Hi gregrowlerson,
Sorry I did not reply with the link but someone else has for you. That was the company I have used in the past and they have been good !!!
I am about to go back to purchasing on the net from them today ^-^
I cant wait any longer and it looks like the NHS does not realy give a dam about it...
I think punkypink is correct whne they say that the NHS does not consider me a "True" transgender person..
Please tell me how you get on with your meds and keep in touch.
PS I may look at going private but I'm not sure If I can afford it in the long term... will have to see...
Ryan
Dam NHS
-
hungrycat (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:32 pm
-
Posting Rank
-
punkypink (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 10:03 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
As I have mentioned, what you can do is self medicate and then ask your doctor for monitoring tests such as liver-function tests? If they have your health and physical wellbeing in mind they would at the very least get you those tests.
I've said enough about the medicalisation of transgenderism to feel there's no point repeating what I've said before. Assuming the keep in touch bit is meant for me, I am not medicating or on hormones. I pass fine without them, and I've been socially transitioned since 2004.
I've said enough about the medicalisation of transgenderism to feel there's no point repeating what I've said before. Assuming the keep in touch bit is meant for me, I am not medicating or on hormones. I pass fine without them, and I've been socially transitioned since 2004.
-
janekane (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:26 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
I continue to find increasing evidence that the Pauli Exclusion Principle of the realm of physics may usefully be generalized. Before anyone decides that I am some sort of physics fool, perhaps it would be worthwhile for me to put forth my viewpoint, not that I seek its acceptance or rejection.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle, from Wikipedia:
The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. A more rigorous statement is that the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. The principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.
The generalized form I have in mind is simply that no two of anything can be the same, or there is only one of them.
Quantum states are typically (see Wikipedia or your favorite advanced physics books as you may prefer?) numerical entities, such as spin. In the generalized form I have in mind, quantum states include wave functions as well as half-angle-spin observable particles.
Edit by janekane: How on earth did my fingers type "half-angle-spin"? That is, alas, nonsense. In my mind, though evidently not my fingers, was "half-integer-spin." And that, as I fiddle with physics and biophysics and such, is not, to me, at all nonsense.
Thus, the generalized form of the Pauli Exclusion Principle which I have in mind has the following property. For the two things to actually be the same, not only do their half-integer spins need to be perfectly identical, so do their wave functions have to be absolutely identical from time equals not less than minus infinity to plus infinity.
In the generalized form, the wave function of a thing is a quantum state property.
What on earth, or anywhere else, has this to do with the NHS?
If no two of anything are actually the same, then no two people are actually the same. This "not being the same" is no less applicable to social and personal gender awareness and, when indicated by awareness, transitioning.
So, punkypink may be able to function well, pass fine, and be well transitioned without medications (including gender role hormones), while I may find what she does impossible for myself.
However, for myself, were I told that I needed to have "real life experience" in my desired gender role, I would set out to demonstrate that my whole life is quite precisely such experience. I have lived nothing else.
What is that desired gender role? It is always the way I live; being torn apart within by some variation on the BIID theme (my mind finds my body to have been else than what my mind deemed it properly to be until the orchiectomy in 1986) and yet my having been so torn apart within was also what my mind found to be the path my life best could take.
When, by some time in 1984, it became clear to me that cancer risk (Bayesian-statistical) for me was unacceptably high, I decided that whatever was most likely to soon kill me and I would part company. I spoke with doctors of diverse sorts until I found one who could be persuaded to do the orchiectomy because, if no one else would do it, it would be up to me to do it.
That did not get me into psychiatric hospitals and did not get me court-labeled as dangerous to self or others; I have never been so labeled. What it did was to allow me to find one doctor who agreed to the orchiectomy with the provision that there would be no record of it which others would be reasonably able to find.
I used my sense of human diversity to find someone near where I lived, thereby avoiding the costs of a trip to Philadelphia to see Dr. Felix Spector.
"If you won't, I will..." is one strategy which eventually worked for me, and I was able to get an adequately safe orchiectomy close enough to home that I never missed a moment at work, not even on the very next day.
We, so I have come to understand, are all actually unique, and uniqueness is, as I understand formal logic, not subject to qualification.
It is, for me, proper cause for rejoicing, that we, on the Eunuch Archive, can share life concerns and events as we are doing.
