Category Archives: Health

Breaking Down Point 3 of “Gender Ideology Harms Children”

For those just joining us, please read the following links to catch yourself up:

Introduction

Point 1

Point 2

A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.

This significantly downplays the suffering and struggle that people with Gender dysphoria go through on a day to day basis.  Confused thinking is “where did I leave the remote?” not, “I want to rip my breasts off because they don’t belong there!”.

Yes, Gender Dysphoria (and before that, Gender Identity Disorder) are listed in the DSM V as mental disorders, no one is denying this.  The reason it is listed there is that Gender Dysphoria is a symptom of being transgender, and can actually be treated with therapy, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and surgery.  Gender Dysphoria can “go away” or significantly lessen when treatment is applied, but the person still remains trans. The citation that the ACP uses even states that the reason Gender Dysphoria is in the DSM V is “Persons experiencing gender dysphoria need a diagnostic term that protects their access to care and won’t be used against them in social, occupational, or legal areas.”

When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such.

Transgendered individuals are suffering in both mind and body and the DSM V covers that in depth.  What the ACP is hoping for in this point is that people either won’t have access to the DSM V (which runs from $19.99-59.99 to rent on Amazon, or between $52.00-124.78 to purchase) or that they will take what they say on faith because they are after all doctors and they would know this sort of stuff…right?  For those of us who have access to the DSM V, we can see that it covers the fact that Gender Dysphoria itself is a mental illness which can cause physical and psychological effects.  When treated, the effects of Gender Dysphoria either lessen or in some cases go away all together. We are beginning to see that mental disorders have physical effects, so stating that the “problem exists that lies in the mind not the body” is at best misleading and at worst disingenuous and dangerous.  

On top of this, using the phrase “otherwise healthy biological” child muddies the waters and pushes back to that point that transgender people believe they can somehow change their chromosomes

(Just an FYI, we know we can’t change our sex chromosomes.  We’re not stupid)

These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).

This is probably the only honest thing they have said so far in this article.  However, to downplay Gender Dysphoria to just a “mental disorder” would be like saying an eating disorder is merely a “mental disorder”.  There are very noticeable physical effects in both disorders. In fact, many mental disorders have physical symptoms and effects.

The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.

Not only have they not been disproved, but they are constantly being evaluated and improved/evolved as new data arrives.  We used to consider Gender Identity Disorder to be a paraphilia (a sexual disorder where the person is aroused by abnormal sexual desires, such as necrophilia or pedophilia), but now we know that the disorder has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual arousal.

Here is some “clarification” provided by the ACP:

Regarding Point 3: “Where does the APA or DSM-V indicate that Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder?”

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) is the author of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition(DSM-V). The APA states that those distressed and impaired by their GD meet the definition of a disorder. The College is unaware of any medical literature that documents a gender dysphoric child seeking puberty blocking hormones who is not significantly distressed by the thought of passing through the normal and healthful process of puberty.

From the DSM-V fact sheet:

“The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”

“This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”

I will be discussing the portion about puberty blockers and hormone therapy in a later point, however I would like to point out that even the ACP is admitting that there is no literature (studies, documentation, etc) that backs up their personal views.  This allows us to question even further whether or not the ACP is merely cherry picking their data, twisting data, or simply ignoring facts that exist that do not support their personal opinions. We can already see this in their other articles on topics such as abstinence only education, gay adoption, and sex education.  Because of this, we need to continue on carefully, calling to account each point they make and demanding evidence of their claims, as opposed to allowing them to simply get away with being taken as truth due to their status as an “authority”.

Citations used:

DSM V Fact Sheet

Gender Dysphoria: DSM 5 Reflects Shift in Perspective on Gender Identity

-Continue on to point 4-

Breaking Down Point 2 of “Gender Ideology Harms Children”

For those just joining us, please read the following links to catch yourself up:

Introduction

Point 1

DISCLAIMER: Please remember that the natural science side of studying and understanding gender is still in its infancy as far as science goes.  What is stated within this blog may be updated as new information arrives. While the social science side of gender has been studied for far longer, it too is still in its infancy in the official sense.  Historically speaking though, the concept of gender has been around since ancient times.

No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

Let’s break this one down by each point, shall we?

No one is born with a gender.

