Saturday, November 17, 2012

Sweden Sued Over Forced Sterilization

The transgender loons are at it again in Sweden. This article describes the actions being taken against Sweden for forced sterilization of "trans" and "gender variant" people which denies them the right to change their gender marker.

First, the law in Sweden needs to be explained. Since Sweden is one of your typical socialist boondoggle countries within Europe that wants to take care of you and control you from cradle to grave it has a very specific set of rules for changing your gender marker. Now the gender marker these people are talking about is their birth certificate "gender" marker which was always one's sex until John Money and his crowd managed to obfuscate the difference.

Under Swedish law on order to have your gender marker changed, also know as birth certificate, you need to have undergone a sex change. They also require that the individuals cannot be married nor can they MTF store sperm or the FTM store eggs for later use. Those are the requirements for both SRS and change of birth certificate on the State dime.

Now, even I would support the changing of the law to allow them to save sperm and eggs and to stay married but then Sweden does not have same sex marriage if I remember correctly which is also part of the problem. Both of these concepts give me the creeps personally, but in my opinion they are certainly no harm, no foul kinds of conditions and should be amended.  The problem is and always has been that that was and is not the case here. The case here is men want to keep their penis and still have their gender marker changed. It is that simple.

So in order to attempt to push this argument they have come up with this forced sterilization argument which is silly but one needs to understand the history of Sweden which is far from glowing in regards to sterilization. Being such a good socialist bastion the Swedish government has always felt they know what is best for their citizenry and did perform forced sterilizations from 1935 until 1975 under government auspices. The forced sterilizations were forced upon primarily Roma and Traveler women, gypsies for the uninformed. I will leave it to the reader to infer where those practices emanated from but it is pretty clear.

The Roma and Traveler women rightfully won a legal battle for compensation from Sweden and now these loons are trying to equate themselves to the horrors these gypsies underwent. The gypsies were forcibly sterilized against their wills to prevent more children from being born and almost all sterilization was against women since no self respecting man would sterilize a fellow male. It sort of reminds me of how ashen my husband got when I informed him the male Siberian was headed to the vet to be neutered.  You would have thought I was sending him.

The individual that writes this blog is not exactly the brightest light in the string since she contends it is nothing less than "genocide". When dealing with mental midgets definitions are required so here goes.
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
This is your typical "trans" action where they try and equate the rights of transvestites and non-ops with those of a previously harmed group where there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever. You know the fools that claim racism with "trans rights" and a sundry list of other past transgressions they use to blind the uninformed into supporting their patriarchal view of the world where male rights circumvent any rights women have.

In their musings they carefully avoid mentioning that the sterilization they are talking about is actually "Sex Reassignment Surgery" which is NOT forced sterilization and is paid for by the state for those individuals that follow the rules. For most people born transsexual the concept of getting SRS paid for is fine because that is what they want and there are ways around other parts of the law such as sperm and egg storage and marriage which I believe is where they have a fight, but that again is not the fight they want.

This is again a fight to redefine what it means to be female and a woman. It is nothing short of an assault or a war on women primarily by men who want to play girl but not be girl and certain women that want to be men but would like to keep the options open.  It is just another example of gender games and these fools mention gender variant as those  being forcibly sterilized which is patently absurd.

These people are walking adverts for the people that believe being born transsexual is NOT a medical condition.  They are harmful in so many ways it ton those born transsexual needing SRS because they come across stating categorically that SRS is NOT necessary to be a female or a woman and that is what they want the world to know and believe.

The case is without merit because it is voluntary and the Swedish government has the right to set the rules for when and how their socialized medicine will pay for SRS. Changing the provisions of the law that require the individual to not save sperm and eggs and to divorce their spouse could be fought and probably should be fought but as I have stated that is absolutely not what this is about.

The problem is people in general are uniformed in today's world and they see "forced sterilization" and it scares them because it is a nasty concept.  if they read a little they would realize it is all a ruse but people are kind of lazy and splashy headlines rule the media world. It is no coincidence that the few remaining papers in print are primarily scandal sheets with few exceptions particularly here in the United States.

