San Fran. Poised to Pay for Sex Changes

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by tshrimp

From Citizenzen - Personally, I don't believe it is.

Let's just say that—like Obama—my opinion on it is evolving. I needed more information to help distinguish it from purely elective surgery, and a number of posts have helped to show me that distinction.

And if experts in sexuality and psychology feel that this is the best treatment for patients who qualify for it, then I have no reason to second guess their recommendations. I was really only approaching the argument from a personal perspective, and I understand the limitations of that.

But as I did say in that post, this is an example of local politics in action, where the values of the representatives are reflected in the laws they propose, and if enough constituents disagree with those values, they have the opportunity to vote their representatives out of office, or even run for office themselves. So I don't see this as some sort of horrendous breech by the San Francisco Supervisors.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by Mord

...
I disagree [that gender reassignment surgery does not reduce transsexual suicide rate] and I'd ask if you could provide any serious evidence to back up that claim? I've seen plenty of really quite flawed studies comparing post-op transsexuals to the general population drawing the obvious conclusion that those with a troubled past tend to be bias towards having a still troubled future and assuming that this implies the surgery is not worthwhile.
....

I hadn't noticed about the control groups, but you're absolutely right. The most recent one I have seen like this is a Swedish study (http://dx.crossref.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885). However, there are ethical and research design issues regarding have a control group of transsexuals who have not been offered gender reassignment, so I guess it is understandable that researchers resort to control groups based on gender-at-birth and reassigned-gender. In any case, thank you for pointing out the issue about the control groups.

FWIW - I did not mean to imply that the surgeries were not worthwhile, just that it appears not to solve all of the issues that transsexual people face. I think a lot of the residual problems after the surgery come from other people. I know of one gender-reassigned scientist in my field. Although I have never seen open hostility toward her, her gender status is always used to describe her and it is an incessant topic in conversations about her. I suppose I get annoyed about this on her behalf. Yet, you don't hear colleagues describing/defining non-transexuals as that 'straight' man or women, or describing people by the surgeries they have had ('cosmetic' or otherwise. I can just imagine if they did: 'You know Bob - the guy with the circumcision').

EDIT: Forgot to say the most important thing: Apologies if I caused any offense - it was not my intention.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

How common is this? Out of every 100,000 people, for example, how many?

What has been the rate of people following through with a change (e.g. with surgery) in places where it is paid for (e.g. Britain via NHS)? How big a part of the general medicine budget is it?

I, for one, don't have a lot of factual information about it.

According to the Daily Wail it costs £10 million over 10 years for 1000 people out of 50 million in the country.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

According to the Daily Wail it costs £10 million over 10 years for 1000 people out of 50 million in the country.

£1 million - 100 people per year? Miniscule in the grand scheme of things. We can debate the benefits, but if this is the cost, it isn't worth thinking about.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

£1 million - 100 people per year? Miniscule in the grand scheme of things. We can debate the benefits, but if this is the cost, it isn't worth thinking about.

The thing that's really expensive is end of life care.

[skunk]

*sigh*
If only the US were as advanced as some other countries in this respect.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.

[Eraserhead]

^^ I beat you to it .

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Iran pays for up to half the cost of sex change operations, so I fail to see the issue...

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

Big difference paying for an obese person to become healthy than to pay for a damn sex change because James can't seem to live with a penis so he wants to become Jessica or die trying

If that's the logic... I rather pay for them to be institutionalized

Just wow... Really? Wow, I don't know what to say about this post.

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

That's a whole other subject, considering majority believes in God! including me although I'm an open minded person

at the same time, I wouldn't install fear into my kids about being gay or transgender but why would "I" want them to become gay or transgender

Now if they wanted too... that's entirely different

So what would happen if your kids came to you and said that they are gay or they feel that they are a boy/girl. Would you support them like a real parent should? If not, why?

Hugh

[Vanilla Ice]

Thank god I don’t live in San Francisco because I’d be one pissed off citizen knowing my tax dollars would be going to someone that feels they should have a sex change. If person feel they are a woman trapped in a man’s body or the other way around, they should pay for their own surgery. This is just ridiculous. Next will be a tax to help pay for a women to get a breast implants because she feels her breast are too small or help pay for a man to get a penis enlargement because he feels it’s too small. What in the hell is this country coming too????? It’s your body, your responsibility.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Thank god I don’t live in San Francisco because I’d be one pissed off citizen knowing my tax dollars would be going to someone that feels they should have a sex change.

Yeah, that $50,000/year of "wasted" government money is such a big deal.

Never mind that this surgery offers actual benefits.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Next will be a tax to help pay for a women to get a breast implants because she feels her breast are too small or help pay for a man to get a penis enlargement because he feels it’s too small.