This is a line that is repeated over and over in many of the anti-trans movements and even in many of the less accepting feminist circles out there.  Currently there is no definitive study of when our sense of gender appears, but general consensus is that we start to become aware of our gender identity around the age of 7-9 (sometimes earlier depending on circumstances and development speed).  Having siblings of a different sex can also “speed up” awareness of one’s gender identity.

One thing so far is clear when it comes to gender identity:  We need to have a sense of self before we can have a sense of gender.

So at least on this aspect, the ACP is correct.  Since we are not born with a sense of self, we technically are not born with a sense of gender, which could be perceived as not being born with a gender.  However, the science community is still out on that topic, so we may learn someday that we are in fact born with our gender and it merely takes until we are self aware before we are aware of our gender.

Everyone is born with a biological sex.”

I have yet to see anyone argue this point.  This is like saying “water is wet”. Yet in this simple statement is something that glosses over people with various disorders or chromosomal differences.  This leads to the assumption that one is born either physically male or physically female and disregards those who are intersex, androgynous, or who are born with any number of chromosomal abnormalities (48,XXYY, 48,XXXY and 49,XXXXY)

Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

Once again I would like to state that the natural science side of gender is still in its infancy.  While we are aware of gender as a sociological and psychological concept (as well as historical and anthropological), we are still just barely scratching the surface as to what gender is when we look at it through the lens of such fields as biology (neurobiology), chemistry, neuroscience, genetics, and many other fields.  As it stands right now, the most commonly cited study out there among deniers of gender is “Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic“.  The problem with this study is that most people read it and ran with the narrative that there is no such thing as a male or a female brain (as can be seen here, here, and here), while the study itself says something entirely different.  Just from reading the box labeled “Significance” we can see that the narrative being spread is not what is being said in the study:

Sex/gender differences in the brain are of high social interest because their presence is typically assumed to prove that humans belong to two distinct categories not only in terms of their genitalia, and thus justify differential treatment of males and females. Here we show that, although there are sex/gender differences in brain and behavior, humans and human brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males. Our results demonstrate that regardless of the cause of observed sex/gender differences in brain and behavior (nature or nurture), human brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes: male brain/female brain.

Did you notice that last part?  Where it says that brains cannot be categorized into two distinct classes?  That is what people are using to justify the statement that there is no such thing as a male or a female brain.

This is highly problematic on many fronts.  

First of all, we need to remember that the common statement is that gender is a spectrum, not an either/or sort of deal.  So this study does actually back up that statement. It also states that there are some features that are more common in males than in females and vice versa.

This study focuses on trying to prove/disprove sexual dimorphism, which is not the same as proving/disproving gender (which a lot of people like to use it for).

But moving past the study, let’s look at a well documented case example that leads one to wonder if gender is at least in part biological in nature.  For those who have taken college level psychology courses, you are probably familiar with the case of John/Joan.  This case followed a man who was born biologically male but was raised female due to a botched circumcision.  While there was a sexual reassignment surgery done, and hormones and hormone blockers were administered to the child, and the parents did everything in their power to raise John as Joan, the child failed to identify as female.  Even though everyone around him was raising him to be a female, and he was given everything that should have convinced his body that he was a female, his gender identity still told him he was male.  He eventually transitioned to living as a male full time by the age of 15.

One interesting fact to note on the case of John/Joan is that he was one of a set of twins.  Twin studies are often preferred for things such as this, to see whether or not something is nature or nurture.  It allows scientists to look into something known as behavioral genetics, which you can read more about here.

Does this mean that gender is 100% biological/genetic and that culture and society have no influence on it?  Not in the slightest! There are definitely aspects of gender out there that are social constructs, such as what we define as feminine and masculine (toys, colors, sports, cooking, etc).  But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t also biological factors at work when it comes to gender.

What this means is that instead of just closing the book on the topic, like the ACP has done, we need to keep up with the research and see what all we can learn and discover!

-Continue on to point 3-

Teaching Our Kids How to Be Safe

Up next on Ian didn’t read the article:

From the article:
“This isn’t about sexualising young people, but accepting that at some point your children will become interested in sex – they need to be educated about ideas of consent and self-pleasure early on to protect them from the potential actions of others.”
Hate to break it to y’all, but teens masturbate. They think about sex. They are curious and will try things out. It is our duty as parents to be there to educate them about safe sex and yes, safe masturbation. This does not mean teaching the kid how to masturbate, or buying your kid a sex doll or the Great American Challenge when they turn 10 (seriously, read the article). This means being there to answer questions and if necessary, provide the tools for them to be safe.
It also works towards ending the stigma against female, trans, and enby teens learning about their sexuality. Western culture still treats anything outside of a man mast u r bating as taboo and “icky”, which is detrimental for healthy sexual relationships.
This goes back to my point that we need to start with teaching sexual education at a much younger age than high school.
Start with using the proper terms for body parts, start with teaching boundaries and consent. Add more to the lessons as the kid grows, have the lessons be more in depth like how pregnancy works, body positivity/acceptance, and yes safe masturbation.
Children are going to masturbate. Get used to that fact.
The choice for us parents though, is do we let them know it’s a healthy thing and how to do it safely, or push it under the rug and teach them shame and self hatred?
For anyone wanting to read the actual article, here is the link.
(Article has since been taken down)
Strangely enough, this is the title when you click the link, showing again he didn’t read it, nor did most of his fans:

We Have the Resources

People claim that we can’t ensure everyone’s basic needs are met (food, shelter, clothing, fresh water, etc). Yet it’s not because we lack the resources to do it. We as a society lack the COMPASSION and EMPATHY to do it.

UPDATE: Some people have stated that the only rights we have are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This is wrong on SO many levels, the least of which because the original phrase was from John Locke, and it was “life, liberty, and property.” Jefferson, like most of the founding fathers, was against everyone having property, because that would mean that they were all equal to those in power. So Jefferson switched out “property” with “pursuit of happiness.” This ensured that only those who had property would be those in power, and they then could set forth the rule that only those who were men of a certain age who owned land could have a say in the new government.

It had nothing to do with wanting everyone happy. It had to do with keeping certain groups of people out of power, and maintaining the power of the rich, white, male elite. The founding fathers didn’t want equality for all, so to claim that the only rights we have are rights that were plagiarized and changed slightly to ensure an imbalance of power, is a claim filled with ignorance.

Transcribed from Twitter moment “We have the resources, but we refuse to use them“

Everyone deserves shelter. Everyone deserves fresh & safe water. Everyone deserves enough food to eat, and that that food isn’t just cheap “filler” foods such as pastas and rice. Everyone deserves adequate heating and cooling to help ensure proper health and homeostasis. Everyone deserves top level healthcare, not just the rich.

For some reason, people believe that the basic needs for survival should be conditional, or that to provide them means taking from someone else. Some people even claim that to make sure everyone has their basic needs met would turn others into slaves!

Because we’ve been raised as a society to believe that not everyone deserves the basic needs to survive.

I look around and see houses standing empty while people are living on the streets, unable to afford shelter. I see food stores destroying left over food instead of donating it to food banks while people go hungry. I see clothing manufacturers destroying clothes that aren’t “perfect” instead of donating them or giving them to those in need of clothes. I see companies buying up water rights and selling the water for inflated costs while whole communities are left without water. Flint, Michigan isn’t the only community without water to even take a shower. Many of the people on the reservations have been without safe water for far longer.

Here’s a hint. The resources are there, it is greed and disregard for others that is preventing access to said resources. When we put a dollar sign on the things people need to survive, we are saying as a society that only those with money deserve to live. We as a society are telling people that unless they have money, they are not deserving of what they need to survive. Because of this, we have people who are unable to give back to society due to their inability to have their basic needs met. We’ve seen that if we make sure people have their needs met, then they are more able to put back into the system that helped them.

NO ONE deserves to live in poverty, or without adequate food/water/healthcare. You shouldn’t have to EARN the “right” to such things. They should be for EVERYONE regardless of “earning it.” 

By actually giving two shits about people other than yourself and working to fix broken systems and systems of exploitation. The fact that we view necessities for life as something that not everyone deserves shows that the economic systems we’re using to day are flawed and detrimental to those who aren’t willing to step on others and use them.

The US would rather destroy food than let people have it if it’s left over.

Our society encourages and rewards greed and selfishness while empathy and compassion are often considered weaknesses. We make huge deals about celebrities donating to a charity, while ignoring that everyone has the ability to help out their fellow human being.

States like Utah have shown that by providing people with the basic needs for survival, such as shelter, food, water, and clothing, that people are able to start giving back to society. When they are no longer spending all of their time trying to figure out where they will sleep that night, or if they will have enough food to eat, they are able to focus on other things such as work and contributing to society.

We as a society created the problems we are having. We created them by giving the wealthy more money while taking away from those in need. We slashed the budgets for housing, food, health, education, and the like in the hopes that the rich would pick up the slack.