If you have a sex change you are sterilized because that is how it works. MTF get a vagina and FTM have a hysterectomy and hopefully can afford a penis but the entire concept is changing sex and women do not father children and men do not get pregnant except in the "trans" world where they consider themselves "special".

So if you read about this issue be sure to remember what the truth is behind it.



42 comments:

Van Buren said...

Just prior to starting HRT, my endocrinologist outlined my options regarding "storing", ordered the tests (which I got as far as suffering hurt and sadness of undergoing) and suggested I give consideration to it and give him my decision at my next appointment.

It was one of the hardest most devastating decisions for me to make. Like most women, I desperately want (need) to be a mother and this was the only option I had for my own biological children.

Not everyone is like me, some can deal with things that I can't and if they can I'd not begrudge them, but for me, in the back of my mind I'd always have known that I was the child’s "father" and that is not now and never was the RIGHT way for me, that's not who I AM or what I'm supposed to be, where I'm supposed to "fit"

I'd have had to disregard everything that having a child is about to me.

I don't want to sound pompous or like I'm getting up on my soapbox here, just offer what I consider to be the perspective of a woman (who actually WAS transsexual).

Children are supposed to be born of love and connection with your partner. The ultimate commitment and connection to them as man and woman for the rest of your lives.

To clarify; I don't begrudge gay and lesbian people parenthood for a second, I'm not sure I personally believe it's always possible for the child to get a completely "well rounded" upbringing from same sex parents, but! provided the child is brought up in an environment with that same love and commitment by the parents, in my mind that is what is most important.

What pisses me off is these assholes completely trivializing everything that parenthood (and motherhood) represents (to a woman), in essence, using children that aren't even born yet for their own selfish and (fraudulent) personal "gain" (and then they have the f**king nerve to claim they are female or women)

If that is any representation of the parents they would become, then in my opinion "forced" sterilization is justified in their case.

Further, despite what everyone on the net writes about; if SRS is something YOU want or NEED then why the hell should it be your government's (and the tax payers) responsibility to make it happen for you? I understand and agree in the case of children under the care and financial support of their parents, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're old enough to live independently, to be considered an (young)"adult" then it's up to you to deal with it, just like everyone else in the world has to deal with 99% of their own personal issues.

A TS's $.02 worth

Miz Know-It-All said...

The nonsense never ends...
In an equally bizarre twisting of reality, here is a quote from the deranged wife of transvestite gone to seed Betty Boyd

"Because many of us are very, very worried – and feminists should be especially – if we start setting legal precedent by pairing childbirth and femaleness."

This was her response to the Judge in the Thomas Bettie divorce case switching the proceeding to an annulment as that state does not have same sex marriage, and he questions quite rightly how Thomas can be a man if he not only could have but did perform what is the quintessentially defining act of female, repeatedly!

Anonymous said...

1.Since Sweden is one of your typical socialist boondoggle countries within Europe that wants to take care of you and control you from cradle to grave

You could have done without that bit of xenophobia.

2. Travellers aren't the same as Romani.

3. G**** is a racial slur that has as much place in a decent person's vocabulary as the n-word.

I don't disagree with much of the rest you wrote but ...seriously.

Elizabeth said...

@Anon

My comment about Sweden is certainly not xenophobic which is a fear or dislike of other people or something that is foreign and strange. It might be slightly overboard using boondoggle but I would disagree. Sweden has a long history of doing bad things to its own citizens in the name of good. Glad to discuss this with you whomever you are although I think I know.

Gypsy is not a racial slur and was certainly not meant as such. It basically defines a group of ethnic people that freely roam areas of certain areas of the world such as Europe. Romani and Travelers (Irish) are part of the group within Europe broadly defined as Gypsies. Gypsies were targets of repressive regimes like WWII Germany and Sweden's record concerning such individuals is not nearly as poor but it is not very good.