It is no less, for me, proper cause for grieving, that we, on the Eunuch Archive, continue to encounter people who would, with seeming sincerity, set out to define at least some of us in ways that rule out our actual lives.
I became no less "desperate" than anyone else here has been. And I was eventually sufficiently desperate that, had no one been willing to help, I can guarantee that I would have done the orchiectomy alone.
It became clear to me that my keeping testosterone was my willfully choosing to effectively commit suicide. My brother's death from the genetic condition and its resultant cancer, which genetic condition I also have, was like poisonous frosting on a toxic cake.
When, if ever, will I learn to stop crying in sorrow?
Yet, even more than I cry sorrow, I cry joy for having been given the courage and the opportunity to live my life in harmony with my life.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle, from Wikipedia:
The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that no two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. A more rigorous statement is that the total wave function for two identical fermions is anti-symmetric with respect to exchange of the particles. The principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.
The generalized form I have in mind is simply that no two of anything can be the same, or there is only one of them.
Quantum states are typically (see Wikipedia or your favorite advanced physics books as you may prefer?) numerical entities, such as spin. In the generalized form I have in mind, quantum states include wave functions as well as half-angle-spin observable particles.
Edit by janekane: How on earth did my fingers type "half-angle-spin"? That is, alas, nonsense. In my mind, though evidently not my fingers, was "half-integer-spin." And that, as I fiddle with physics and biophysics and such, is not, to me, at all nonsense.
Thus, the generalized form of the Pauli Exclusion Principle which I have in mind has the following property. For the two things to actually be the same, not only do their half-integer spins need to be perfectly identical, so do their wave functions have to be absolutely identical from time equals not less than minus infinity to plus infinity.
In the generalized form, the wave function of a thing is a quantum state property.
What on earth, or anywhere else, has this to do with the NHS?
If no two of anything are actually the same, then no two people are actually the same. This "not being the same" is no less applicable to social and personal gender awareness and, when indicated by awareness, transitioning.
So, punkypink may be able to function well, pass fine, and be well transitioned without medications (including gender role hormones), while I may find what she does impossible for myself.
However, for myself, were I told that I needed to have "real life experience" in my desired gender role, I would set out to demonstrate that my whole life is quite precisely such experience. I have lived nothing else.
What is that desired gender role? It is always the way I live; being torn apart within by some variation on the BIID theme (my mind finds my body to have been else than what my mind deemed it properly to be until the orchiectomy in 1986) and yet my having been so torn apart within was also what my mind found to be the path my life best could take.
When, by some time in 1984, it became clear to me that cancer risk (Bayesian-statistical) for me was unacceptably high, I decided that whatever was most likely to soon kill me and I would part company. I spoke with doctors of diverse sorts until I found one who could be persuaded to do the orchiectomy because, if no one else would do it, it would be up to me to do it.
That did not get me into psychiatric hospitals and did not get me court-labeled as dangerous to self or others; I have never been so labeled. What it did was to allow me to find one doctor who agreed to the orchiectomy with the provision that there would be no record of it which others would be reasonably able to find.
I used my sense of human diversity to find someone near where I lived, thereby avoiding the costs of a trip to Philadelphia to see Dr. Felix Spector.
"If you won't, I will..." is one strategy which eventually worked for me, and I was able to get an adequately safe orchiectomy close enough to home that I never missed a moment at work, not even on the very next day.
We, so I have come to understand, are all actually unique, and uniqueness is, as I understand formal logic, not subject to qualification.
It is, for me, proper cause for rejoicing, that we, on the Eunuch Archive, can share life concerns and events as we are doing.
It is no less, for me, proper cause for grieving, that we, on the Eunuch Archive, continue to encounter people who would, with seeming sincerity, set out to define at least some of us in ways that rule out our actual lives.
I became no less "desperate" than anyone else here has been. And I was eventually sufficiently desperate that, had no one been willing to help, I can guarantee that I would have done the orchiectomy alone.
It became clear to me that my keeping testosterone was my willfully choosing to effectively commit suicide. My brother's death from the genetic condition and its resultant cancer, which genetic condition I also have, was like poisonous frosting on a toxic cake.
When, if ever, will I learn to stop crying in sorrow?
Yet, even more than I cry sorrow, I cry joy for having been given the courage and the opportunity to live my life in harmony with my life.