Which aren't really the same at all.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Thank god I don’t live in San Francisco because I’d be one pissed off citizen knowing my tax dollars would be going to someone that feels they should have a sex change. If person feel they are a woman trapped in a man’s body or the other way around, they should pay for their own surgery. This is just ridiculous. Next will be a tax to help pay for a women to get a breast implants because she feels her breast are too small or help pay for a man to get a penis enlargement because he feels it’s too small. What in the hell is this country coming too????? It’s your body, your responsibility.

I find it bizarre that you and others are so quick to judge a situation you don't know a damned thing about, where's your sense of empathy? of understanding?

If you fully believe that there should be no government funded healthcare make that case and that case only, but to trivialise the experience of others when you have no personal experience of what it's like to walk in our shoes is at best ignorant, at worst hateful.

I'd suggest you actually read the thread in it's entirety, you may learn a thing or two.

[Anuba]

Sweden had this since 1972, and since then, a whopping....

...500 people out of a population of 9 million have gone through with it.

In 40 years. That's 12.5 per year.

I wouldn't lose sleep worrying over a potential avalanche of increased spending.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by Mord

I find it bizarre that you and others are so quick to judge a situation you don't know a damned thing about, where's your sense of empathy? of understanding?

If you fully believe that there should be no government funded healthcare make that case and that case only, but to trivialise the experience of others when you have no personal experience of what it's like to walk in our shoes is at best ignorant, at worst hateful.

I'd suggest you actually read the thread in it's entirety, you may learn a thing or two.

Where am I wrong? That's how I feel. I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go towards something like this. Don't call it hateful since I never made fun of or made a joke out of this. Im expressing my feelings.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Where am I wrong? That's how I feel. I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go towards something like this. Don't call it hateful since I never made fun of or made a joke out of this. Im expressing my feelings.

It's effectively hateful whether you feel it right or wrong because you're personal beliefs translated to policy would cause tangible harm to others. How would you feel if orthodox amish were the majority and restricted all healthcare because that was how they felt?

There's a reason there is a separation of church and state and you are it, this is a decision that should be made by medical experts, not the uninformed public.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Mord

It's effectively hateful whether you feel it right or wrong because you're personal beliefs translated to policy would cause tangible harm to others. How would you feel if orthodox amish were the majority and restricted all healthcare because that was how they felt?

There's a reason there is a separation of church and state and you are it, this is a decision that should be made by medical experts, not the uninformed public.

Yes, science should guide us and in this case, science backs up sex changes. I'd really hate for an uninformed public the ability to determine what my health insurance covers.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Mord

It's effectively hateful whether you feel it right or wrong because you're personal beliefs translated to policy would cause tangible harm to others. How would you feel if orthodox amish were the majority and restricted all healthcare because that was how they felt?

There's a reason there is a separation of church and state and you are it, this is a decision that should be made by medical experts, not the uninformed public.

Not sure what separation of church and state has to do with it, you're jumping to conclusions. I live in a country where 85% are atheists/agnostics, but you'll find a very similar share of the population who think that stuff like this (and homosexuality) is icky and makes them ill at ease. But rather than advocating concepts like "pray the gay away" they think it's nothing that psychotherapy, a good beating or a 2000V jolt of electricity won't fix. Religious people aren't the only backwards people out there.

And then there are many who are socially liberal and aren't creeped out by it at all, but they're fiscally conservative and argue that it's morally wrong to force tax payers to pitch in for stuff like this.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by Anuba

Not sure what separation of church and state has to do with it, you're jumping to conclusions. I live in a country where 85% are atheists/agnostics, but you'll find a very similar share of the population who think that stuff like this (and homosexuality) is icky and makes them ill at ease. But rather than advocating concepts like "pray the gay away" they think it's nothing that psychotherapy, a good beating or a 2000V jolt of electricity won't fix. Religious people aren't the only backwards people out there.

And then there are many who are socially liberal and aren't creeped out by it at all, but they're fiscally conservative and argue that it's morally wrong to force tax payers to pitch in for stuff like this.

My comments are based upon his posting history, I fully accept that people can be just as ignorant without religion, though religion is quite commonly what people base their morals upon I'd argue the same thing with differing terminology were an atheist to argue their illogical moral stance should dictate policy, heck I often do with regard to drug policy.

As for those who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative I'd only ask they be consistent about it and be against all government funded healthcare.

[Vanilla Ice]

Originally Posted by Mord

My comments are based upon his posting history, I fully accept that people can be just as ignorant without religion, though religion is quite commonly what people base their morals upon I'd argue the same thing with differing terminology were an atheist to argue their illogical moral stance should dictate policy, heck I often do with regard to drug policy.

As for those who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative I'd only ask they be consistent about it and be against all government funded healthcare.