Anonymous said...

Anon
Get a life and stop whining about someone NOT conforming to YOUR standards of political correctness.
NYF
PS;
I have a neighbor who is Sweetish and gay, he is a first class socialist asshole. He complains about how women dress, about the street not being swept every other week and is a disgusting and raunchy example of what is wrong with most homosexual men.

Anonymous said...

Nice "de-rail", Anon.

The point is that tranny whackers are de-constructing society for their own selfish perversions.

How is that for xenophobia?

Anonymous said...

People can be selfish, unprincipled, opportunistic, deceptive, and ruthless in pursuit of what they want. Explains it. Doesn't make it right.

- an old aunty

Kathryn Dumke said...

What gets me about the report is that it seems to be all about getting an F or an M on your report card. It has nothing to do with being a man or a woman. So "expression" is the call of the day, not being.

The comparison to Roma, travelers, disabled and unwed women is simply offensive. But that insight seems to get lost in the great clamor for personal expression.

Anonymous said...

What this is all about when you break it down to the fundamentals is coercing the whole world into helping them maintain THEIR fantasy. It is nothing to do with actually becoming or being the target sex. All this stuff about "forced sterilization" is deliberately emotive designed to masque the real motivation. It perverts genuine transsexuality in the selfish pursuit of forcing the world to enter into their own personal fantasy.

If you need a piece of paper to prove your sex you are NOT that sex, no amount of shouting at the world is going to change that.

Cassandraspeaks

Black Swan said...

If a man looses his penis is he still a man? Albeit sterile.

Elizabeth said...

@Black Swan

There are times I truly do wonder what you are smoking because you make no sense whatsoever. This comment has not one thing to do with this post but then you are all about diverting attention to your point of transgender view of the world.

Just for giggles I will answer. If a man loses his penis through an accident he is still a man because that is who he is. If a man throws on a dress and keeps his penis he is still a man because that is what he is. Maybe he should have stored his sperm just in case?

That should be sufficient to confuse you for a while.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm.....I am soooo confused. Does ths mean BS is a man???

I THOUGHT SO!

Anonymous said...

As I see it, Black Swan is "on-topic", and you Liz are too thick-headed.

You Liz are a genetic male. If genetic markers become big enough of an issue, then perhaps one day you may be surprised that your drivers license sex designation has been automatically changed back to "M", or perhaps to a "T", and the change could come no matter how you feel about yourself, and your sex.

You seem to have a penchant for mocking people who have little-to-nothing do with whatever direction the T agenda goes. The ones who do have an impact? They are the people who are not afraid to go public. Unlike you, they don't hide behind their fears.

"Depathologization" may just be the beginning of the end to anyone being able to change Gender Markers considering that the genetics DO NOT CHANGE due to any person's personal feelings about "Self". You say you were always a girl? When is it that you had your surgery? 29? You still were born with a penis, and your penis was not cut off, it was inverted. I am not mocking you Liz. I am just shaking you a little. You, as an anonymous person, have absolutely no "affect" over what will happen, because out in the "real world", the only way to enact changes is by going public, and actually doing something about it, else all of what you do has as much impact on the world as deer barking, and howling at the full moon. :) BTW deer do "bark and howl".

see ya

ps. if you do post this, please don't alter it. thank you.

Anonymous said...

There are reasonable requirements for government funding and recognition. No one is forced do do anything. Recasting it as "forced sterilization" is dishonest.

Anonymous said...

So according to Hingle and Black Swan they are both male. Their goal, in lieu of actual acceptance by, and natural assimilation into, the rest of society, is some speshul status or recognition as trans, (or something other than male of female).

Selfishly they cannot allow those who actually were able to find a cure to be free of their tragic pathology. Therein lies their insane drive to ferret out those that have quietly passed through the pathos into simple reality.

Anonymous said...

@ Liz (please post this one with the typo corrections).