We’ve seen that they have no intention of doing so.

 We as a society destroyed the middle class in favor of the rich minority, because we were told that if we just allowed them to get a little richer, they would fix the economy and bring prosperity to us all. We created a society of debt and poverty, and then we turn around and blame those asking for help.

Instead of blaming people for what they don’t have, how about we work on compassion and empathy?

We have the resources available, but we as a society need to learn to put our fellow human beings first instead of profits. We need to realize that the more people we shove into poverty and homelessness, the fewer people we will have to be part of the workforce.

While it might cost money up front to ensure housing, food, water, and clothing for everyone, as well as proper healthcare for everyone, the end result will be a healthier society that is able to put back into the community what they took out.

We just have to put in the effort to fix the problem, instead of blaming those who were harmed.

The Great Poxsicle Wars: The rising decline of childhood vaccinations

There were eight words I positively hated when I had the Chickenpox; “Stop scratching, you’ll just make it itch more.” Now that I’m an adult, I can understand that my parents were trying to help me avoid scarring caused by scratching the blisters, but back then—I thought they were trying to torture me. When my daughter was born, scientists had developed a vaccine for Chickenpox, and I jumped at the opportunity to help her avoid the pain, itching, and maddening feeling that I had experienced when I was five years old.

Less than half an hour away from where I live, in the rather famous town of Ashland, Oregon (well famous if you count the Shakespeare festival and a Frontline Documentary), parents have taken a turn off the sanity highway and into the wild unknowns. According to a recent Ashland Daily Tidings article humorously named “Poxsicle Parties”, parents are forgoing immunizing their children and instead trying to inoculate their children by exposing them to other sick kids (Decker). Parents that are my age, around 29 years old, have been told to vaccinate their children from diseases they’ve never seen, and are often uneducated as to what could happen if they don’t vaccinate their young ones. The only way to know what can happen (or not happen) from the decline in vaccinations is to learn the differences and similarities between the two paths of thought.

Poxsicle Parties

When I first read the article, I was expecting to see a satire disclaimer at the very end, that the author, Angela Decker, was in fact just referring to a South Park episode from 1998. In the episode the South Park parents attempt to expose their children to Chickenpox when it begins to spread through the town by throwing a sleep over with a sick child. It was quite a shock to see that the article was not satire, but instead something parents in Ashland were actually doing in lieu of immunizing their children. These parents are deliberately exposing their children to the virus in hopes that they will acquire immunity naturally (Decker). While at the parties, children share food, drinks, gum (um…ew?), even popsicles with the child who has Chickenpox. The parties are found via word of mouth, or through websites like Craigslist, and invitation-only Facebook groups. There’s even a local email group called “Mamas Medicine Wheel” that has offered to host parties (Decker).

While these parties are an alternative to the more accepted immunizations, as the children often contract the virus and in turn gain immunity, there is a large risk that travels with them. If the child doesn’t get sick at a party, he or she has still been exposed, and can carry the virus back to not only their school, but to their friends and family. One Ashland mother, who remained anonymous, stated that she has taken her son to four parties of this type over the past two years (Decker). During this time, her child has gone to school, played with other children, and more than likely, visited elderly family members. There is also a chance that her son could have come into contact with people who are immuno-compromised, people who’s immune systems are not working properly due to disease or genetic defects, and passed the virus on to them.

Parents in this day and age have grown up not having to see or experience diseases such as Polio, Smallpox, Typhoid, Malaria, or even Measles. Because they’re not seeing the diseases around them, they’re starting to believe that the vaccines are no longer needed, or are more harmful than helpful (Palfreman). In the PBS documentary “Vaccine Wars”, which focuses on Ashland and various groups set against vaccinating their children, parents have listed reasons against the vaccinations such as the potential for them to cause mental diseases like Autism and ADHD (or as I like to call it, Brat-syndrome), to the belief that if they got sick as kids, their kids can do the same. Jennifer Margulis, who appeared on the show, stated, “As a parent, I would rather see my child get a natural illness and contract that the way that illnesses have been contracted for at least 200,000 years that homo sapiens (sic) have been around. I’m not afraid of my children getting chicken pox. There are reasons that children get sick. Getting sick is not a bad thing.”

