I was filling out an intake form for a surgeon and in the section entitled "List ANY Health Problems of Family Members" GLBT was listed, right between "Prostate Cancer" and "Heart Attack". For some reason I found this highly offensive and almost passed on the surgeon for this reason alone (despite knowing the surgeon is very supportive of the Trans community).

Am I overly offensive or does this just seem wrong?

I don't think it is offensive, but I don't agree with being LGBT is a health issue. I find it odd that a surgeon that is supposed to be supportive would have that there.

It does seem irrelevant to your health, if a family member were LGBT.

I can think of one far-reached reason that they might ask this, but it's pretty offensive.

Actually, I don't think it is that offensive.

Think about it:

Even though we are transitioning our body simply does not have some of the same organs of the gender we wish for genetically. Like, when I've been to the hospital for whatever reason and I get asked "when did you have your last period?" I tell them without hesitation and no shame whatsoever "well, I'm transgendered so that doesn't apply to me."

Most of them don't bat an eye and the questions proceed as usual. I DID have one nurse walk out on me one time and she sent someone else in her place. I just shrugged my shoulders and let it go because I had been living full time for a few years by then and more importantly, I was there to get my severely infected tonsils out which were killing me so I didn't care about what had just happened.

Life went on then and it goes on now.

It is inappropriate, in my opinion.

If your Great Aunt Norah has a prostate how is that medically relevant to your reason for consulting this surgeon?

There is also nothing medically relevant to a surgeon about someone in your family being lesbian, gay or bisexual. That also includes STDs, because every single STD that can affect LGBT people affects everyone else in far greater numbers.

I'd suggest asking what they mean by this question it is ambiguous at best and discriminatory at worst.

Quote from: FTMDiaries on March 13, 2013, 10:35:47 AM
It is inappropriate, in my opinion.

That also includes STDs, because every single STD that can affect LGBT people affects everyone else in far greater numbers.

That was the "far-reached" reason that I considered. And you're right, it's even more offensive in this context (particularly if the question of how one might contract an STD from a family member is considered)... though I don't know how the statistics measure up relative to the population.

wait, STDs affect other populations in far greater numbers? I'm calling bull. ever major study says otherwise.

And no, it's not offensive, just thorough. It's more offensive really to hide it, as that shows some form of shame for your heredity. although I do still question the relevance, there may be some I am unaware of.






Edited for profanity

Quote from: tomthom on March 13, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
And no, it's not offensive, just thorough.

Bingo!

Quote from: tomthom on March 13, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
It's more offensive really to hide it, as that shows some form of shame for your heredity.

It's not hiding it if you're not asked.

I can't see the relevance.

but you are being asked, so the point stands.

Anyway, It's a choice to be offended by trivial things like this. if you know the doctor is trans friendly, which in all likelihood means he's LGBT friendly, I think you can safely assume that either the test is standardized and not made by him(not a reason to be offended, but this may make it outdated), or if it is made by him then there is no reason to take offense.

simple as that really.

If it were "trivial", lisa would not have expressed concern.

Each of us have our own priorities, none greater or lesser than another.

you're correct. I apologize.

I'm glad I have never come across that when filling papers out at a doctors office, but I can understand how it could apply.

I take several medications and the hormones I'm on could make a difference in what is prescribed or just make the doctor want to watch closer for side effects.

I guess I wouldn't be offended, but it would take me back for a moment seeing it asked.

Quote from: tomthom on March 13, 2013, 10:49:01 AM
wait, STDs affect other populations in far greater numbers? I'm calling bull. ever major study says otherwise.

Really?

The straight, cis population far outnumbers the LGBT population in every single country of the world. Every major study shows that all STDs have much higher transmission rates in the straight population mainly because of their overwhelming numbers and the fact that a lot of young, straight people prefer not to bother with condoms. This has led to huge increases in STD transmission in the straight population. For example:

• Gonorrhea: most prevalent in teens and young adults, most of whom are straight.
• Chlamydia: most commonly reported STD in the US, mostly found in heterosexual females aged 14-19.
• HIV: despite the media trying to convince everyone that this is a 'gay disease', HIV is mostly found in the heterosexual population.

To illustrate my point, the majority (69%) of the world's HIV-positive people live in sub-Saharan Africa, where the disease is mostly spread by heterosexual men having unprotected sex with multiple female partners. It is mainly spread by migrant workers who leave the wife back home in the village when they go to the city to look for work... where they sleep with prostitutes and other high-risk women, becoming infected with HIV as well as spreading it around. It is against their culture (it is considered 'unmanly') to use a condom so their chances of catching it are extremely high. Then they go back home to the wife, who not only catches HIV from her husband, but very often she gives birth to HIV-positive children. More than 22 million people, most of them heterosexual, are HIV positive in sub-Saharan Africa.

Sources: Centers for Disease Control, WHO, and being a citizen of Sub-Saharan Africa.

I think tomthom meant relevant to the population; and I think that it's fairly well-established - without having to provide a source - that some diseases (such as HIV amongst gay males) are a bit more prevalent in the LGBT community, though the margin is slowly decreasing with the heterosexual population.

(and please pardon me, tomthom, if I'm "thinking" incorrectly on your behalf)

I would've just been like "wtf" and then moved on.

Having been asked if I had the surgeries (this is *after* I was asked "Have you had any surgeries?" "Yes, a tonsillectomy.")-- and we know what surgeries these were, imo for no reason, I find it maybe not offensive but why?

Questions:
1. What surgeries have you had?
2. Have you had STDs?
etc.

I don't see that GBLT is a medical condition.

--Jay

I agree, it is not a "medical" condition, but if your on hormones it can make a large difference.

I know my doctor makes allowance for my hormones in how she treats my diabetes and thyroid conditions, mammograms, blood pressure, etc.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 13, 2013, 11:18:32 AM
I take several medications and the hormones I'm on could make a difference in what is prescribed or just make the doctor want to watch closer for side effects.

I take only one other med that isn't related to transition BUT if something happens to me and I end up on multiple meds (which is a strong possibility given my family medical history.) This would be my primary concern. This is why I disclose the fact that I am trans and have no reservations about it whatsoever.

Quote from: Sarah Louise on March 13, 2013, 01:57:58 PM
I agree, it is not a "medical" condition, but if your on hormones it can make a large difference.

I know my doctor makes allowance for my hormones in how she treats my diabetes and thyroid conditions, mammograms, blood pressure, etc.

Section was for FAMILY history, not personal. There was also a section for personal medications and since the application was for SRS, the T part of GLBT was established pretty thoroughly.