Thank you for allowing my comment. Please read these:

http://www.stp2012.info/old/en

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Trans-Pathologization-2012/524821787533500

http://www.mindfreedom.org/campaign/boycott-normal/solidarity/trans-occupyapa

I am sure that many of you have "googled" the word "Depathologization". It is spreading.

Many years ago I met a person who was going through the "Real Life Test", following the same path that most any other TS person follows on their way to have their surgery, in order to "finalize" their journey. One day, after going through her year of living as "the opposite gender", she told me that she finally had her surgery, and that she was very happy that it was all over. I was happy for her also, but I went on to ask her who she used as her surgeon. She mentioned his name, a doctor in NY. I already had done my research on SRS surgeons. The doctor she mentioned wasn't one of them, and only did Orchiectomies. I asked her if she was going to go any further. She said "There was no need".

All along, that person led me to believe that she was TS. She also believed that she was.

That person was "sterilized". The hormones she took from the beginning, began the process, and the "Orchie" finished it for her.

There are Transgendered people who don't believe in being sterilized, and any attempt by authority to "uphold" the general requirements in order to comply with any law, or "prerequisite", would appear to them as "unfair".

"Depathologization" would resolve much for certain TG activists.

I said many years ago, that those activists would like to see a "T" marker defining everyone in transition. It may happen. This argument about "forced sterilization" is just another chapter in their pursuit to "depathologize". Please, also be aware that blogs that appear to demean any of their efforts, or expunge their cause, will only in the end, help them to get what they want.


thankz

lol. When posting a moderated comment, the tiny numbers are somewhat invisible. I am resending this hoping that I read them right.

Elizabeth said...

@Anon Depath

First I would have to agree that the problem I had was gender, it was not. I had a sex identity issue which is very different from a gender issue. Gender is fluid and there are seeming many genders so it gender depends on a personal opinion it is not a medical issue but more often a social issue.

In the case of those born transsexual our brains are wired female and are bodies are incongruent. We need to fix that incongruence and it is what drives our lives.

Some of those that follow the gender bullshit have been indoctrinated by the loons like John Money into believing gender and sex are one and the same, which they are most certainly not.

Removing gender from the DSM in reality does not affect those born transsexual since it is the tool of the transgender community to gain influence and make their social issues medical issues which they are not. In the previous DSM gender was exclusively linked with transsexualism but it has been removed in this version of the DSM so transvestites can have their world legitimized.

Most of us that were born transsexual simply get it over with and lead normal lives because that is what actual women do. We may marry and adopt or we may be lesbians or even an FTM might be gay but we are just normal for our correct sex.

I realize this is beyond the scope of transgender understanding because their world is all about appearance and not functionality. We are about functionality so gender is not an issue for us as we will express ourselves after we are surgically corrected.

I really could care less about removing gender whatever from the DSM so some transvestite can get his jollies pretending to be a girl. the newest rage in the transvestite community is the claim they are transgender and we are the same.

We are not the same. We are as different as day is from night. If the DSM used transsexual I would support removal but since it seems transgender is the word of choice they should keep it in since most of the transgender/transvestites are just selfish little men wanting their perverse fantasy legitimized.

Sorry, but I married one by mistake and they are truly freaking mental, abusive, and assholes and deserve to be listed in the DSM. By the way fetish transvestite is listed but these loons now call themselves transgender and according to them transvestite is a pejorative term as is transsexual to many.

When I die and I am possibly autopsied they might figure out I was born transsexual but it will not happen to then. Now I bet that really pisses you off!!

Anonymous said...

Someone said.........
"" Anonymous Anonymous said...

So according to Hingle and Black Swan they are both male. Their goal, in lieu of actual acceptance by, and natural assimilation into, the rest of society, is some speshul status or recognition as trans, (or something other than male of female).

Selfishly they cannot allow those who actually were able to find a cure to be free of their tragic pathology. Therein lies their insane drive to ferret out those that have quietly passed through the pathos into simple reality.

