Brief Political Rant

"ImmoralMinority" (araimondo) 01/07/2017 at 17:59 • Filed to: None

4

11

I don’t understand this. I support transgender rights, but I don’t think the taxpayer should foot the bill when transgender women and men who have never committed a crime have to figure out how to pay for surgery. This is not lifesaving treatment

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Earn parole, then figure out how to get your surgery. I do believe insurance should have to cover gender reassignment.

Dslay04 > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 18:03

0

Interesting thought. I agree that you shouldnt have the state pay the bill because you decide to have your gender reassigned once youre locked up.

bhtooefr > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 18:07

0

I personally think we should just pay for it for everyone, rather than deny it to prisoners because we deny it to non-prisoners. (Then again, I’m for universal single payer healthcare.)

And, for some trans people, it actually is a lifesaving treatment, and it may well be cheaper to just perform the surgery than to keep them on constant suicide watch in solitary confinement. Note that in her case, there’s been several suicide attempts, as well as attempts at self-treatment...

DipodomysDeserti > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 18:13

0

I’m not a lawyer like you, but how does someone convicted of 1st degree murder and sentence to life in prison with no possibility of parole go about earning parole?

The US was spending $5k PER SECOND to clusterfuck Iraq and CA spends trillions imprisoning low level drug offenders. I’ll file this one under the “who gives a shit” categorey.

Neil drives a beetle and a fancy beetle > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 18:16

0

Whether or not the person gets the surgery in prison, others are going to be paying for it in some regard most likely. Health care, whether it’s for prisoners, Medicare/Medicaid, hospitals who never get paid and roll that cost into paying patients, or your own insurer; is a shared cost system. Lots of people never re-coup their payments on health care because they are in essence footing the bill for others(I’m 32 and except for my child being born, I can’t think of a medical treatment I’ve had that would even account for 6 months of my current insurance costs that my employer covers).

I’m not saying this person should or should not get the surgery, but you’re probably going to be paying for it whenever they get it in prison or out, in some way.

And maybe, just maybe, the surgery will limit the persons need for depression medication, they definitely won’t be trying to cut off their genitals like they have been (and I’m sure every time they try it’s a whole host of medical payments and treatment) and it looks like this person may never get out of prison.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 18:26

1

I can’t help but feel that they are implying that her sociopathy is somehow the result of her gender identification not being helped?... A rather dangerous suggestion.

In a Mini; let them mock me as My Mini Countryman is higher than you > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 18:46

1

That’s not as bad as Norway, which lets children AS YOUNG AS SIX change their gender...

bhtooefr > In a Mini; let them mock me as My Mini Countryman is higher than you 01/07/2017 at 19:05

1

Why is that bad?

In a Mini; let them mock me as My Mini Countryman is higher than you > bhtooefr 01/07/2017 at 19:16

1

>Seriously implying that children that young have the cognition to understand such a permanent undertaking or know what gender is or can consent to anything.

This is why the general age of consent is 18 years as humans have the cognition along with the degree of abstract thinking needed to understand consequences and how the transitioning process can affect them.

bhtooefr > In a Mini; let them mock me as My Mini Countryman is higher than you 01/07/2017 at 19:41

0

Except for a lot of trans children, they do know their innate gender as a toddler .

In any case, this isn’t about surgery or hormones. This is about legal markers on paperwork: https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2016/03/norway-historic-breakthrough-for-transgender-rights/  Previously, surgery was required to get that marker changed, and I don’t think anyone’s talking about performing surgery on or administering hormones to six year olds. (Although, intersex (as in, born with physical characteristics of both sexes) kids often have genital surgery performed without their - or sometimes even their parents’ - consent, and then it turns out the doctor picked the wrong way to go with that...)

And, this requires parental consent for anyone under 16, and to be automatic, requires both parents to consent.

Really, this would be about improving outcomes by making it far more likely that a trans child would be accepted as their gender, rather than their sex.

jkm7680 > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 20:31

1

That’s fuckin stupid.

I fully support the LGBT community and trans rights, but that’s taking it too far. The taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for a criminal to get a sex change.

And on an unrelated, California related note, 2016 missed one person. Charles Manson.

Kat Callahan > ImmoralMinority 01/07/2017 at 20:45

0

It’s hard to take a position on this for me. I absolutely think that SRS is not an immediate life saving treatment, given how often trans folks need to put it off for other things and manage to deal with it, but it absolutely isn’t cosmetic surgery. It’s a serious quality of life and ability issue. The question might be does an inmate, a convicted criminal, have a right to have addressed a medical issue that while not life threatening is a constant barrier to a standard quality of life reasonably similar to other inmates.

That’s a difficult one, due to the way the courts and more progressive state and federal administrations have viewed the Cruel and Unusual clause and the Due Process clause amongst other constitutional and legal requirements.