But I think the worst part was the sound of the scissors (there's probably a fancier word for those) cutting through my flesh. 
Good. Troons should be encouraged to have surgery; this thread is a never-ending source of schadenfraude for all well-adjusted straights.
“Complications are extremely rare”
I am willing to bet that NOT having complications is more rare than getting them. Considering most troons who get it seem to post on reddit, and a lot more end up the 41% afterwards, it is hard to pretend that these are abnormal results.
This is one of the reasons my wife had a C-section. The other is because I'm terrible with dates, so we chose one I could easily remember.
Elderly? That’s optimistic.
FFS. Yeah, let's spend time and public money to state the obvious: having breast tissue (or not having breast tissue cuz they were, ya know, surgically yeeted) is of statistical importance for whether or not you're at risk for breast cancer.Talking of trannies getting cancer, are there any stats to show if it’s higher for them as a cohort? (Particularly the hormone responsive cancers).
Edit: nvm I found some happy news
Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands
Objective To investigate the incidence and characteristics of breast cancer in transgender people in the Netherlands compared with the general Dutch population. Design Retrospective, nationwide cohort study. Setting Specialised tertiary gender clinic in Amsterdam, the Netherlands...www.bmj.com
Conclusions This study showed an increased risk of breast cancer in trans women compared with cisgender men, and a lower risk in trans men compared with cisgender women. In trans women, the risk of breast cancer increased during a relatively short duration of hormone treatment and the characteristics of the breast cancer resembled a more female pattern. These results suggest that breast cancer screening guidelines for cisgender people are sufficient for transgender people using hormone treatment.
I looked into it before and concluded that cancer is transphobic lol. While the risk of breast cancer for men does go up it never reaches female rates.Talking of trannies getting cancer, are there any stats to show if it’s higher for them as a cohort? (Particularly the hormone responsive cancers).
Edit: nvm I found some happy news
Breast cancer risk in transgender people receiving hormone treatment: nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands
Objective To investigate the incidence and characteristics of breast cancer in transgender people in the Netherlands compared with the general Dutch population. Design Retrospective, nationwide cohort study. Setting Specialised tertiary gender clinic in Amsterdam, the Netherlands...
Conclusions This study showed an increased risk of breast cancer in trans women compared with cisgender men, and a lower risk in trans men compared with cisgender women. In trans women, the risk of breast cancer increased during a relatively short duration of hormone treatment and the characteristics of the breast cancer resembled a more female pattern. These results suggest that breast cancer screening guidelines for cisgender people are sufficient for transgender people using hormone treatment.
lmao they did it to coom
lmao lmao they wanted to STP and they got uh, this.
I love how the TRAs act like getting osteoporosis in your 20's is NBD just take some calcium lol.
The confounding factors are rampant. What control group d'you think is as reckless and stupid as troons? IVDUs maybe?
It's sort of like a drug addict that's vaguely aware their addiction is very bad for their health but keeps doing it anyway because in the moment the short term high has become more important. It's also part believing medicine is so advanced now that it's just science magic and there will always be another surgery, another pill to take, another injection that can perpetually fix anything. They think something being "treated" means it's being "fixed". You also see this attitude with people at risk of getting STDs/HIV--it's NBD because the medicine (which is magic!) can "treat" it.
yeah IV drug users have a high rate too, but there’s a big increased risk purely and solely from HIV alone for dementia and various things and also from the drugs taken as PreP and antivirals. It’d be interesting to compare junkies and troons. They see this as nbd becaaaaause…..
Yeah. They really do think that. It is incredible to think that hiv is being rebranded as no big deal when it really is. Prep is no longer that effective, and it’s very bad for you. Antivirals are incredibly harsh on liver and kidney. The idea that you pop them daily and live to a healthy old age is simply wrong. HIV is also evolving constantly and it will out evolve both prep and the drugs used to treat it. And I do t give a shot about the trannies nd big chasers but I do feel for kids getting it, and needlestuck health workers, rape victims and those who will get it from blood products
And to mix things up, PetFoxxyGirl, a patient of Dr. Esther Kim at UCSF, shows off some Mr. Garrison-style breast implants.
That sure looks swollen and dusky and uh, yellowish and cheesy to me.
Yeah it's a manageable illness but it'll still shave a good 10 years off IMO, and that's assuming the patients got it together and get into treatment and don't fuck up the treatment with poor Rx adherence, which isn't a simple process, some of these pills need to be taken with food and others not and pts have to be really good about taking it every day at the same time of day, not to mention that they stop doing whatever behavior they were doing that got them HIV+ in the first place.
This was the sort of thing I was hired to study. I'd get IC and then we'd draw patient blood, like 6 ounces of it too a decent bit, and the brain trust at the lab could get quantitative levels for markers of inflammation and epigenetic changes and genotype the HIV strain the pt had, if detectable. (the PIs believed the HIV Associated Neurocognitive Disorder, i.e. HAND, was caused by excessive chronic inflammation.) They'd also grab viral counts and CBCs and so on, I'd take a detailed history of drug use and which ARVs they were on and had historically tried, and then we had people divided into different groups by which SUD medication management they used (or not): methadone*, bupe, still using, or control (HIV but no hx of IVDU, that filled up pretty quick.) The hardest group to capture was "still using" because those people would fall off the grid all the time, go to jail, stuff like that, and they were always really hard to get informed consent for cause I, ever the sperg, had to judge whether or not they were sober. I fucked off after a fight with my bosses where one of these participants signed up for my study at like 9am, then showed me this horrid abscess on his neck, I told him to go to ER, and then he left campus to score and reported to ER at 2pm "disoriented and intoxicated". So they thought he was like that at consent too. I showed them the timestamps on Epic and how there was like 6 hours in between visits and one PI admitted "well.... he MIGHT have used in between..." and I said "you think?!" and the condemnation I got from the other PI for calling a spade a spade was so bad I cleaned out my desk the next day. God I applied for that job twice too. I was so disappointed when I realized this was not going to work out.
I feel bad for all but the bug chasers. The life of heroin/fent addicts is insanely bleak, troons are mentally ill and incapable of risk/benefit assessment, gay bottoms are just unfortunately more likely to get it, same as African American women unfortunately because their men go have gay hookups and then have sex w them unprotected. and obviously the people who got it from crime or horrible needlestick and splash accidents are not to blame in the least. I had hoped the blood products loophole had been closed through thorough testing of every donation, but I pray nothing slips through the cracks.
