Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trivializing Breast Cancer for the Transgender Agenda
In December 2020, I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and in February 2021, I had a single mastectomy. It was a stunning diagnosis, because I had been in great health, had regular mammograms (which would not have detected this lump) and had no history of breast cancer in my family. Prior to the surgery, a team was organized for my treatment. I was also encouraged by my surgeon to speak to a doctor who could do reconstructive surgery, but when I went to schedule an appointment, I decided against it. My husband and I agreed that the less surgery I had, the better. When my surgeon asked me if I had talked to the plastic surgeon, I said no, and that was the end of the discussion. The cancer team, including the surgeon and the oncologist, were compassionate and were devoted to my care and to answering my questions. The chemotherapy nurses in particular were beyond kind and considerate.
So when I learned recently about how the transgender movement is essentially trying to coopt breast cancer detection and treatment, I was angry. That movement has already disrupted the health and well-being of girls and women, boys and men, to such a degree that I was baffled that they were trying to corrupt breast cancer treatment. How was that possible?
For nearly four decades, the country has recognized October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Sadly, this year we must draw attention to how activists and even some medical professionals are exploiting the complex disease. Breast cancer treatment is the latest medical field to be ‘queered.’
Apparently, there are men and women who feel that it’s a travesty to identify certain types of cancers with certain genders. For example, even though breast cancer appears primarily in women who are born women, it is now discriminatory to say so. A Canadian site, queercancer.ca, provides further explanation, but here is a description of one former cancer patient:
Through the site, LGBT cancer patients can access the personal medical histories of their peers, such as that of British breast cancer survivor Angie Beckles, who identifies as being ‘queer, autistic, disabled, non-binary, mixed race, demisexual, asexual/graysexual [and] romantic.’ Beckles feels breast cancer is ‘one of those really gendered cancers’ and is ‘very, very cisnormative, not to say cissexist’ as it forces sufferers to think about their breasts ‘constantly when you’d largely managed to ignore their existence’ for years. These ‘annoying, large lumps’ had suddenly ‘sprouted” on her at age 11, “without my consent,’ only to later ‘horribly betray her’ by becoming cancerous.
To perceive one’s breasts in this way is a tragic distortion and misunderstanding of a woman’s breasts, and a denial that women were provided with breasts that served, at one time and even today, an important function, as well as a beauty that artists have portrayed for centuries. Some transgenders who contract cancer actually believe that the disease is one way to identify the body’s rejection of breasts.
Some women feel they have been unduly pressured to have reconstructive surgery. The recommendation to at least explore this option is depicted as an effort by surgeons (who are primarily male) for women to return their bodies to a kind of normalcy. Now there are “flat advocates” who feel this pressure exists and insist that women who decide on this option, do so under pressure from their surgeons. Here is the explanation by one “flat advocate”:
‘For me, becoming an advocate was less of a choice and more of an awakening to the deep roots of misogyny in breast cancer care. Everything about breast cancer care orients to the assumption that a woman without breasts is a travesty. As soon as I started seeing how the male gaze shapes breast cancer care, I couldn’t see anything else. As a women’s health journalist, it was (and is) my responsibility to shine a light on it.’
Transgender patients who have chosen to have their breasts removed are also angry that they have been asked to postpone their surgeries, which require pre-surgery mastectomies, for cancer patient mastectomies to be treated first:
Trans patients were called last week and informed their long-awaited top surgery [i.e. taxpayer-funded breast removals] had been cancelled to let more cancer mastectomies happen. It’s not their [i.e., transsexuals’] responsibility. Our surgery is not cosmetic. Transgender wait times are fatal and #IWon’tDieWaiting.
Finally, hormone treatment for both men and women can increase the risk of breast cancer. It’s not clear if people who receive hormone treatment are being educated about this risk.
* * * *
It is mindboggling to see the many ways that the transgender folks will take actions that serve their own agenda and distort our modern understanding of the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. We have come so far in our treatment of breast cancer; it is no longer a death sentence and the science, including surgery and post-surgical treatment, whether it’s radiation or chemotherapy, continues to progress. Transgender people have now used breast cancer as another avenue to attack men, and to portray themselves as attacked and minimized. To watch transgender people adopt cancer into their own twisted and self-serving agenda is a travesty to those who have contracted and been treated for breast cancer.
They have invented just one more way to trivialize the human condition.
Published in Healthcare
These days you can’t just say “I like blondes” or something. It has to be turned into some kind of “diagnosis” that you can hate other people for disagreeing with, or something.
Somehow, I’m always surprised by the extent of the craziness of crazy people.
What really gets me about the transsexual thing is that after the subject had been thoroughly introduced to the public and thoroughly endorsed by those in power, there came the calls that straight men should date, or have sex with, or want and enjoy sex with, or presumably marry other men who claimed to be women, and that not doing so (or wanting to) was prejudice, or some kind of phobia or “hate”.
I’ve always connected this with a story I heard about the John Lennon’s and Paul McCartney’s marriages. Paul said to John, I suppose somewhat derisively, that Yoko was never John’s type, and John said that he knew Paul’s tastes and John was surprised with his choosing Linda because she wasn’t Paul’s type either. Paul didn’t argue. So, people don’t marry types, they marry people.
