the military to serve and protect anymore but that was always the leftist's end game....destruction of the finest military in the world.
I suppose there's a pretty big risk of slicing the ureter. But honestly, with everything else they're slicing, there are massive risks anyway!
But yes, ha ha re. the Vet Affairs study. I can see your point!
BUT don't forget that many men who are homosexual (and let's be honest, the people who have gender reassignment surgery are gay) have too MUCH testosterone. Not all of the gay guys out there are super-camp! And believe it or not, the many military men I've met over the years are not always as macho as you might think...
But still, loads and loads of gender-changing military guys is a bit strange!!
Oh that skit is gold! :-D Some big Hollywood names in that skit, too!
But no, I doubt there'd be many obvious gays like that in skit in the Military, but they're still out there. Hell, plenty of people pretend they're straight for so many years (to keep the parents happy, to keep with their Faith, to lie to themselves etc etc) before they finally realise they are not in fact straight! So you'll find them in the Military, too. Those who are self-aware probably just attempt to wear a non-gay 'hat' for their work in the military, like we all wear 'hats' for our jobs etc. It's probably a bit difficult for them, but still, the percentage of non-straight in the population is not very high at all, military or not!
I would imagine that if you really believed you were a woman trapped in a man's body, then joining the military would be a great way to mix with 'real' men.
I wonder how many ways there are to impute some sort of blame to mothers.
When I get the opportunity, I like to say to expectant feminist mothers: "Do you know that from seven months your little boy is getting plenty of hard-ons while he's in there. So, once he's a teenager, it's going to be your responsibility to keep him out of women's bodies, or you've only got yourself to blame for any unintended consequences."
I feel one needs to say something like this because, as you know, feminism means never having to admit responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
More pertinent than surgery I should think is the endocrinology factor, in particular the hormonal cascade. Presumably the subjects were being injected with female hormones, though I have to admit I don't know what happens with the hormonal cascade in trans cases. Maybe nothing unusual. I just don't know.
In a normal male the cascade will result in oestrogen converting to testosterone and, depending on other factors, the 5-alpha reductase enzyme will catalyse testoterone to the more potent dihydrotestosterone, which in turn may lead to prostatic hypertrophy and eventually prostate cancer. So, does more oestrogen entering an essentially male body end up producing more testosterone? Surely not. Though some of these transwomen do seem to exhibit pretty agressive behaviour, I have to say.
For women who have higher levels of testosterone than is usually the case for a woman, their risk of Skene's glands/female prostate? cancer also increases, because they too have the 5-alpha reductase enzyme converting testosterone to dihydrotestosterone.
Was there anything in this study that addressed hormonal factors, which may give us a clearer picture than foregoing a prostatectomy?
The hormonal cascade actually goes the other way: testosterone is converted to estradiol, and that conversion is not reversible. It's progesterone that's the precursor to testosterone (via 17-hydroxy-progesterone and androstenedione).
"Among 449 patients with prostate cancer and transgender identity codes, 155 (35%, an estimated 14 cases per year) were confirmed transgender women with prostate cancer: 116 never used estrogen, 17 formerly used estrogen, and 22 actively used estrogen at diagnosis. All prostate cancer diagnoses were screen detected. At diagnosis, the median age was 61 years, 88% were White, median PSA was 6.8 ng/mL, the median duration of estrogen use was 32 months among former and active estrogen users, 43% (50 of 115) were biopsy grade group 1, and 45% (49 of 108) were clinical stage T1 (Table); 98% (152 of 155) had not undergone bilateral orchiectomy. Biopsy grade group 1 or 2 was found in 58 of 82 patients (71%) with no prior estrogen use, 9 of 16 (56%) with former estrogen use, and 9 of 17 (53%) with estrogen use at diagnosis.
The percentage of patients with biopsy grade group 4 or 5 was 23% (19 of 82) of patients who never used estrogen, 10 (12%) of whom were grade group 5; 25% (4 of 16) of former users, 1 (6%) of whom was grade group 5; and 35% (6 of 17) of active users, 5 (29%) of whom were grade group 5. The median PSA density was 0.21 ng/mL/g for never estrogen users, 0.26 ng/mL/g for former users, and 0.31 ng/mL/g for active users."
