PFC to blame?

NHS to scrap care for Transsexual people.

Are trans campaigners Press for Change to blame?

Oxfordshire PCT are latest to scrap gender reassignment surgical (GRS) procedures

http://www.oxfordshire.nhs.uk/documents/18bGenderDysphoria.pdf Click here to read it: HERE

In recent years the un-elected 'trans' campaign group Press for Change has deliberately devalued the status of Transsexuality as a medical condition. They have attempted to portray transsexual people as simply having a sexual orientation or a crossdressing fetish, similar to being gay or lesbian or even transvestite.

This notion is completely incorrect. A gay man's sexual orientation is towards another man, and a lesbian is attracted to other women. So by PfC's reasoning, if correct, a transsexual person would be attracted to another transsexual person. That is clearly not the case.

Transsexual people are attracted to sexual partners the same way as everyone else is. Some may be straight, homosexual or bisexual, dependent on their own sexual orientation, and irrespective of their born condition of transsexuality.

And, If transsexuality was simply a sexual fetish there would be no desire to embark on a life long hormone regime and generally turn their lives, and those of their families, upside down, and most importantly obtain genital reconstruction surgery - just for the sexual thrill of it. The truth is, and it has been recognised for decades, that transsexuality is not sexual or indeed sexy. It is a painful, debilitating medical from birth defect that can best be described as an intersex condition.

The reason behind this aberration of the truth promoted by self serving PfC is because it suits their aims, that of latching on to the LGB movement to gain a louder political voice from riding on their coat tails. In this regard they have been very successful. It also seems, to many transsexual people, that personal pursuit of power for the individual members of PfC was also a very real driving force. The individuals concerned have certainly not been adverse to collecting Government honours and accepting highly paid Government positions for themselves in return for their sell out of transsexual people, particularly the part they played in the disgraceful Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Meanwhile, self styled 'trans' leaders, PfC, not content with forcibly including thousands of transsexual people into a 'homosexual' category that they may be adverse to, have also encouraged the inclusion of transvestite, transgender and even drag queens in to the same category. This unwilling and incongruent alliance is designated collectively by a 'T' and tacked on the end of the LGB anachronism to form LGBT. It's clear what PfC have got from this union, but many LGB people are beginning to wake up to the fact their own political movement has been highjacked for PfC's own purposes. LGB have been suckered!

For PfC It is not a new strategy to use others for their own gain. They have been doing this with genuine transsexual people for years while having absolutely no mandate to do so.

But getting back to LGB & 'T.' There has been a huge cost to genuine transsexual people for this erroneous amalgamation. It has resulted in the NHS and the Government happily conniving in the myth that transsexual people are simply gay, which of course is not a medical condition that requires a medical solution. That saves money! Which of course pleases the Government and NHS.

NHS Primary Care Trusts are increasingly deciding to opt out of providing GRS (Gender Reassignment Surgery) and that is sadly the logical outcome of 'trans' campaigning group PfC's actions.

NHS Commissioning Boards are also attempting to justify the removal of not just surgical intervention in the treatment of transsexual patients, but any treatment at all, because non-op 'trans' people are now given legal gender recognition.

The (non surgical requirement) legal gender recognition came about due to PfC insistence, particularly from Stephen Whittle (who's support comes from the transmen that make up a tiny but very vocal part of the transsexual population). He persuaded the Government that this is fairer to those transsexual people who cannot have surgery due to dangerous pre existing medical problems.

As we know this unfortunate group is minuscule. It seems illogical to pass legislation that helps a tiny part of the transsexual population to the detriment of the rest. What similar example of legislation exists? But, the legislation does conveniently suits transmen in particular because many do not want the painful and expensive surgery required to create a penis.

It is suspected by some that actually a lot of transmen are simply lesbians who wish to legally present as men simply for the benefits that can bring, while keeping themselves physically female and thus able to switch back and forth as the mood and circumstances takes them.

This having your cake, eating it, and not even paying for it, approach, is not surprisingly popular with non transsexual 'trans' people. A lot of transvestite men have also cottoned on to this wheeze that legitimises their crossdressing, while allowing them to keep their sexual organs intact to enjoy their fetish. This in turn provides more 'trans' supporters to PfC, and so on. Unfortunately, It also unfairly leads to alienation of genuine transsexual people who have no wish to switch back and forth between the sexes. The legislation intended for transsexual people is in fact anti transsexual, and brings shame and confusion to the transsexual condition. The UK is now the only country in the world where a legally recognised man can give birth. And a legally recognised woman can commit rape with 'her' penis.

This all makes a mockery of transsexual people who have a genuine medical need. GRS is the most important (and most expensive) fundamental part of treatment for transsexual people. There are very few genuine transsexual people who would not wish to have their bodies surgically corrected to match their brains and perception of themselves. Those who claim to be transsexual but choose not to have surgery really cannot be genuine and are much more likely to be transvestites or the indeterminate 'trans' people with a sexual enjoyment of their fetish. With the benefit of modern surgical techniques it is extremely disingenuous for anyone who claims to be transsexual to choose to be non op. In fact the stated wish to have surgery should be an obvious core requirement of a transsexual diagnosis