-
punkypink (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 10:03 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
I mentioned that I'm not on meds because hungrycat asked me to let her know how i get on with meds. I am 100% of the opinion that hormones are a personal choice and it is not up to anyone to tell someone they should or should not be on hormones. I am equally against a doctor telling a trans individual "no you should not be on hormones" as i am against some hormone-obsessist on the EA saying "you should be on hormones because its a miracle drug".
I am more than aware there are some on the EA (not you JaneKane) who seem to have a weird obsession to try to get everyone on hormones just because it works for themselves. That is just narrow minded ignorance. If anything I quite agree with your sentiments about how everyone is unique(the Pauli Exclusion Principle?). That is why indeed, hormones are, and should be, a personal decision.
I am more than aware there are some on the EA (not you JaneKane) who seem to have a weird obsession to try to get everyone on hormones just because it works for themselves. That is just narrow minded ignorance. If anything I quite agree with your sentiments about how everyone is unique(the Pauli Exclusion Principle?). That is why indeed, hormones are, and should be, a personal decision.
-
Caith721 (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:21 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
It's a deeply personal and highly individual decision. I took a test drive with 1mg estrogen for a few months. It wasn't enough to induce any physical changes, but the mental changes were significant. That's my personal experience: I liked the changes and I made the decision HRT was right for me.
-
janekane (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:26 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
From time to time, I find a temptation to share something.
This time, I shall make an effort to share a view I have held as long as I am able to remember. It is simple, at least for me.
I am a valid person.
So what? Well, for one thing, no other person will I allow to impart upon me a sense of invalidation such as I will accept.
As a valid person, I am neither more nor less "special" than is anyone else.
As a valid person, I have neither greater nor lesser personal merit or worth than has anyone else.
As a valid person, the path of my life is exactly valid for me and is not exactly valid for anyone else.
I have yet to find anyone who can demonstrate that any choice/decision/action/event which actually happened could, after it happened, have actually happened other than as it happened.
Being what is, for me, appropriately autistic, I ask questions as someone sufficiently like me will tend to appropriately ask.
From time to time, some folks have informed me of their view that I did something which I could and should have done differently. When someone does something like that, I begin to ask how the belief happened whereby I could and should have done differently than I did, because I have always found that sort of belief to be of error, and often of dastardly grievous error.
Because I never learned to "think in words," the way some people use words commonly bewilders me, and sometimes briefly leaves me quite well flummoxed.
Words can easily describe impossibilities as though they are possible. Consider, "The applesauce ate the potato peelings." All the applesauce I have ever come across was made in part by cooked apples, and cooked apples having been cooked to death, are incapable of eating anything, at least in my view of existing biology. Even if moldy applesauce (not properly prepared or stored?) seems to be eating potato peelings, I would expect that it is the living mold which is eating away and not the cooked apple part of the applesauce.
In the manner of applesauce eating potato peelings, it is possible to combine words in other nonsense ways. How about:
"Because you have free will, you could have avoided making (description of some mistake actually made) and you deserve to be harshly punished so you will learn to never again make a mistake."
I find that to be utter nonsense, regardless of whatever free will is or is not.
If I made a mistake, I made it because I was unable to avoid making it when I made it, and I will know, be familiar with, and understand, this simply because I did not avoid making the mistake.
Only, what is a mistake, if the definition of "mistake" is itself not mistaken? For that matter, what is a learned definition of learning?
As a mistaken definition of mistake surely contains error, an unmistaken definition of mistake surely must be free of error.
Please do not blow "mental fuses."
Seems to me that the least mistaken definition of mistake I have ever read or studied or found is an operational definition: "A mistake occurs when someone does something, and what happens as a result is not exactly, in every detail, precisely what was anticipated." Observe, if you please, that definition does not presume that anything whatsoever "was anticipated."
Seems to me that the most learned definition of learning I have ever read or studied or found is also an operational definition: "Learning occurs when someone does something, and what happens as a result is not exactly, in every detail, precisely what was anticipated."
In my studying of formal logic, I came upon "the law of rational inference." It goes like this, for me, "If A is the same as B in some specific particulars, and if B is the same as C in those same specific particulars, then C is the same as A in those specific particulars."
If "mistake making" and "learning," when as accurately defined as seems feasible, have identical word sequence definitions, then it may be a rational inference that the process of learning and the process of mistake making may be one and the same process.