Her belief is logical on some parts, except that many of the diseases out there were killing off large populations of people before the vaccines were discovered. Even though places like the United States has a very low disease rate, the same cannot be said for other parts of the world. In fact, many of the latest outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases have come from abroad. In 2008, there was an outbreak of Measels in a part of San Diego, and the disease traveled there via plane from Switzerland via an unvaccinated chile (Palfreman).

Many parents also believe that it is up to them whether or not to vaccinate their children, and should not be told to do so by the government. Unfortunately, this once again goes back to the chance of spreading preventable diseases. Also, most of the diseases that the parents focus on are diseases that have not been around in almost fifty years. One would not go out and hold a “Polio party” if there was a higher than average chance of catching it (like with Chickenpox). Dr. Anthony Fauci, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, had this to say on Polio: “When I was a child and the big scare was polio, where you would see your friends playing ball outside with you, baseball and basketball, and all of a sudden get sick and be in bed, be in an iron lung, and then come out with a deformity, a serious limp or a serious physical disability- that is absolutely frozen in your mind as a very scary scenario.”

Because of the decline in diseases in the United States, parents have become complacent. They view the parties and forced exposure of their children as better for their children because of the rare chances for the old diseases to reappear. They have come to the belief that their children are not at risk, so they shouldn’t have to worry about the vaccinations. I think Margulis stated the viewpoint the best when she said, “It’s my responsibility as a parent to keep my child safe, I think, and I don’t think it’s your responsibility to take a vaccine because I might be at the same party with you and you might cough on her. Honestly. I think your job is to protect your own health. And I mean, maybe I sound- I really don’t mean to be sounding selfish in that way.” (Palfreman)

Immunizations

Often viewed as one of the greatest triumphs in medical history, vaccines have helped to remove the threat of diseases ranging from the Flu to Hepatitis. Originally, vaccines used live versions of similar diseases (such as Cowpox to treat Smallpox), many of them are now made from human plasma. It was quite interesting (during my time working at CSL Plasma) to learn that several vaccines, including Tetanus, Rabies, Shingles, and Chickenpox, are made from processing plasma and extracting the antibodies. They are man’s way of getting around the illnesses and damage caused by the illness, while providing the immunity to the disease. According to Dr Melinda Wharton, there are sixteen diseases that are preventable by vaccination for children (Palfreman). Of those, the majority are given to infants, and the rest are given to children as adolescents.

Just like anything else in this world, there are risks associated with the vaccines. Due to social media sites such as Youtube and various blogs, parents are shown videos that lead them to believe the risk is much greater than it actually is. There have also been medical studies (that have since been proven incorrect) such as an article in 1998 by British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, where he reported on twelve children with gastrointestinal problems, eight of whom started showing symptoms of Autism after receiving an MMR shot. Because of that coincidence, he went on to state that the shot istelf was what was causing the children’s Autism (Palfreman).

In fact, many of the parents these days focus on the risks, rather than what the vaccine can do. “To say that there is no risk in any vaccine would not be truthful. What is the risk of injecting something into someone’s arm? The risk is that a certain proportion of people will get swelling and a little bit of pain, lasting from an hour to a day. That is a very acceptable risk.

A very, very, very small percentage of people will get an allergic reaction. Namely, there’s a component to the vaccine that they didn’t realize that they were allergic to.

And then there’s a subset of a very, very, very, very small percentage of those who actually can get a serious reaction. But if you look at that, the risk of that is so minusculely (sic) small as to be completely outweighed by the benefit.” stated Dr Anthony Fauci during his interview with Frontline, when asked about the risks versus benefits of vaccines (Palfreman).

Many of the risks parents are scared of, often can’t even be connected to the vaccine itself. Many studies have been performed that show that there is no link between Autism and the Measels vaccine, yet parents are still convinced, because of videos on the web, or word of mouth, that science is wrong or lying (Palfreman). Lorie Anderson, a former social worker who has lived in Ashland since 1976 and has written in several times to the Ashland Daily Tidings, stated: “After studying the vaccine debate, I came to this conclusion: Not much is 100 percent safe or effective, but the most credible sources reveal vaccine benefits far outweigh their rare serious risks, saving lives and reducing suffering.” (Anderson)

Even though several of the diseases that are vaccinated against don’t exist in the United States, many parents (that vaccinate their children) still focus on the common logic that the USA is not in a bubble, that the diseases still exist outside of the country and can be brought in at any time. It’s what can easily be referred to as the “better safe than sorry” theory, where even though there is a very low chance of coming into contact with the disease, there is still a chance. They also understand that while there is often an up front cost for the vaccine, it saves them money in the long run by avoiding doctors visits, and sometimes even hospital stays for their children.

