Justifying Bare Faced Lies
“You have been Houserised”
By Sophia Siedlberg, OII-Spokeswoman for the United Kingdom
On May the 8, 2007 I had to go into hospital because of a long-term eye condition that can render me temporarily blind in one eye. What follows is a common occurrence in medical establishments and should be addressed.
I am greeted by a nurse who had access to my medical history. (They use this rather slow but workable patient database on an intranet with something like 30 Dell machines connected to the local server. All secured by a system called “Disknet” which does not totally inspire my confidence in patient confidentiality and security).
But it was fair to say that the token gay duty nurse had sufficient information to know what medication I was taking and why. However, given that the hospital in question still conducts Infant Genital Surgeries, it seems that in some departments there is still a policy of “keeping mum” to patients. (Thankfully the endocrinology department do not follow this policy, but the ophthalmology department still use this policy it would seem).
To simplify this I was categorized as “transgendered” and soon subjected to some very intrusive questions (and assumptions) where the gay nurse kept insisting on calling me “he” and “sir” in order to “keep things simple”.
Now, I did say very clearly that as a child I was subjected to surgery and the only “gender related” surgery I had as an adult was to undo the mess they had made in the first place. And while it was not this hospital that had done this, I would prefer it if people would not refer to me as a piece of “surgically reconstructed meat”. (As in using masculine pronouns, etc.) The response: “You had a male upbringing; you are a boy and are thustransgendered.” (He was worming out of it)
They “Did a House” basically. (note: The TV series "House" made serious mistakes in its presentation of women with AIS and referred to them as "men".)
For legal reasons the establishment in question will remain nameless while they are investigating my complaint, which is not the real issue here anyway, this is about the attitude of the medical profession as a whole.
Think about this for a moment. You go into a hospital department for an eye problem. You have some idea what the eye problem is, Central Serous Choriodal Retinopathy, a well known name for it. It can be caused by steroidal medications such as hormones. But these are hormones that most women would come across in their lives, with steroidal contraceptives metabolized from androgenic hormones (Progestins and so on).
After getting a second opinion it turns out to be CSCR. And it is known to be a side effect of some medications. The first thing to note: A transsexual or transgendered person would avoid some progestins like a bargepole opting to take more feminizing drugs or a family of 3-hydroxy steroids, (eostrogens for example) which incidentally also have something like CSCR listed as a side effect. But it is not as common.
Bluntly, steroids and eyes don’t mix in some people.
At the time, there was access to a complete medical history on me including my having 5 alpha reductase deficiency and a very detailed history of the eye symptoms, which match CSCR perfectly. In fact, with the exception of it being said to effect men more than women because of men having higher stress levels and producing more cortisol (A Steroid) causing the eye problem, it would otherwise be seen as a classic case. (More on that later.)
Either way CSCR is a steroid induced eye condition. Where is the complexity of that? To have the token gay nurse hit me with: “Well you have cross dressing issues, don’t you?” (When I am sitting there dressed as I often am, neutrally) is insulting. And then the real reason for his assertion came out. “They intended a boy. You are a boy”. Then it becomes insidious.
You see gender is not the issue. What they intended when I was a child and what they did is the issue. It became evident that the message was: “The surgery you were subjected to was either correct or did not happen”.
And I am still lacking proper vision in one eye and the ultra competent ophthalmology department are still “foxed” as to what it is. Could it be more obvious or is what gender I am more important to them? BINGO! We are back in the ambulance at the age of five with bloated bladder and damaged kidneys listening to: “What toys will they play with?”.
“Transgender” is a very convenient term for covering up the facts or when refusing to provide a sensible level of healthcare. The underlying logic being that if you walk into some hospitals you will get “Houserised” (See Glass House Article). And it is very useful for covering the tracks of any medical professional who has any issues with your not agreeing with past medical “intervention”.
(Anyone who has been similarly mistreated by the medical profession over secondary conditions, medication related conditions or even unrelated condition, please contact OII as I am planning to look into this and how widespread it actually is).
This does leave a much wider misuse of terms like “Transgender” to be looked at. As I have said often the problem with this term is that it carries the assumption that whoever is defined as such is then regarded as having being born with clearly defined genitalia or a clearly understood sex, but who “chose” to see it differently and acted upon it. As it was originally coined by Virginia Prince to refer to men who cross dress that would be the natural assumption of its meaning, especially by those who would know that. Such as token gay nurses, for example? Put there because they “Know the community and how to talk to them.” (Like hell they do. I felt more like my grandparents in a Polish ghetto, and then later at the tender mercies of certain “Doctors”).
To put is bluntly, the term “Transgender” is a term that gets used to cover up someone’s life and define them according to certain narrow criteria which can be treated in a certain prejudiced manner. “Lie, define then mistreat” basically.
It is a prejudiced rationalization. Where is the medical benefit in denying infant surgery ever happened in the cases of intersex children? Or when it cannot be denied, claiming that the surgery was “For the best and the correct thing”?
But it happens in a wider context though. How many religious groups use the self same term to define those they do not like as something they can mistreat and get away with mistreating?
It is like taking someone’s glasses off and then hitting them or more to the point (and equally as ironic) calling a woman masculine so she can be hit (A classic tactic of misogynists and readers of Der Eigene who play “The token gay nurse”). I thought badly enough of it until this was made even worse by the fact that a pregnant woman I know had the same eye problem. It occurred 3 months in to her pregnancy (CSCR does do that) and she was diagnosed quite quickly. They could not give her indometacin (Which I had to get elsewhere) because it is contra indicated during pregnancy, but hey, they gave her a correct diagnosis and alleviated the symptoms by arranging relaxation classes for her.