November 21, 2012 11:57 AM
""

Whoever you are, you can see through these dudes like they were made of glass.

Screw them, they created their in-between world, they made their bed let them sleep in it.
I sure as hell don't want them in women's spaces.
NYF

Elizabeth said...

@Everyone

Somehow I let several June Hingle comments be posted because June decided to be Anonymous and not sign her posts. Silly me but I did not recognize her comments and she knows she is banned.

From now on any Anonymous post unsigned goes to Spam.

Anonymous said...

@ Liz

Perhaps I will return here in about ten years to lurk, but you will probably already be dead. I suppose that all of this stuff could be reincarnated as "Uselessnet" or "Stresspool" :{ but you'll be gone...darn! Of course if the world is truly lucky, you will still be here, and maybe even riding around in a wheelchair, loudspeaker blasting, proclaiming that Transmonkeyclones ruined your life.

Thankz for the entertainment.

goodbye Sis :(

Elizabeth said...

The above comment is from June Hingle and I let it through so everyone can realize how truly evil June Hingle is.

First off June nobody ruined my life. I have had the life I dreamed of. I have been complete for almost 42 years and not one single person has ever thought I was not the girl and woman they witnessed in front of them because that is truly what I always was.

I had a bad marriage like many women do but I also raised a daughter and later married the most wonderful man. The transgender have not harmed me nor can they harm me but they can harm others including the children I support but then everything in your life has always been about June Hingle.

You are in all honesty not much of a human being. Your obsession over me has led to you trying to out me on multiple blogs but thankfully you do not know and never will know who I am.

You are truly an offensive human being. I wish no harm on any other person because that is not who I am.

If you think this is entertainment then you are even sicker than I realized a long time ago. Now go into your garage and maybe the roof will disappear like it did before and this time you will realize you are just a miserable and very sad individual.

Now I have to go have Thanksgiving dinner with my daughter and her husband and children and somehow I doubt that is happening for you and that is sad but then based on what you post I doubt anyone could stand to be around you very long.

Anonymous said...

Ah. June Hingle, well known internet TG loon. Explains much.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

Hi! Your friendly neighbourhood elfchick here, wanting to derail this thread a bit.

Has anyone here thought about managing for a planned menopause? Seriously, I've been taking hormones for 42 years now and am wondering just when is it time to climb down off that particular biochemical roller-coaster?

Some of you are older, surely -- what do **you** think?

yours, etc.
the far-travelled elfchick

p.s. apologies for being anonymous but, darn it all, stealth is essential these days -- at least I think so, for my situation.

Anonymous said...

I don't recommend cold turkey. A gradual reduction is difficult to do with pills or patches. If you use compounded transdermal cream, tapering-off is fairly easy and you cut back over a year or two to make the reduction very gradual.

-an old aunty

Anonymous said...

Dear Old Aunty!

(how marvellous to be able to write that salutation, what with being estranged from my adoptive 'family' and all! I hope you don't mind my happy burbling.)

Thank you! I'll have to give the compounded cream a serious consideration. My endocrinologist (a brilliant fellow out in Vancouver, trained by my original and now-long-retired one) told me at my last checkup that he'd recommend sticking with my current transdermal regimen until age ~70, on grounds of osteoporosis prevention.

(Which is to say, I'll ask my endo about it the next time I see him: he's of the school of thought that the patient is the best expert concerning their own situation!)

My big concern is the Dorian Grey effect, wherein I'm not visibly aging at a similar rate to my supposed age-cohort. That's becoming already somewhat of a social concern.

Yes, it does beggar the imagination to think that there'd be any woman who'd worry that she's **too** young-looking, but the continued intake of rather high levels of exogenous hormones has led to a certain neoteny which onlookers find downright unsettling at times.