Seems to me that "mistake making" is a way of naming the form of learning about what it may be wise to avoid doing after how to avoid doing it becomes sufficiently well understood.
What is going on with me, here in this writing? I got "bashed" for being autistic and transgendered as a public school student, bashed by some other students (but not all of them) and bashed by some teachers (but not all of them), and I have long worked away at making useful sense of what my being bashed was about, in the hope of being able to share enough and share decently enough, that bashing of people of autism diversity and people of gender diversity (and people of every possible form of diversity) may exit humanity while leaving humanity alive.
This time, I shall make an effort to share a view I have held as long as I am able to remember. It is simple, at least for me.
I am a valid person.
So what? Well, for one thing, no other person will I allow to impart upon me a sense of invalidation such as I will accept.
As a valid person, I am neither more nor less "special" than is anyone else.
As a valid person, I have neither greater nor lesser personal merit or worth than has anyone else.
As a valid person, the path of my life is exactly valid for me and is not exactly valid for anyone else.
I have yet to find anyone who can demonstrate that any choice/decision/action/event which actually happened could, after it happened, have actually happened other than as it happened.
Being what is, for me, appropriately autistic, I ask questions as someone sufficiently like me will tend to appropriately ask.
From time to time, some folks have informed me of their view that I did something which I could and should have done differently. When someone does something like that, I begin to ask how the belief happened whereby I could and should have done differently than I did, because I have always found that sort of belief to be of error, and often of dastardly grievous error.
Because I never learned to "think in words," the way some people use words commonly bewilders me, and sometimes briefly leaves me quite well flummoxed.
Words can easily describe impossibilities as though they are possible. Consider, "The applesauce ate the potato peelings." All the applesauce I have ever come across was made in part by cooked apples, and cooked apples having been cooked to death, are incapable of eating anything, at least in my view of existing biology. Even if moldy applesauce (not properly prepared or stored?) seems to be eating potato peelings, I would expect that it is the living mold which is eating away and not the cooked apple part of the applesauce.
In the manner of applesauce eating potato peelings, it is possible to combine words in other nonsense ways. How about:
"Because you have free will, you could have avoided making (description of some mistake actually made) and you deserve to be harshly punished so you will learn to never again make a mistake."
I find that to be utter nonsense, regardless of whatever free will is or is not.
If I made a mistake, I made it because I was unable to avoid making it when I made it, and I will know, be familiar with, and understand, this simply because I did not avoid making the mistake.
Only, what is a mistake, if the definition of "mistake" is itself not mistaken? For that matter, what is a learned definition of learning?
As a mistaken definition of mistake surely contains error, an unmistaken definition of mistake surely must be free of error.
Please do not blow "mental fuses."
Seems to me that the least mistaken definition of mistake I have ever read or studied or found is an operational definition: "A mistake occurs when someone does something, and what happens as a result is not exactly, in every detail, precisely what was anticipated." Observe, if you please, that definition does not presume that anything whatsoever "was anticipated."
Seems to me that the most learned definition of learning I have ever read or studied or found is also an operational definition: "Learning occurs when someone does something, and what happens as a result is not exactly, in every detail, precisely what was anticipated."
In my studying of formal logic, I came upon "the law of rational inference." It goes like this, for me, "If A is the same as B in some specific particulars, and if B is the same as C in those same specific particulars, then C is the same as A in those specific particulars."
If "mistake making" and "learning," when as accurately defined as seems feasible, have identical word sequence definitions, then it may be a rational inference that the process of learning and the process of mistake making may be one and the same process.
Seems to me that "mistake making" is a way of naming the form of learning about what it may be wise to avoid doing after how to avoid doing it becomes sufficiently well understood.
What is going on with me, here in this writing? I got "bashed" for being autistic and transgendered as a public school student, bashed by some other students (but not all of them) and bashed by some teachers (but not all of them), and I have long worked away at making useful sense of what my being bashed was about, in the hope of being able to share enough and share decently enough, that bashing of people of autism diversity and people of gender diversity (and people of every possible form of diversity) may exit humanity while leaving humanity alive.
-
punkypink (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 10:03 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
To be honest I am not sure what to make of your post and how to reply to it. I can't seem to put a finger on what the key idea is being expressed.
