What this story doesn't mention is if she was paying for the treatments. If she is, then she certainly should be allowed to get them.
But if she isn't, I really don't see why tax payer dollars should go for her treatment.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What this story doesn't mention is if she was paying for the treatments. If she is, then she certainly should be allowed to get them.
Why? Prison inmates are forbidden to buy many things which are available on the outside. Cosmetic surgery is one of them.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
It's a really tough line to draw.
Being transgender isn't something you can control, and it can be life-threatening if untreated.
I think you have a right to decide what gender you are, and that is a right which being incarcerated should not necessarily impinge on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You appear to be claiming that hair growing in embarrassing places is life-threatening if untreated. Probably I am misreading you. Could you clarify what you meant?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A right to decide what gender you are is a slightly different question from a right to treatment to make your appearance match that though.
Also, they already dealt with the harm issue by since "the inmate has failed to prove she will suffer "serious harm" without further electrolysis."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
KoM, you're funny.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You appear to be claiming that hair growing in embarrassing places is life-threatening if untreated. Probably I am misreading you. Could you clarify what you meant?
This is the way transgenderism is couched these days. It's a "life threatening illness," in the sense that depression is a life threatening illness- it has a high rate of associated suicide. I'm not going to pretend my opinion of the condition matters because like most people, I'm singularly unqualified to understand the condition. I think of it like global warming- easy to deny if you don't know anything about it, but I trust the opinions of those who seem to genuinely want to do good.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Would a woman with excessive facial hair be permitted to have the procedure?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Women in prison are not allowed to buy cosmetics, from what I understand. I don't see how this is that much different.
I also think that the time to consider the inconveniences of incarceration is before you commit the crime.
Will Obamacare cover sex changes? I mean, it seems unfair if it wouldn't. Transpeople pay into it just like anyone else.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Since it's a recognized disorder, I think it would be treated accordingly. You can poke fun at Obama for that, but he doesn't define appropriate medical care.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm not poking fun. It's a serious question because some people (not me) would have a religious issue with that.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Cosmetics are not forbidden due to ethical reasons, but do to security reasons. They can be used to assist in escaping. The question is, does the electrolysis disrupt security.
Pixi, Obama-care will cover Sex Change operations only if the person involved has assisted in the death of three cost-obstinate health care users. These can be elder family, AIDS patients, abortions up to three years after delivery or those suffering from several expensive diseases.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'm not poking fun. It's a serious question because some people (not me) would have a religious issue with that.
Luckily we have the first amendment. Crisis averted.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What this story doesn't mention is if she was paying for the treatments. If she is, then she certainly should be allowed to get them.
But if she isn't, I really don't see why tax payer dollars should go for her treatment.
Amen on both counts.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Orincoro: Uh... The first amendment is only as good as the people who interpret it.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Since it's a recognized disorder, I think it would be treated accordingly. You can poke fun at Obama for that, but he doesn't define appropriate medical care.
It is unfortunate that it is regarded as a disorder. Currently there is a push among many mental health professionals that it should not be considered a disorder, rather another normal (though less common) variation of human behavior and sexual identity. There is a strong possibility that GID ( gender identity disorder ) will be removed in the upcoming DSM V ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ), to be released in 2012.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Since it's a recognized disorder, I think it would be treated accordingly. You can poke fun at Obama for that, but he doesn't define appropriate medical care.
It is unfortunate that it is regarded as a disorder. Currently there is a push among many mental health professionals that it should not be considered a disorder, rather another normal (though less common) variation of human behavior and sexual identity. There is a strong possibility that GID ( gender identity disorder ) will be removed in the upcoming DSM V ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ), to be released in 2012.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Orincoro: Uh... The first amendment is only as good as the people who interpret it.
I still have a pretty good stock of faith in the supreme court.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Ive had family members nearly die in county jail, the left side of his face had even swelled to three inches away from its normal position. My mother was smuggling anti-biotics into him like they were hard drugs, and when that didnt work he decided that if he escaped and was caught he would be sent to state and given the medical help he needed. It worked, but added alot of time on to his stay, so why should a jail give a damn about a what a tranny looks like? and as to it being a matter of suicide and what not, ITS PRISON LOTSA FOLKS WANT TO KILL THEMSELVES IN PRISON just put him/her in solitary for a while like anyone else who says that theyre suicidal.
As to the medicare part, I dont know for a fact how it would play out with Pres. Obama's plan but it should be regarded as cosmetic surgery and not the fault or responsibility of universal health-care. And if not, if my old school mate Wesly can get a vagina for free I'll be right behind him in line for some free lipo, youre grandma might even get new boobs too.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lisa- I don't mean to be insensitive or naive, but isn't have GID listed as a disorder a good thing? Like since it is a disorder, doesn't that make it more likely to get gender reassignment surgery and stuff? If it wasn't recognized as a problem, then wouldn't the response just be suck it up?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Scholarette, you aren't being insensitive or naive. There are people in the trans community who actually want to fight having it removed as a disorder for that reason.
I don't think having something in the DSM as a trick to force insurance companies to do the right thing is appropriate. And sure, it's easy for me to say 13 years down the road, but there's got to be a way to do this without sacrificing honesty. I'm not a fan of sacrificing the truth in order to obtain a favorable outcome.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Orincoro: Uh... The first amendment is only as good as the people who interpret it.
I still have a pretty good stock of faith in the supreme court.
We have gay marriage yet?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Here we go...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not sure if transgender individuals buying insurance to get surgery is the right model. Insurance is properly against risks that can be spread around the community and aren't predictable on an individual basis, like being in a car accident. (The American model of health insurance is, it's true, exceedingly screwed up; I'm not saying you can get what I'm advocating by any reasonable democratic process starting where we are now, I'm just thinking about what I would design if I were dictator.) Being transgender, if I understand correctly, is something that you discover (as a general rule, at least) sometime in your teens, when you surely aren't going to be buying your own insurance. It follows that by the time you're getting your own insurance, you know perfectly well that you are going to have this surgery, and if you pay the same premium as those without such knowledge, you're being subsidised by other premium-payers without their consent. In this model, I find it difficult to call it "the right thing" when insurance companies are forced to pay for the surgery. It would be different if you bought the insurance at 20 and found out about the transgenderism at 25, and I'm sure there are such cases, but I don't think that's the median.
A better model, I think, would be for the parents to buy insurance at the birth of a child. The parents have no asymmetric knowledge of what their child is going to do, so they are not being subsidised by anyone; the actuaries will simply calculate "such-and-such a percentage of children need transgender surgery; it costs thus-and-so; therefore the premium is this-and-that." And you could insure against autism and other things that develop late and need lots of care while you were at it. What you should not insure against is vaccinations; everyone gets them, there's no gain from "spreading the risk" - something that happens to 100% of the population (or even 99.8%) is not a risk. You just add administrative overhead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Orincoro: Uh... The first amendment is only as good as the people who interpret it.
I still have a pretty good stock of faith in the supreme court.
We have gay marriage yet?
I'm sorry, does the fact that we don't have it yet indicate abject failure on the part of the supreme court? I'm going with no. I share your frustration on the issue, but I'm not going to nay-say every damned thing to death the way you've been doing of late.
This, by the way, is really as far as I'm going on this. I have no further interest in hearing your doom and gloom.