Oh, another question while I'm 'on the line' as t'were: is it possible to work any sort of cycle while using transdermal cream? With patches and oral meds I can at least work a three-phase cycle that seems to have 'normalised' my experience of hormonal effects. Sure, there are schools of thought that argued for avoiding cycling, but darn it all, I just ever only wanted to lead my life as simply and non-adjectivally as possible, hence the effort to maintain some sort of monthly cycle, with its benefits and drawbacks taken as-given.

Hugs from afar,

your burbling neighbour, the elfchick

[apologies once again offered to Liz for remaining anonymous, but the risks and costs of outing by curious onlookers are far too high]

Van Buren said...

Interesting this. I refrained from offering my opinion due to the fact that my "rollercoaster"'is only just starting to build some momentum (so wtf would I know ;-) ), that said, I was going to respond that from what I'd heard; lowered Hrt levels increased the likelihood of osteoporosis and follow up with; BUT! isn't that pretty "normal" for aging women? And ask elfchick if that might not actually be her motivation (or "beneficial" in her opinion?)

Funny how things play out

Informative though, thanks!

"a baby sister" (what? Everyone else was doing it!)

Anonymous said...

I started hormones more than 40 years ago in my early 20's and have the same issue of looking 15-20 years younger, but I'm good with that. It's possibly a function of estrogen maintained the subcutaneous fat layer.

In theory with a selection of at least two differently compounded hormone mixes to emulate a natural cycle, but I've not known anyone who's done it. Also, the progesterone level to simulate a cycle may elevate cancer risk.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

As a 40+ year veteran of HRT, I too have noticed this juvenating effect. I have often wondered if it was the hormones that caused me to look so young.

The fact that I look like a vibrant 50 y/o woman, bothers me not one whit.

C.I.

Van Buren said...

Something I think worthy of consideration (whilst we're off on tangents, and I honestly DON'T mean to be a dream wrecker, Believe me, I'm not exactly overjoyed about it, but sadly reality has always been a little too insistent in my case, (sadly) I've NEVER had the,luxury of living in a dream world and I think it irresponsible and dangerous to promote doing so), is that the other factor in play here is that most women by age 40/50/60 have born their own children, and that in itself wreaks quite a bit of havoc on and a woman’s body.

So my thoughts are that it would be somewhat unfounded to attribute youthful looks solely to HRT.

Anonymous said...

Hi, C.I.

The appearance of being younger doesn't hurt my feelings at all; after all, that's the gist of why department-stores have large cosmetics departments. ^_^

I'm mostly worried about the potential for side-effects. We've probably all been following the contradictory scientific reports. Certainly progesterone intake is associated with elevated cancer risk.

Maybe we **are** the science, these days.

Sign me,
snow-covered elfchick, marvelling at life

Anonymous said...

Most people estimate age by looking at the face, mostly judging by the fine lines and wrinkles. Based up the women I've known, bearing children can damage bodies but does little if anything to age damage the face. (Sun damage and smoking are the biggest face aging culprits.) Fine line age markers, and to a lessor extent wrinkles, are dependent upon skin thickness, collagen and subcutaneous fat. Whether it's XY chromosomes or testosterone at puberty, we have the advantage with thicker dermis. When the subcutaneous fat layer is maintained with estrogen, the combination gives us a significant fine line advantage that knocks age estimating into a cocked hat.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

I think like just about any other supplementary chemical we put into our bodies, it's all about the chemical and it's biocompatibility.
It's odd how there are gobs of studies showing how harmful Prempro is and yet there are none showing the long term effects of Estradiol or Prometrium, both are plant derived and don't come from animal sources or from petroleum. The ladder 2 hormones are dirt cheap and usually give good results. As for reducing HRT I wonder how many females who are not born with our birth defect would avoid the menopause if they could and just keep on their natural hormone levels.

NYF

Van Buren said...

Probably very true aunty, I'm told "stress" is also a big factor in the aging process.

Anonymous said...

Luck of the draw genetic is also essential. In the interest of full disclosure, my female friends were very jealous of my complexion before I started hormones.

Anonymous said...