It is called:
THE HEROD PRINCIPLE!
You see there is a very clear inequality between the sexes and they abuse each other. They also abuse themselves. Look at it like this a patriarchal medical system has female cancers listed as top priority but masculine cancers way at the bottom of the list. (Ask any man with prostate cancer relying on insurance or state health care, if his wife has either breast, cervical or ovarian cancer look at the difference, it is as obvious as a dose of well documented and explained CSCR.)
In steps the intersexed person with an eye problem and they get called “Transgender” and are then treated according to this system of mutual abuse. (Usually “Transgender” means “being treated as a man”).
I really hope those idiots who go on about gender specific medicine are reading this, they do not want health care policy they want to abuse people. It begs the question really, as to what an intersex child branded as a “Sociomendical emergency” really means? Does the “Socio” refer to the socially sanctioned mutual abuse between the sexes? And does the “Medical” bit mean “What way can we mistreat this child in future, under this health care system”.
You have to admit it is very telling, like how convenient it is to use social and medical terms to act within this insane framework. “Male Pseudo hermaphrodite” and “Female Pseudo Hermaphrodite” take on some very scary meanings.
The cruelest irony of this would be the statistics surrounding CSCR. Sometimes it is referred to as “Airline Pilot’s eye”. The medical literature up until recently has often stated that this is to do with “A Type” (Dominant) personalities. And also it is more common in men.
It has had the “idiopathic” label as a consequence. But as research continues it seems that Steroids (particularly cortisol, the “Stress hormone”) play a role in this, This is about eyes and steroids basically. Anti inflammatory drugs used in treating severe episodes of CSCR are often non steroidal (Indometacin again, in the form of Eye Drops). You will notice that retinopathies reported in the use of HRT and Contraceptives are seldom if ever described as CSCR. (It’s supposed to be a man thang yee ha). But it appears the symptoms are remarkably similar. The Condition itself manifests as bubbles of fluid building up in the layers beneath the retina, and it usually resolves itself in four months, but (The important but) in severe episodes permanent retinal damage can result. Hence some treatments like non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs.
To be fair it is difficult to diagnose, usually needing a flourescin angiogram. The current argument from the hospital appears to be “The fact you have CSCR proves we are right and you should be a man” (Odd I thought they were “Foxed” and didn’t accept the diagnosis of CSCR from two independent medical professionals even after calling me something I am not). Well that argument collapses because CSCR does occur in both sexes, and they diagnosed a pregnant woman fast enough, meaning that they know this is about steroids (Cortisol and progestins in this case) and not gender, and I wonder if their attitude is some Tiresias style punishment for my having broken the rules of gender?
Also if in the unlikely event that this turns out to be something more serious, they have already dug a deeper hole for themselves by bringing gender in such a surreal way into what would otherwise be a simple case of diagnosing an eye problem.
As for the claim I “should be seen as a man” well I was not visibly male at birth, (It was all a little ambiguous, which was the "problem") and I didn’t have a dick the last time I looked, it looks like a vagina to me. (With infantile scar tissue removed).
But when they “Do a house” this is irrelevant, it is Chromosomes (Well sorry to dissapoint them I already covered that).
So what now, well I think it is time for the medical profession to get their heads from up their backsides and at least take the time to teach more facts about intersex conditions (It is a teaching hospital which makes it all the more irritating). If their idea of political correctness is having a nurse by day, drag queen by night token gay dutifully reading his copies of Der Eigene, “Representing and talking to patients in what he assumes is his community” then they should think again (Oh sorry I forgot that is political correctness). I do not need some Ghettomeister handling my case when I go into an eye hospital I need to get my eye seen to. The Gay male nurse bit was patronizing in the extreme, the fact that he decided (Without another qualified medical opinion, such as that of the endocrinologist) what I was and was not and the fact that he then acted on it was both nauseating and dangerous.
I think there is a principle at steak here, because I know I am not the only intersexed person who has been given this sort of treatment and attitude at a hospital. I am inviting people to contact OII and say what has happened to them. I believe these attitudes are endemic, not just with health insurers and state run health care systems. I happen to believe that while sexist prioritizing goes on between the two sexes in various health care systems, then intersex people will suffer all the more. I already have an issue with the gender specific medicine brigade listing “More common” as “Specific to” with conditions like CSCR, Migraines, Anorexia and so on. While at the same time funding research into and treatment of “Specific to” in an unequal manner (Prostate cancer Vs Ovarian cancer for example).
But I am now getting the impression that if you are intersexed, you have to “Comply” with these assumptions and then go untreated. And even if you do comply with these assumptions there are still considerable risks involved. (Like they apply a prioritizing protocol that favors one sex over the other, or they treat you as the wrong sex full stop).
This is something people like the DSD consortium have avoided like the plague. But it is probably putting the lives of many intersex people at risk, it is certainly putting their long term health at risk.
People’s health should not be put at risk by lies about their medical background. Or subjected to confusing or none existant treatment because the medical rpofession does not like question marks. Or (Perhaps most insultingly) treated as “Special” and singled out for humiliating treatment because of PC initiatives that are as about as informed as a do gooder telling people dying of malaria to move to a colder climate and pull themselves together.
Sophia Siedlberg.
