: Hormones :
I saw this story today on MSNBC - "New hormone therapy sparks debate" and it got me to thinking about pharmaceuticals specifically for trans people, especially the quote that reads:
"The real issue is how long you take them," says Dr. Susan Love, who wrote "Dr. Susan Love's Menopause and Hormone Book." "Three to five years is probably safe, but you don't want to be on high levels of hormones for the rest of your life. That's where the safety issues really come in."
Of course this is a concern to most trans people, being on high levels of hormones for extended periods of time that can last years, if not decades. Add that to the fact that there are practically no scientific studies on long-term risks for cross-gender use, since our populations are so small. This is compounded by the difficulty that many trans people have in affording SRS so that they can reduce their dosage. I'm extremely lucky and well-prepared in that respect - I've only been on my pre-op dosage for a little over two years, and it will be two-and-a-half years come surgery time in January.
I worry sometimes about my trans friends who are planning to be on HRT for long periods of time, either because they can't afford surgery, or are unsure they want to take that step. To make matters worse, stories like this one ("Women sue over popular birth-control patch") could cause the industry in general to lower the dosages of hormones that genetic women use for birth control. This would have a detrimental effect for trans women, because since we use them for feminization instead of birth control, we will end up having to buy more doses of a given drug to accomplish the same effect, thereby increasing our costs.
So what's the solution? It's pretty obvious - there needs to be widespread coverage of SRS by health care insurers for those who qualify. There is still way too much perception that gender transition is a lifestyle choice that people voluntarily choose because it suits them, or that psychotherapy and HRT are long-term solutions for trans people. I think if someone did a study on how many people would actually get SRS and compared that cost of treating illness linked to long-term negative effects of hormone use by the number of people who actually use them (which would include all kinds of cancers, strokes and blood clots) there could be a case made that paying for SRS would actually save money over the long run.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this idea, and there might even be such a study out there already, but I'm too busy to look for it right now. I doubt anyone would pay attention to it even if it existed, since the trans population is such a small one, but there might be an opportunity to put this issue into the public eye someday. At least it's worth talking about.
"The real issue is how long you take them," says Dr. Susan Love, who wrote "Dr. Susan Love's Menopause and Hormone Book." "Three to five years is probably safe, but you don't want to be on high levels of hormones for the rest of your life. That's where the safety issues really come in."
Of course this is a concern to most trans people, being on high levels of hormones for extended periods of time that can last years, if not decades. Add that to the fact that there are practically no scientific studies on long-term risks for cross-gender use, since our populations are so small. This is compounded by the difficulty that many trans people have in affording SRS so that they can reduce their dosage. I'm extremely lucky and well-prepared in that respect - I've only been on my pre-op dosage for a little over two years, and it will be two-and-a-half years come surgery time in January.
I worry sometimes about my trans friends who are planning to be on HRT for long periods of time, either because they can't afford surgery, or are unsure they want to take that step. To make matters worse, stories like this one ("Women sue over popular birth-control patch") could cause the industry in general to lower the dosages of hormones that genetic women use for birth control. This would have a detrimental effect for trans women, because since we use them for feminization instead of birth control, we will end up having to buy more doses of a given drug to accomplish the same effect, thereby increasing our costs.
So what's the solution? It's pretty obvious - there needs to be widespread coverage of SRS by health care insurers for those who qualify. There is still way too much perception that gender transition is a lifestyle choice that people voluntarily choose because it suits them, or that psychotherapy and HRT are long-term solutions for trans people. I think if someone did a study on how many people would actually get SRS and compared that cost of treating illness linked to long-term negative effects of hormone use by the number of people who actually use them (which would include all kinds of cancers, strokes and blood clots) there could be a case made that paying for SRS would actually save money over the long run.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this idea, and there might even be such a study out there already, but I'm too busy to look for it right now. I doubt anyone would pay attention to it even if it existed, since the trans population is such a small one, but there might be an opportunity to put this issue into the public eye someday. At least it's worth talking about.