A provacative perspective...

http://purplespeaks.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/some-people-love-to-argue/

Anonymous said...

NYF:

I must confess to not being familiar with the term 'ladder 2', in the context of hormones. I remain mindful that I am mostly self-taught on the subject of biological consequences of extended intake of exogenous hormones -- well, that and taking notes when my endos drew diagrammes from time to time.

Of course, being essentially the one experimental case in an uncontrolled experiment called 'life', I'm hesitant to ascribe my skin's well-being to genetic effects, beyond the immediate observation of finding it really hard to tan beyond the gradual merger of my northern European summer-time freckles.

I can't help but think that drinking a great deal of water, never smoking, and avoiding the use of (pore-clogging) makeup has probably beeen helpful to my skin's continued elasticity.

I'd concur in the conclusion that estrogenic support does wonders for maintaining subcutaneous facial fat. There's a delicate balancing act involved there, between 'starving oneself slim' and as a side-effect losing those facial contours, and developing voluptuous curves that (alas) also encourage the dreaded double chin.

Would that all life's problems were so trivially complex.

Enjoying this conversation, I am...

yours from afar, the rain-soaked Elfchick

---- > A tangent as postscript: there are about 20 other women at my workplace. None of us wear makeup to work, as we work in atrociously-dusty environments. The non-smokers, at least, have good skin, despite the great span of ages from 30 to 65. Personal habits may have as much to do with skin condition as genetics, or as circulating levels of hormones. I must offer that demurral or risk having my scientific training be rendered forfeit, ne?

Anonymous said...

Sunlight damage is the worst. Smoking damage is second. Caffeine damage a distant third.

- an old aunty

Anonymous said...

Dear Aunty:

A rain-spattered, caffeine-addicted Elfchick is now trembling in horror at the anticpated consequences of having habitually quaffed her customary morning cups (two) of coffee for lo these many years.

On second glance, though, I do fairly note the word 'distant' tucked in there. Thank you for that small consolation.

I remain convinced that makeup is one of the worst things that we can inflict upon ourselves, and that's not simply my experience in industrial management coming to the fore.

Thanks, again, for the interesting chat, a vast improvement over the general tone of Net comments. ^_^

Yours kindly,

an anonymous and far-travelled Elfchick

Anonymous said...

You are welcome!

- an old aunty

oatc said...

Hi Sis,

Just for the record, Sweden introduced gender equality in its marriage laws in 2009; this propaganda that that requiring SRS for a change of legal sex is sterilisation actually started with a paper by Stephen Whittle arguing against the Dutch legal requirement to be sterile rather than to have had SRS, continuing on from the discrediting of penile construction surgery amongst F->Ms, so it was originally more about preserving the ability of F->Ms to bear children.

Sweden deserves credit for being the first country in the world to have legislation managing and recognising change of sex, but that legislation is now outdated in several ways, including that a set official path must be followed, which does not provide for the treatment of children, or recognition for those who have surgery overseas, where the techniques are better, and things can be done with far less stress and delay. The TG demands are a total gift to the entrenched official psychiatrists, and are holding other needed reforms hostage.

oatc

oatc said...

elfchick: "Has anyone here thought about managing for a planned menopause? Seriously, I've been taking hormones for 42 years now and am wondering just when is it time to climb down off that particular biochemical roller-coaster?"

If you weren't engaged in a misplaced emulation of menstrual cycle it wouldn't be a roller-coaster you feel it necessary to dismount from.

And to answer others' replies; deliberate aging seems perverse - it isn't only cosmetic you know! Progesterone has no connections to cancer. Recent research shows that loss of testosterone increases longevity by many years, which probably accounts for the most of the youthfulness. Being in my mid-60s, 42 years on hormones, and 40 years post-SRS, I can say that HRT has many benefits but does not stop aging forever; I so wish!

oatc

Anonymous said...

Now this is progress
http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/helena-montana-adds-colleen-francis-clause-to-non-discrimination-statute/



NYF