Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, BangkokReady said:

I don't need to.  I know the difference between a vagina and a non-vagina.  They are in no way biologically the same and there is about as much logic in a trans woman going to an OBGYN as there is someone going to one for a joint problem.

 

The only way I can imagine it being appropriate for a trans woman to go to an OBGYN, is if some authority forces them to double specialise in female reproductive systems and trans-vaginas simply to allow trans women to be able to say that visit them.  Perhaps that will happen some day, sadly, but until then...

 

This has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-trans, it's simple scientific fact.

I call BS.

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You want to deny them medical care because they are different. That is evil.

In their original condition they don't need medical care. They change something and then they need help because they changed something.

Or to align with a previous poster: If you break your arm and put it together again the wrong way around then you can be sure that after that you can't use it anymore the way it was designed. So then you need medical help to function again. Really? But I guess that is what some woke people desire. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Cool.  But you seem to be coming out with some pretty weird stuff.

 

E.g. you're suggesting people without a cervix would need to be checked for cervical cancer...

For trans men.

All trans need hormone therapy.

  • Confused 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It is necessary to have that sign in the mens toilet , otherwise woman would go into the ladies toilet and see they shouldn't put napkins in that toilet and then they would go to the mens toilet and put the napkin in there , because theres no sign telling them not to do it 

How often have you been to a ladies toilet?

  • Confused 1
Posted

I thought it was generally assumed that they can pop into the men's room if they absolutely have to, but we're risking arrest if we traipse over into their own multi-cubicle situation.

 

There seems to be an assumption that this sign was mandated by McDonald's, possibly as a part of some wider governmental regulations. What supports that assumption? Maybe they just had 2 signs.

 

The number of trans people seeking gyno appointments must be so small as to be a rounding error. The woke trans boogey man who's going to turn my son into a Boy Named Sue has to get behind the Mexican  gang member who wants to kill me, and the Black Lives Matter person who wants to burn my town down in the line of fake, made up by Fox News non-problems.

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

Relatedly, my wife gets hormone replacement therapy. Insurance does not cover it.

 

A quick google search beyond my own experience has lots of hedging about coverage saying "it depends", which is insurance speak for no, no way, no double-way.

 

So the problem of insurers covering it for a trans person is another what if this?/what if that? problem that Fox News invented that will either super-seldom or flat out-never actually occur in three dimensional reality.

 

Nor is hormone replacement therapy particularly expensive, about $150 a month with a $1,500 consult and lab workup upfront.

 

The outrage over something that 1) happens super rarely 2) doesn't cost a lot of money when it does -is down to simple gullibility with a dash of inexplicable distrust of gay people (which trans people aren't even).

Posted
2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

They usually require hormonal therapy and surgery and OB GYN doctors are well positioned to provide care.

 

 

My wife gets HRT from a gen practitioner. Most people do; it's usually a specialist clinic that does it. You'd be paying over the odds for an OB GYN and they may not be HRT specialists.

 

It's a pretty straight forward treatment. You get diagnosed, a small implant of relevant hormones is stuck in your keister, and you pop back in 3 months for another hit.

 

For a trans person, the process would be no different and certainly not be involving in-depth vaginal examinations -the channel that Porn Hub doesn't have because no wants to see it (tho Fox New viewers never tire of hearing about).

  • Confused 1
Posted
1 hour ago, LaosLover said:

I thought it was generally assumed that they can pop into the men's room if they absolutely have to, but we're risking arrest if we traipse over into their own multi-cubicle situation.

 

There seems to be an assumption that this sign was mandated by McDonald's, possibly as a part of some wider governmental regulations. What supports that assumption? Maybe they just had 2 signs.

 

 

More likely that the mall manager told one of his staff to go and stick these stickers in the toilet and the worker didn't give it nay thought or consideration and also the workers go in and out of both mens and woman's toilets at will and dont differentiate between the two 

  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

More likely that the mall manager told one of his staff to go and stick these stickers in the toilet and the worker didn't give it nay thought or consideration and also the workers go in and out of both mens and woman's toilets at will and done differentiate between the two 

Or the worker was male and he put it in the only toilet he knew.

Posted
4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Or the worker was male and he put it in the only toilet he knew.

Female workers go into the mens toilet and I assume that female workers also go into the womans toilet ?

Posted
6 hours ago, LaosLover said:

There seems to be an assumption that this sign was mandated by McDonald's, possibly as a part of some wider governmental regulations. What supports that assumption? Maybe they just had 2 signs.

More likely the McD staff member couldn't read, write or think and was just instructed to 'put this up in the toilet'

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, LaosLover said:

Relatedly, my wife gets hormone replacement therapy. Insurance does not cover it.

 

A quick google search beyond my own experience has lots of hedging about coverage saying "it depends", which is insurance speak for no, no way, no double-way.

 

So the problem of insurers covering it for a trans person is another what if this?/what if that? problem that Fox News invented that will either super-seldom or flat out-never actually occur in three dimensional reality.

 

Nor is hormone replacement therapy particularly expensive, about $150 a month with a $1,500 consult and lab workup upfront.

 

The outrage over something that 1) happens super rarely 2) doesn't cost a lot of money when it does -is down to simple gullibility with a dash of inexplicable distrust of gay people (which trans people aren't even).

You seem to be fascinated/obsessed with Fox News.  Just curious if you actually watch Fox News to form your biased opinion of their content....or do you regurgitate what you hear on MSNBC and/or CNN? 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...