The cases of medical negligence toward transgender persons, and toward children in context of transgender ideology, are mounting.

In this latest case we have a male-identified woman (ie. a “transman”) who presented to the A&E department with acute ear infection and high blood pressure. She refused admission but presented to her GP the following morning.

Her glomerular filration rate (GFR), which is an indication of kidney function, was asessed for both sexes, giving value of 31 mL/min/1.73m2 if she was to be considered a male, and 23 mL/min/1.73m2 if she was to be considered a female. She was diagnosed with renal failure, prescribed a medication regimen and strongly encouraged to stop testosterone.

The patient agreed and went home, and this is where things went from bad to worse.

The next day, she went to a different healthcare provider who restarted her testosterone, changed her medication regimen and encouraged her to reduce protein in her diet, even though she’s been a vegan for over 10 years.

When, months later, she was considered for a kidney transplant, she was rejected because the medical team inexplicably decided to use male equations to calculate her GFR, which, at 23 mL/min/1.73m2 put her over the upper limit of 20. Had the medical team considered how different sex calculation could drastically alter interpretation of the results, and had they perhaps not lost sight of the scientific fact that sex cannot be changed through willpower or cross-sex hormones, her GFR would’ve been 18 mL/min/1.73m2 and she would have qualified for the life saving operation.

All sorts of variables affect kidney function values, from sex-specific differences, to muscle mass, age, ethnicity, medications and diet. Also, the studies show, predictably, that transgendered patients’ values are more consistent with others of their biological sex despite cross-sex hormones and other gender reassignment procedures.

This is why, whenever a patient has a mixture of factors, additional tests need to be performed to make correct asessement. These patients rely on doctors to think laterally rather than put ideology and patient’s delusions at the centre of their healthcare plan. 

In this case, the patient met most of the criteria for kidney transplant, such as physical and psychological asessement showing they would be able to adhere to post-transplant regimen. However, it remains unclear whether continuation of testosterone post-transplant was discussed. Even though the authors of the paper assure us that “the patients s kidney disease etiology was unrelated to his transgender identity, it was attributed to him having Kawasaki’s disease as a toddler”, increased testosterone has a known association with deteriorating kidney function.

The only criteria for kidney transplant that this patient didn’t meet was the GFR. Considering that the patient’s body habitus (small, low muscle mass) was similar to the average woman, it is extremely important that we ascertain why this patient’s biological sex was ignored when stakes were so high.

Although I thank the authors of this critical analysis for bringing this case to our attention, my issue with their paper is their continuous use of “he” to describe a female patient. While I agree with their assertion that doctors should be better educated about intersection of transgenderism and medical care, the solution is not to continue using wrong and confusing pronouns and walk on eggshells around the fact that we are treating biological beings, whose sex is immutable, and while we should absolutely keep in mind both effects of the medications our patients are taking, surgeries they had and their mental state, we should not allow ideology, delusions or politics to direct medical care.

Had gender self-identification, transgender ideology-based laws and unethical and shoddy WPATH “research” not been allowed to obfuscate most fundamental reality about patients – that they are members of sexually dimorphic species and that sexual dimorphism profoundly affects their medical care, we would’ve been referring to her as a trans-identified woman on cross-sex hormones. We would’ve been compelled by medical ethics to adhere to reality by using a correct pronoun of “she’  and we would’ve been able to see her more clearly for who she is as a person, rather than a walking mirage of stereotypes reinforced by our pathological fear of offending her delusion of “being a man”.

As I have explained many times before, nobody is born “in the wrong body”. The “sexed soul” doesn’t just knock on the wrong door at conception, and even if it did, doctors have the responsibility to treat the body, not neglect it. We’ve been fighting ideology in order to help vulnerable patients for decades. So how is our responsibility to give a life-saving blood transfusion to a child of Jehova’s Witnesses any different from our responsibility to avoid delay of a kidney transplant for a very sick woman, by using sex-correct equations even at the risk of upsetting her?

As it turns out, this patient had to demand kidney transplant, but she continued to suffer less than best medical care due to male calculations that continued to be used. This delayed her being put on a transplant list, and it confused the issues around dialysis. That she weighed only 100 lb a year later, compared to 135 lb at her initial presentation, is a damning illustration of her body’s decline. That this could have been prevented by doctors adhering to what they learned in fifth grade biology class – that humans can’t change sex – is alarming.

In any case, here’s the conclusion of the article, which gives me hope for the future:

But before we open the champagne, let’s reflect on a few other worrying cases that are borne out of, in my opinion, dangerous trans ideology:

Read a detailed analysis of this paper here.

Or this report that suggests someone has no damn idea what the word “unethical” actually means. I feel sometimes like we are dealing with aggressive parrots who hear a word and repeat it nonsensically while they shit bomb us from above.

Descending further into forensic psychiatry, we have an autogynaephile proudly and unashamedly tell us:

“Breastfeeding is freaky. Not the sucking bit. You’re reading The Stranger, so odds are you’ve had a titty sucked at some point in your life. No, it’s because when my baby attached to my breast, there was an incredible chemical cascade that ran through my entire body like lightning. Imagine the most electric thing a partner has ever done to you, then multiply it by 10. I could feel my brain rewiring, creating pathways that would permanently connect me to my child. (And yeah, I kind of got off on it. Don’t judge.)”

So is it at all surprising somebody proposed this as the next logical step?

Considering that gender clinics are seeing a thousand-fold increase in referrals of young girls, whose most common co-morbidity is autism, and that political parties and trans activists are steamrolling legal changes that would allow these girls to have puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and a variety of mutilating surgeries (including hysterectomies), there certainly won’t be a shortage of young wombs to go around.

I can’t help but think that this unethical experimentation on the “defective”, vulnerable Others, would make Dr Josef Mengele proud.