And I haven’t heard much about “type” in dating in decades, I suppose, which would be summed up in a few words: blonde or brunette, fun or brainy, athletic or bookish, partier or quiet. Then there’s always been as far as I knew, love at first site, kismet, or that spark, or “we clicked”. For millennia there was always that special attraction that was unique to two people, a man and a woman, or what we might have once called “attraction”. Ancient real life examples include Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, even David and Bathsheba and Samson and Delilah — especially Samson. None of these were politically mediated attractions, but individual and idiosyncratic.
Pairing is personal. And a matter of taste and something else indefinable.
So this is why I take the militant Left’s attempt at sexual extortion as so bizarre. They would have all be political, even whom you desire and choose for a husband or wife.
Trans-Men (men who claim to be women) and trans-Women (women who claim to be men) are seeking to have sexual rights — moral rights — superior to that indefinable sexual attraction between a man and a woman that preceded us and is an integral part of maturity and attraction and bonding and reproduction, which is, let’s face it, largely responsible for us getting here in the first place.
Great points, Flicker! You could write a post on some aspect of attractions or types–it would be fascinating.
I have no idea what the Left is thinking in this regard. It is too bizarre for me to comprehend!
I thought the official lingo was just the opposite: Trans-Men are “men” who “used to be” women; and Trans-Women are “women” who “used to be” men.
I don’t know why I didn’t include this before, but “liking blondes” would be blondeophilia. And if you like blondes, you’re a blondeophile.
I’m totally confused–and have little to no inclination to clarify it for myself. Harumphh!
The intent seems to be to make it about what they “are” (supposedly) now, not what they “used to be.”
When I read “trans-whichever” I just substitute “opposite of a whichever, pretending to be a whichever”. Keeps it clear.
[giggle] Thanks, Fritz. That helps a lot . . .
Biochemistry is very important. There’s some good evidence that people are attracted to other people through pheromones and other traits that suggest a good mating partner for various reasons. Which will have little or nothing to do with hair color.
And “taste” ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie, either. In my youth, I knew some women who literally left a bad taste in my mouth after kissing. And not because they were smokers or something.
(Bio)Chemistry.
They have to be unique and special. As more join their bad, they have to branch out to became special again.
Yes, the Official Lingo is deliberately deceptive and linguistically wrong. That’s why I used capital letters and parenthetical clarifications. Trans-Men are definitionally MEN. And Trans-Women are by definition WOMEN.
Why define someone’s sex by what they are not?
Same goes for species. A trans-dog, is not a cat. It is a dog.
Yes, this can be confusing to some. One can’t change his sex surgically or pharmacologically. Animals, for example, cats and dogs instinctively know this, but have trouble verbalizing it.
So a “Fake Man” is actually a man? Just because the word “Man” appears?
Interesting linguistics you’ve got there. Apparently includes no concept of negation, etc.
I hope you enjoy being misinterpreted/misunderstood by almost everyone.
You have these memorized, don’t you?
It was a great show! Sadly, I can’t always find appropriate clips if they weren’t put on youtube or have been removed.
I’m an Anglophile, I’m always looking for an angle.
That reminds me of a conversation I had forty years ago.
I was talking with a guy who mentioned that pedaphilia was wrong.
I said, No it’s not.
Yes, it is, it’s a sin.
No, it’s not there’s nothing wrong with pedaphila.
We went back and forth on this, getting more and more heated, and finally I had to correct him.
Peda mean the foot! What’s wrong with liking feet?!!
NOT ped-a-philia! Ped-o-philia!
Oh, I said. Why didn’t you say that?
Can’t. That’s all I know about it. :)
If you were talking, not writing, how did you know he meant a rather than o? Sometimes people just pronounce things weird.
Yes, pronunciation. Pronunciation is how we distinguish words from other sounds. But really I was half joking with him — because of his lazy pronunciation. (Not that I’m compulsive about it.)
It has to do with talking. You don’t call a dog a non-cat.
It’s not necessarily just individual laziness in pronunciation. On his radio show, Dennis Miller used to say that in his shows and stuff, he had to make a specific effort to say “wolf” because growing up in Pittsburgh (I think it was) everyone said “woof” and that’s how he learned it. Good luck getting everyone in Pittsburgh to stop being “lazy” and say “wolf” properly.
You’re just going to have most people think you mean the opposite of what you really mean, but that’s not my problem. Modifiers don’t always work the same way. Unless you want to explain that corn oil is made from corn, and peanut oil is made from peanuts, and motor oil really is made from motors and baby oil really is made from babies.
Question: would a pediphile be someone who likes pediatricians?
You’re both right, because it is a matter of indifference to me. As always, ask the chromosomes.
I thought that was for stubborn heel calluses.
Zackly.
I substitute “insane” for the whole thing. At that point it no longer matter (except of course for selection of appropriate pronouns).
Yet apparently these new oppressed people would not need to be so self-consumed, if only we would take them more seriously.
As though the oodles of tax-payer monies, and health insurance premium increases that are paying for their surgeries aren’t enough.