With the decline in infectious diseases present in the United States, so has the rate for childhood immunizations gone down. One can easily deduce that this is because many parents are beginning to feel that the diseases no longer exist, so why bother trying to prevent it. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and there is great potential for this kind of thought to bring about the next big epidemic in the United States. In Ashland alone, an estimated 28% of school age children lack some or all of their recommended vaccines (Palfreman). Should a disease such as Polio be introduced to the area, much of the population could become infected and either suffer long lasting effects, or die.

While many of the arguments posed by parents who are against vaccinating their children make sense on a small scale, they unfortunately don’t work in the grand scheme of life. While a parent might be able to protect their own child, they are risking putting other children at risk (but hey, the kid’s parents should have taken better care of their own kids, right?) and possibly even people who can’t be immunized at risk. Education is the key to keeping children and adults safe, as well as finding connections between the potential causes behind the rise in diseases that people are trying to link to vaccines. Without education though, and without being willing to weigh the risks versus the benefits, parents are just helping the next big epidemic along, and I don’t want to be one of the ones standing there with my family going, “See, told you so.” as the unvaccinated children wither away from a preventable disease.

Works Cited

Anderson, Lorie. “Vaccination is Protection” Ashland Daily Tidings [Ashland, OR] 14 Feb. 2012

http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120213/NEWS02/202130305

Decker, Angela. “Poxsicle Parties” Ashland Daily Tidings [Ashland, OR] 13 Feb. 2012

http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120214/NEWS/202140301

Palfreman, Jon. “Frontline: The Vaccine Wars” PBS April 2010

Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/etc/script.html

Birth Control IS Healthcare!

(Seriously, if you think it’s not…please never have sex again.)

For those in the back who missed the title: BIRTH CONTROL IS HEALTHCARE!

Now then…time for some educating! Birth control has many uses outside of preventing pregnancy. Outside of that, here are several others that you should know:

It can be used to protect against ovarian and uterine cancer.

It can be used to prevent ovarian cysts (something I deal with).

It can be used to help lessen the pain of people dealing with dysmenorrhea.

Suffering from anemia and “female”? Birth control can help with that!

Birth control can help with what are known as “menstrual migraines.”
Dealing with amenorrhea? Birth control can help treat that and help balance a hormone deficiency!

It can also be used in the treatment of PCOS (PolyCystic Ovarian Syndrome)

Want more reading on why birth control IS healthcare?

Even the CATHOLIC CHURCH acknowledges there are medical reasons for using it.

Let’s also not forget that hysterectomies are “birth control” (EXPENSIVE BC). Should I have just let my cancer ravage my body and kill me?

But birth control is not just limited to cis women or trans men!

There are birth control options out there for men as well! And taking control of your reproductive abilities is good for your health & sexy! Did you know that many Planned Parenthood locations offer low cost or free vasectomies for men? This is because unfortunately too many people don’t consider it a form of birth control, so it’s not covered as such under the PPACA. But it is still healthcare! And it should be treated just like any other form of healthcare and be covered as such!

A vasectomy is a much more straightforward, minor procedure when compared to a tubal ligation. While it is not protected and mandated under PPACA, it is covered by many private plans as well as many state plans! Not to mention that outside of health benefits, there’s the cost saving benefits! It is more cost-effective than the cost of most birth controls and other sterilization procedures. Not to mention it is WAY less expensive than prenatal, delivery and postnatal costs from getting pregnant. And on top of all of that, a vasectomy can provide mental health benefits in the form of less stress about getting someone pregnant! And you don’t have to worry about your partner forgetting to take their birth control. Outside of an STD risk, you’re now plug and play!

No extra installation or coverage additions!

To recap, here’s just a few of the MEDICAL conditions that can be treated using birth control:

Hey Michea, why aren’t you nicer to pro-life people?

Transcribed from a January 28, 2017 Twitter Thread.

You want to learn about why abortion is not murder?

You want to learn about why abortion is a human right and why the person who is pregnant matters more than a fetus?

You want to learn why I’m no longer playing nice with people?

Google is your friend, you can also scroll to the bottom of this article and check out my playlist on these topics.

My Playlist regarding Reproductive Issues: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-pADuAki4GgGqx5WiDyGYyF3ZCjPeJKa