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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 95 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    kedavis (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    What I don’t get is all the fine gradations. Homosexual / bisexual I can get. Fetishes I can get – the wires are crossed so something non-sexual is sexual. Asexual (uninterested in sex) and aromantic (not attracted to people) makes sense – it just means low sex drive. Trans or non-binary I can wrap my head around to some extent even though it is a mental condition.

    Demisexual? Graysexual? You are only attracted to some people in a category? Welcome to all humanity. People are different and usually have a “type”. All of these weird identifications are out there. What the heck is two-spirit as opposed to non-binary? I recall one person identifying as an ornate building. It’s like playing pretend taken to a new level.

     

    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.

    When I get accused of my prejudice against this group or that group, I point out how for a long time now,  I have hated almost all people rather equally.

     

    • #91
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Pairing is personal. And a matter of taste and something else indefinable.

    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.

    There’s something to that saliva-selection.

    Also, evo-bio has a take that men of a reproducing community evolve an attraction toward certains traits *in general* and that women of a community evolve to exhibit those features *in general*.  Feel free to apply this at any scale of “community” that you wish.  Also, same with sexual roles reversed.  PLEASE NOTE that none of this works with homosexuals, trannies, dog-lovers (ahem), and so forth.

    How to Judge People by What They Look Like, by Edward Dutton. 

    As everybody from E.O. Wilson to John Gray (PEE AITCH DEE) has said, “there’s a reason you feel the way you do.”

    • #92
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Question: would a pediphile be someone who likes pediatricians?

    Pedicures.

    • #93
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    What I don’t get is all the fine gradations. Homosexual / bisexual I can get. Fetishes I can get – the wires are crossed so something non-sexual is sexual. Asexual (uninterested in sex) and aromantic (not attracted to people) makes sense – it just means low sex drive. Trans or non-binary I can wrap my head around to some extent even though it is a mental condition.

    Demisexual? Graysexual? You are only attracted to some people in a category? Welcome to all humanity. People are different and usually have a “type”. All of these weird identifications are out there. What the heck is two-spirit as opposed to non-binary? I recall one person identifying as an ornate building. It’s like playing pretend taken to a new level.

     

    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.

    When I get accused of my prejudice against this group or that group, I point out how for a long time now, I have hated almost all people rather equally.

     

    “The Corps does not discriminate against n*, k*, s* …”

    • #94
  5. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    From The Blaze, “A girls’ high school volleyball player in North Carolina recently suffered severe injuries to her head and neck after a trans opponent spiked a ball into her face.” 

    School decided not to play the other school again in women’s volleyball. Some in community objected to the decision.

    • #95
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.