In other words, use of estrogen was associated with more aggressive prostate cancer.
Well, that'll teach me to bang on about something straight off the top of my head without even doing some basic fact checking. My only excuse is that it was written around 3 a m. I also couldn't tell you the last time this subject was on my mind.
I do remember, though, that the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone facilitated by 5-alpha reductase was the big consideration regarding the development of hypertrophy and prostate cancer in men.
It sounds like the study is saying that the hormonal cascade in transwomen pretty much ends with estradiol, with no significant conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, so it does sound like transwomen more closely resemble women than men, at least hormonally. I'm presuming that the study never found any reason to consider the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone if testosterone levels were generally identical to those of women. Obviously, estrogen levels are a big consideration for women in relation to breast cancer. I wonder, then, if transwomen are also at an increased risk of breast cancer; or, for whatever reason, the main target is still the prostate. (Sorry, I don't like the modern misappropriation of the word 'gender'. Although, in a way its use would actually indicate that a real biological change of sex never took place if one still accepts its original meaning).
"I'm a stranger here myself"
Music by Kurt Weill. Lyrics by Ogden Nash (If gender is just a word in grammar how can I ever find my way)
There's still going to be some conversion of testosterone to DHT, as this is a separate pathway to the testosterone to estrogen pathway. 5 alpha reductase is made in the liver, brain and skin as well as in reproductive organs. The main driver of DHT formation though is the level of testosterone, so presumably men who are taking medication to suppress testosterone would have lower DHT levels.
Regarding breast cancer risk, my guess is that it would increase with greater duration of taking exogenous estrogen.
Bottom line is that no one has the faintest idea how much damage is going to be done by all this monkey-wrenching of reproductive hormones. It's unbelievably irresponsible of the medical profession to be conducting this mass experiment on people who have psychological problems.
Thanks for taking the trouble to remind me of the different pathways involved. Plenty more knowledge has seemingly just drained away in recent years. Some uninterrupted sleep would help, I think.
A new Boston University study confirms your sentiments in the last paragraph - two youths dead!
I don't think there's much cause for optimism either. At the moment all efforts at legal redress seem to be targeted mainly at the vaccine injured - and with mixed results.
I almost wished I hadn't asked to see the rest of it. That scene where...you know the one - reminded me of a conversation I had with a woman at work around 35 years ago. She had previously worked in a sex reassignment clinic and was determined to explain to me in as much detail as possible what the procedure entailed. I spent the next several minutes in cross-legged squirminess, I have to tell you.
Er, why would the prostate need to remain when all the (reproductive) boy bits have been chopped off? Sounds like they WANT these people to suffer from prostate cancer! And given almost all very old men die WITH prostate cancer (but not of it), it's kind of stupid to leave the prostate in, isn't it? And there's the fast-growing prostate cancers in usually younger men to consider as well (or in this case, younger men who have had surgery to pretend to be 'women')...
Then again, IMO it's pretty stupid to do the gender reassignment surgery in the first place but hey, horses for courses. My only consolation is that these people won't be able to breed afterwards.
I'm guessing it's incredibly difficult to remove the prostate given its location???
The real question for me though is, given that this is a Veterans Affairs study, how did so many men who enlisted in the military - about the most macho career choice you can think of - end up deciding that they would rather dress up as women???????
They go into the military for the perks they get . Free education, free meals, free healthcare etc. Few seem to go into the military to serve and protect anymore but that was always the leftist's end game....destruction of the finest military in the world.
Yes, the sense of mission seems to have been lost.
I suppose there's a pretty big risk of slicing the ureter. But honestly, with everything else they're slicing, there are massive risks anyway!
But yes, ha ha re. the Vet Affairs study. I can see your point!
BUT don't forget that many men who are homosexual (and let's be honest, the people who have gender reassignment surgery are gay) have too MUCH testosterone. Not all of the gay guys out there are super-camp! And believe it or not, the many military men I've met over the years are not always as macho as you might think...
