...Hence people will take doses that are acutely dangerous and will suffer the problems of overdosing it far more often. There's a clear and distinct difference between "long term use can be dangerous" and "overdosing this is dangerous in the short term"...
Or, as pertains to this discussion, "taking it in incorrect dosages over a long period of time, without adequate and consistent measurement of hormone levels by a properly trained endocrinologist or at least a general practitioner", because...
USA...their insane medical insurance and pharmacy middleman company systems which cause problems or unreasonable costs...
The UK ain't a walk in the park for trans people last I heard -- the wait time for an appointment was, what, eighteen months? But that's nothing compared to the US, where depending on studies I've seen, between approximately 15-50% percent of trans individuals who seek some form of hormone therapy are self-medicating by buying the requisite pharmaceuticals online. But now that I've discussed this in terms that apply to
trans women too, can we agree it's an issue?
Because if so, you're still making my point about erasure of trans men, denial of rights issues unique to trans men, and double standards in how trans men and women are considered and discussed, by default.
But I mean, Agema's the pharmacologist, here. Perhaps they would care to discuss what might happen if you try to self-medicate and fuck up the dosage of pharmaceuticals like this over the course of months or years. I broached the subject. I, it's the part of my post which, by
some quirk of the forum's reply button seems to have not made it into a single reply.
Yes. So why did you drag that nothing out so long?
I dunno, why'd you keep trying to change the subject?
Actually, I kind of did. I certainly attempted to sidestep it as the glaring set-up for an incredibly bad argument that it was.
What, that T's on the schedule list and that represents a legal barrier and challenge unique to trans men? That's not a bad argument, that's a simple statement of fact.
The issues around trials and subsequent drug licensing are primarily economic, not political.
Maybe in the UK, but here in the good old US we have to put up with reformulation, corporate capture, patent trolling and acquisition (lest we forget Martin Shkreli) and the quarter billion a year the pharmaceutical industry spends in lobbying per year. And the, billion and a half if I remember right, it's dropped on campaign contributions. The economic
is the political.
Case in point, I'm damn surprised no pharmaceutical company has tried to reformulate spiro and re-patent it as an androgen blocker, and hop on the orphan drug gravy train while blasting the airwaves for developing "the world's first drug designed for gender affirmation" or some equally idiotic tagline.
Well, alarm bells start to ring since the "doing it for attention" narrative overlaps almost entirely with one of the oldest right-wing tropes about LGBTQ people in the book, which has been used to dismiss and minimise people for decades.
Just because someone you don't like says something, doesn't mean there may not be a grain of truth to it or that it warrants zero critical examination. Like it or not, there are financial and social benefits for the behavior, and therefore a vested interest in the current day and age for engaging in it. Whether it's the given celebrity and/or their agency who benefits from earned media, the media outlets who benefit by running the story and bringing in ad revenue, all the way down to little idiot influencers and clout chasers on social media who yap about it to optimize reach and impressions. That may not necessarily be the intent of the news item's source, but it still occurs nevertheless.
Because as I said, we are reaching a point in terms of LGBTQ awareness and acceptance, it ought to be incumbent upon us to ask "when is this just going to be a normal thing?" Or to put it another way more relevant to the L's, G's, B's, and Q's, are festivities like the Folsom Street Fair still relevant and important, or do they serve in the greater sense to perpetuate negative stereotypes of the non-heterosexual community that inhibit fully normalizing those identity groups?
