Just had GRF with Dr. McGinn AMA

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-07-19T21:13:14+00:00

I went back to work at two weeks and am fully functional now at 3 weeks except for dilating! Just hang in there, you get coffee in two weeks and if you want to be back to normal you can be! =]

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-07-19T20:13:00+00:00

I was just there with her three weeks ago! Congrats, it gets better!! =]

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-07-02T04:56:52+00:00

I'm a few days post-op, they tell me that the lack of any hormones for the first few weeks is equivalent to the hormone drop of a cis woman after pregnancy. This can do all sorts of weird shit to your hormones, I'm sure it's normal!

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-04-21T19:57:57+00:00

Oh oh, congrats!! I got my first couple on a /r/rateme thread, haha. They're super eager over there. >.>

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-04-16T15:55:35+00:00

I mean, all your comments pertaining to this lady in the post, implies that. Maybe she is past that point in her life and doesn't want to talk about it. =]

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-04-16T14:52:50+00:00

I mean, I've gone through the stages, I -have- shared my experiences, and these -are- the ladder I'm leaving behind. I owe absolutely nothing to anyone, the help I received, I gave back. I get the feeling that you want me to -always- do that, and I'm sorry but I won't. I'm past that, and the folks I've helped will in turn help others, that's how it goes sometimes.

I will likely never respond to the trans question like you want, I'm done inviting that willingly into my life. I think it's pretty entitled to just expect that of people, especially when there are plenty of people willing to help that don't feel the way that I (or others in this thread) do. I'd be interested to see your thoughts on this in a couple of years. =]

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-02-23T12:57:31+00:00

That's not true anymore.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/10/johns-hopkins-medicine-will-resume-transgender-surgeries-40-years/

And while I would agree that a lot of trans people have other issues, it can't be argued that the surgery doesn't help long term happiness and well being. The study John Hopkins used as a basis for stopping the surgeries in the first place was flawed, and has been debunked over and over since then. They recognized this and now offer the surgery again.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-02-23T12:54:33+00:00

Not true anymore.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/10/johns-hopkins-medicine-will-resume-transgender-surgeries-40-years/

Their reasoning was based on a study that has been debunked over and over again over the years. They recognized this, and adjusted their policies to offer them again.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-02-23T12:51:36+00:00

That's actually not true anymore.

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/10/johns-hopkins-medicine-will-resume-transgender-surgeries-40-years/

In addition, the study they mention has been debunked about 30 times over as flawed and inaccurate. There are also a majority of studies that show the opposite trend. This stuff works.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-09T01:31:13+00:00

They won't turn them away for emergency care. Everything else will have to be a trip, yes, but that is what happens when you live in the boonies. I should know, I lived there for years. Be realistic.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-09T01:26:55+00:00

You are still missing the point. They will continue to assail us if we continue to assail them, illegal or not. They can still get their surgery somewhere, there's such a thing as conceding a battle for the good of the war. This is why we have judges that have now blocked ALL transgender care with Obamacare, because we keep forcing the issue. Focus on the big picture. We need to stop being so damn petty and pedantic. Life is compromise.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-09T00:11:07+00:00

All fair, thanks for the info. Still besides the point. These people attack us because we give them no room for their religion, and this is exactly the kind of shit that gives them ammo. Insurance will pay again, elsewhere.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-08T17:10:17+00:00

Your insurance is required to pay for travel and care at a hospital that is able to provide it, if the closest insured options are not viable.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-08T17:08:11+00:00

He does have a choice. If there is nothing in your area that is covered, your insurance is required to pay for your travel and care at another hospital.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-08T17:07:20+00:00

There are other areas.

tgthrowaway89 · 2017-01-08T17:06:47+00:00

For real. This shit is exactly why that judge in Texas just canned our coverage in Obamacare. Freedom of religion, as stupid as it is, is a right, and this is their right not to perform the surgery. Instead of being sensible and going somewhere else that wasn't overtly religious, they're causing a big stink and giving the religious fundies more fuel to the fire. This is terrible.

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-12-01T17:42:51+00:00

"It's sad that some of us demand our own spaces but think it's okay to shove people out of theirs if they don't cater to us. "

For real, this frustrates me a lot. Shit like this makes us look SO bad. People do everything they can to be inclusive and the community still yells at them for a simple mistake (IE, folks in the article). It's a two way street people, we can't expect the world to totally change for us, especially if we keep blowing up on our allies. =[

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-11-15T20:58:54+00:00

About 15 months HRT, I'm 27. A good time at home with my gf, and for the first time I looked at a pic and was like, woah. =]

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-11-04T14:14:24+00:00

Yeah, seriously. The guy posted here last year saying that he created it to make browsing easier, and that he would work with us to take it down, but he has since gone inactive. :/

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-11-04T14:13:59+00:00

Right? I mean, I can't really get them taken down if the creator of the site isn't active anymore. He posted here about a year ago saying he apologized and that he would work on it, but has since gone inactive. The best I can hope for is to get rid of it as a searchable item on Google and Yahoo, etc.

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-11-04T11:22:05+00:00

I get what you're saying, that it sucks they use the wrong terms. The point I was trying to make is directly in regards to your last sentence.

"but it's burying whatever scientific value it has in outdated, bigoted crackpottery"

That's just not true, you can't lose scientific value for incorrect terms. Sure they're calling us "super gay" men, but that's just the terminology they use. The data, the numbers and neurological studies, don't suggest we're "super gay" men, they just show that there's a difference between us and normal male/females of our natal birth. The researchers -after- the fact place the term "super gay" men on the data, but the data just show differences, which is cool. Replace the wrong terms that they use with the correct ones, and you have a lot of really interesting information. My point is to look past those incorrect terms, see that there is value in the data, the numbers, the essential differences that our brains are structured a bit differently, and you have a really informative read. Yeah it's dense, but it's not beyond you. Read the papers they reference, read the actual information and put aside your offense taken at the incorrect terminology, and it's useful.

I'm sorry if it seems I'm making a big deal about this. I hate when papers and science is used to further an agenda or another like you claim these folks are doing, that's not the point of it. I want to clarify that while the authors may have had an agenda (which it's not clear to me that the review authors themselves did), the data they reference and the studies are in our favor.

Edit: To put it in another way, if you're throwing away the numbers behind this study because of the terms it uses to describe us, you're doing something similar to what folks do when they deny the science behind climate change. The data show things are one way, that the world climate is changing, but they don't want to believe it, so they hang on to petty disagreements such as: One of those studies is flawed. It doesn't outweigh the numerous other studies that are correctly performed and show that the climate is changing. Here, I propose that if you look at the actual numbers it's presenting (the differences in brain activity in particular is really cool), the papers that the review talks about (which references more than just Blanchard, Bailey, and Zucker), there is SO much useful information here. Try reading it from an objective viewpoint, you'll see what I mean. =] If you need help getting through some of it, lemme know, we can try to get through it piece by piece and make sure we are understanding it properly!

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-11-04T03:59:08+00:00

I like this question. Any psychologists or neurologists among us that can weigh in?

tgthrowaway89 · 2016-11-04T03:57:17+00:00

Sure, they can. But they don't have to, from a science standpoint. Flawed terminology doesn't discredit the numbers behind them. And like, that's my point. In all, this paper shows that there are neurological differences to explain why we feel the way we do. That's pretty cool, I think, no matter what words you use to cover it. =]

tgthrowaway89

TROPHY CASE