But still, loads and loads of gender-changing military guys is a bit strange!!
So you're telling me the Gays in the Military skit was for real https://youtu.be/16rGLmupdlI?
Oh that skit is gold! :-D Some big Hollywood names in that skit, too!
But no, I doubt there'd be many obvious gays like that in skit in the Military, but they're still out there. Hell, plenty of people pretend they're straight for so many years (to keep the parents happy, to keep with their Faith, to lie to themselves etc etc) before they finally realise they are not in fact straight! So you'll find them in the Military, too. Those who are self-aware probably just attempt to wear a non-gay 'hat' for their work in the military, like we all wear 'hats' for our jobs etc. It's probably a bit difficult for them, but still, the percentage of non-straight in the population is not very high at all, military or not!
I would imagine that if you really believed you were a woman trapped in a man's body, then joining the military would be a great way to mix with 'real' men.
Best joke I've seen along those lines (only works when delivered by men, sadly, so I haven't been able to use it) is
"I used to feel like a man trapped in a woman's body... but then my mother gave birth to me."
I wonder how many ways there are to impute some sort of blame to mothers.
When I get the opportunity, I like to say to expectant feminist mothers: "Do you know that from seven months your little boy is getting plenty of hard-ons while he's in there. So, once he's a teenager, it's going to be your responsibility to keep him out of women's bodies, or you've only got yourself to blame for any unintended consequences."
I feel one needs to say something like this because, as you know, feminism means never having to admit responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
I always tell my new mum clients that the alternative way to spell 'mother' is G-U-I-L-T-Y.
Passing the sacrament of g.u.i.l.t. from one mother to the next is the least you could do.
I hadn't thought of that! 'Hello sailor/soldier/pilot!'
Ha. Remember this? https://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2018/10/09/a-portland-state-university-professor-made-up-a-study-of-dog-on-dog-sexual-assault-and-got-the-hoax-published/
My favourite was the Mein Kampf rewrite: https://www.timesofisrael.com/duped-academic-journal-publishes-rewrite-of-mein-kampf-as-feminist-manifesto/
More pertinent than surgery I should think is the endocrinology factor, in particular the hormonal cascade. Presumably the subjects were being injected with female hormones, though I have to admit I don't know what happens with the hormonal cascade in trans cases. Maybe nothing unusual. I just don't know.
In a normal male the cascade will result in oestrogen converting to testosterone and, depending on other factors, the 5-alpha reductase enzyme will catalyse testoterone to the more potent dihydrotestosterone, which in turn may lead to prostatic hypertrophy and eventually prostate cancer. So, does more oestrogen entering an essentially male body end up producing more testosterone? Surely not. Though some of these transwomen do seem to exhibit pretty agressive behaviour, I have to say.
For women who have higher levels of testosterone than is usually the case for a woman, their risk of Skene's glands/female prostate? cancer also increases, because they too have the 5-alpha reductase enzyme converting testosterone to dihydrotestosterone.
Was there anything in this study that addressed hormonal factors, which may give us a clearer picture than foregoing a prostatectomy?
The hormonal cascade actually goes the other way: testosterone is converted to estradiol, and that conversion is not reversible. It's progesterone that's the precursor to testosterone (via 17-hydroxy-progesterone and androstenedione).
From the study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2804566):
"Among 449 patients with prostate cancer and transgender identity codes, 155 (35%, an estimated 14 cases per year) were confirmed transgender women with prostate cancer: 116 never used estrogen, 17 formerly used estrogen, and 22 actively used estrogen at diagnosis. All prostate cancer diagnoses were screen detected. At diagnosis, the median age was 61 years, 88% were White, median PSA was 6.8 ng/mL, the median duration of estrogen use was 32 months among former and active estrogen users, 43% (50 of 115) were biopsy grade group 1, and 45% (49 of 108) were clinical stage T1 (Table); 98% (152 of 155) had not undergone bilateral orchiectomy. Biopsy grade group 1 or 2 was found in 58 of 82 patients (71%) with no prior estrogen use, 9 of 16 (56%) with former estrogen use, and 9 of 17 (53%) with estrogen use at diagnosis.