I wrote a reply earlier but I didn't feel it fitted as a reply so I edited it.
While you may perhaps be a valid person, I have to point out that not everyone is a valid person. If everyone were valid persons then technically it would be valid of someone to invalidate another. That however is a logical paradox in itself, because if it was valid for someone to invalidate someone else then it would break the rule that "everyone" is a valid person.
And while I laud having a strength of self-belief in one's validity, I do feel that needs to be tempered with a sense of reality. As an example, we had someone who was claiming that people like me do not exist. Since I do actually exist, what that person is claiming is invalid. We had an ugly situation earlier in the thread that could be avoided if that person was not so self-insistant on his or her validity, given the invalidity of his or her claim.
Of course, I am not commenting on your own validity, since thus far I have no reason to question it. But as a general reminder I'd like to say not everyone is valid.
I wrote a reply earlier but I didn't feel it fitted as a reply so I edited it.
While you may perhaps be a valid person, I have to point out that not everyone is a valid person. If everyone were valid persons then technically it would be valid of someone to invalidate another. That however is a logical paradox in itself, because if it was valid for someone to invalidate someone else then it would break the rule that "everyone" is a valid person.
And while I laud having a strength of self-belief in one's validity, I do feel that needs to be tempered with a sense of reality. As an example, we had someone who was claiming that people like me do not exist. Since I do actually exist, what that person is claiming is invalid. We had an ugly situation earlier in the thread that could be avoided if that person was not so self-insistant on his or her validity, given the invalidity of his or her claim.
Of course, I am not commenting on your own validity, since thus far I have no reason to question it. But as a general reminder I'd like to say not everyone is valid.
-
loveableleopardy (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:19 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
hungrycat (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:56 am Hi gregrowlerson,
Sorry I did not reply with the link but someone else has for you. That was the company I have used in the past and they have been good !!!
I am about to go back to purchasing on the net from them today ^-^
I cant wait any longer and it looks like the NHS does not realy give a dam about it...
I think punkypink is correct whne they say that the NHS does not consider me a "True" transgender person..
Please tell me how you get on with your meds and keep in touch.
PS I may look at going private but I'm not sure If I can afford it in the long term... will have to see...
Ryan
I like your confidence in this company! Now I just have to hope that the package doesn't look like anything too out of the ordinary and that my parents don't open it before I get home from work (on whatever day it arrives)
Today I took a pill of spirolactone; I read Purpletomatoes post yesterday and it encouraged me to give it another go. I had a pretty bad time on it for the 3 weeks or so that I took it (about 9 months ago), but drugs can effect people differently on a second trial, so let's see what happens. I had no problem with getting off the drug last time so that is not an issue.
Even now I am feeling effected by this drug (within 90 minutes of taking it); my chest feels heavier, harder to breathe, though not in a dangerous way, but perhaps I will not take more than a couple of these things and just wait for the Androcur to arrive lol
Take note that I won't probably just take the Androcur right away. I would like to attend a sperm bank first.
From what I have read on the EA (which is not a lot compared to others) it appears to me that most members are very aware that what works or doesn't work for them will not necessarily mean that such a med will work or not for another. So I believe that EA members are generally quite aware of the uniqueness of others, whether it comes to hormone meds, castration meds, or just life in general.
-
loveableleopardy (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:19 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
The 2 posts prior to mine are fantastic writing!
But quite beyond me really. Thus this cracked me up heaps:
"Please do not blow "mental fuses.""
And I think that the below quote is an especially great one.
"
The take on applesauce was freaky cool! But in actual fact, even if it was capable of eating the potato peelings, I'm not so sure that it would, as who likes to eat potato peelings?
But quite beyond me really. Thus this cracked me up heaps:
"Please do not blow "mental fuses.""
And I think that the below quote is an especially great one.
"
"janekane (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:28 pm As a valid person, the path of my life is exactly valid for me and is not exactly valid for anyone else.
The take on applesauce was freaky cool! But in actual fact, even if it was capable of eating the potato peelings, I'm not so sure that it would, as who likes to eat potato peelings?
-
punkypink (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 911
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 10:03 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Dam NHS
loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:54 pm The take on applesauce was freaky cool! But in actual fact, even if it was capable of eating the potato peelings, I'm not so sure that it would, as who likes to eat potato peelings?
You'd be surprised!