The percentage of patients with biopsy grade group 4 or 5 was 23% (19 of 82) of patients who never used estrogen, 10 (12%) of whom were grade group 5; 25% (4 of 16) of former users, 1 (6%) of whom was grade group 5; and 35% (6 of 17) of active users, 5 (29%) of whom were grade group 5. The median PSA density was 0.21 ng/mL/g for never estrogen users, 0.26 ng/mL/g for former users, and 0.31 ng/mL/g for active users."
In other words, use of estrogen was associated with more aggressive prostate cancer.
Well, that'll teach me to bang on about something straight off the top of my head without even doing some basic fact checking. My only excuse is that it was written around 3 a m. I also couldn't tell you the last time this subject was on my mind.
I do remember, though, that the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone facilitated by 5-alpha reductase was the big consideration regarding the development of hypertrophy and prostate cancer in men.
It sounds like the study is saying that the hormonal cascade in transwomen pretty much ends with estradiol, with no significant conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, so it does sound like transwomen more closely resemble women than men, at least hormonally. I'm presuming that the study never found any reason to consider the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone if testosterone levels were generally identical to those of women. Obviously, estrogen levels are a big consideration for women in relation to breast cancer. I wonder, then, if transwomen are also at an increased risk of breast cancer; or, for whatever reason, the main target is still the prostate. (Sorry, I don't like the modern misappropriation of the word 'gender'. Although, in a way its use would actually indicate that a real biological change of sex never took place if one still accepts its original meaning).
"I'm a stranger here myself"
Music by Kurt Weill. Lyrics by Ogden Nash (If gender is just a word in grammar how can I ever find my way)
https://youtu.be/dXueCRfgdVY
There's still going to be some conversion of testosterone to DHT, as this is a separate pathway to the testosterone to estrogen pathway. 5 alpha reductase is made in the liver, brain and skin as well as in reproductive organs. The main driver of DHT formation though is the level of testosterone, so presumably men who are taking medication to suppress testosterone would have lower DHT levels.
Regarding breast cancer risk, my guess is that it would increase with greater duration of taking exogenous estrogen.
Bottom line is that no one has the faintest idea how much damage is going to be done by all this monkey-wrenching of reproductive hormones. It's unbelievably irresponsible of the medical profession to be conducting this mass experiment on people who have psychological problems.
Thanks for taking the trouble to remind me of the different pathways involved. Plenty more knowledge has seemingly just drained away in recent years. Some uninterrupted sleep would help, I think.
A new Boston University study confirms your sentiments in the last paragraph - two youths dead!
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/two-youths-commit-suicide-taxpayer-funded-cross-sex-hormone-study
Such a tragedy. I don't have much optimism that the butchers and torturers of these children are going to be held to account.
I don't think there's much cause for optimism either. At the moment all efforts at legal redress seem to be targeted mainly at the vaccine injured - and with mixed results.
Jim Jefferies provides a good perspective on the queer movement, warning contains F-word: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1903700766669640?fs=e&s=m
I'm getting an error msg. Any other links?
Glad you asked as I think his perspective is very useful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_9L1zUZg50
Absolutely priceless!
I would have loved to have seen the rest of the clip.
And here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7SH8wnlnU&t=609s
I almost wished I hadn't asked to see the rest of it. That scene where...you know the one - reminded me of a conversation I had with a woman at work around 35 years ago. She had previously worked in a sex reassignment clinic and was determined to explain to me in as much detail as possible what the procedure entailed. I spent the next several minutes in cross-legged squirminess, I have to tell you.
Yikes! Not a conversation most people want to have.
JP goes trans in the classroom.
https://youtu.be/7i8PYJfFbhw
JP is brilliant!
I also posted another JP video on the same day in Robyn's post: Academia and the new dark age: part 1. I think you'll like this one as well.