Mord, as far as tax payers paying for sex changes goes. It's completely WRONG and not right. Why is it the citizens of San Francisco responsibility to pay for such a thing? I'm sure a lot of people from SF are going to be angered by this. The way I feel about this has nothing to do with my religion. I could be atheist and not agree with tax law. If you're unhappy with you're current gender and want a sex change, pay for the operation with your own money. Not someone else's. And please stop making me look like a hateful person. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I would never disrespect nor bully anyone that is.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Mord, as far as tax payers paying for sex changes goes. It's completely WRONG and not right. Why is it the citizens of San Francisco responsibility to pay for such a thing? I'm sure a lot of people from SF are going to be angered by this. The way I feel about this has nothing to do with my religion. I could be atheist and not agree with tax law. If you're unhappy with you're current gender and want a sex change, pay for the operation with your own money. Not someone else's. And please stop making me look like a hateful person. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I would never disrespect nor bully anyone that is.

But this only applies to the employees of San Francisco as a health benefit. If the city of San Francisco decides to cover this for their employees, scientific research seems to back them up on the reasoning for covering this. Again, I don't think it is fair for 'customers' to determine what health benefits are covered by organizations.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Mord, as far as tax payers paying for sex changes goes. It's completely WRONG and not right. Why is it the citizens of San Francisco responsibility to pay for such a thing? I'm sure a lot of people from SF are going to be angered by this. The way I feel about this has nothing to do with my religion. I could be atheist and not agree with tax law. If you're unhappy with you're current gender and want a sex change, pay for the operation with your own money. Not someone else's. And please stop making me look like a hateful person. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I would never disrespect nor bully anyone that is.

How is it completely WRONG and not right? What makes this any more wrong than my taxes paying for lung cancer treatments for smokers or heart treatments for the obese? I'm paying for bad decisions that people have made. Where is your outrage? Your taxes are paying for these people like this right now.

It is amazing the reaction that something like this gets, when your taxes are paying for so much worse (in terms of what is being insured). You just see the words Sex Change and have a conniption.

[likemyorbs]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

I may not agree with homosexuality

...

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Thank god I don’t live in San Francisco because I’d be one pissed off citizen knowing my tax dollars would be going to someone that feels they should have a sex change. If person feel they are a woman trapped in a man’s body or the other way around, they should pay for their own surgery.

So if someone is poor, and for their mental well being needed a sex change, you would deny them that? Do you extend that mindset to every other sort of medical procedure too? If someone breaks their arm for instance, and they cannot pay for it, should they just have to run around with a dangling appendage? This is a mental health issue. It's not comparable to breast enlargements. They look in the mirror and everything feels wrong to them, and if they can't even get past that in life, they are going to have a hard time being successful in other aspects of life enough to pay for that surgery. The fact that you would deny people help, says that in fact, like most Republicans with a Republican mindset, that you are the selfish self centered one, not the person that needs help.

This is just ridiculous. Next will be a tax to help pay for a women to get a breast implants because she feels her breast are too small or help pay for a man to get a penis enlargement because he feels it’s too small. What in the hell is this country coming too????? It’s your body, your responsibility.

Ah, it's their responsibility they feel like they are in the wrong body. Yeah, I am sure they totally picked that situation to be in. Totally their responsibility.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Where am I wrong? That's how I feel. I wouldn't want my tax dollars to go towards something like this. Don't call it hateful since I never made fun of or made a joke out of this. Im expressing my feelings.

Where are you wrong? Just about everywhere it would seem.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Mord, as far as tax payers paying for sex changes goes. It's completely WRONG and not right. Why is it the citizens of San Francisco responsibility to pay for such a thing? I'm sure a lot of people from SF are going to be angered by this. The way I feel about this has nothing to do with my religion. I could be atheist and not agree with tax law. If you're unhappy with you're current gender and want a sex change, pay for the operation with your own money. Not someone else's. And please stop making me look like a hateful person. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I would never disrespect nor bully anyone that is.

You denying people their equal rights is both disrespect AND bullying and disagreeing with it makes about as much sense as disagreeing with the color of the sky or the color of trees. You accept those things as is, but you refuse to accept humans as they are too. Why?

[Mord]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Mord, as far as tax payers paying for sex changes goes. It's completely WRONG and not right. Why is it the citizens of San Francisco responsibility to pay for such a thing? I'm sure a lot of people from SF are going to be angered by this. The way I feel about this has nothing to do with my religion. I could be atheist and not agree with tax law. If you're unhappy with you're current gender and want a sex change, pay for the operation with your own money. Not someone else's. And please stop making me look like a hateful person. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I would never disrespect nor bully anyone that is.

Because it's as medically indicated as any other equally covered treatment. Either admit that you think they should stop treating other medical issues mental and otherwise or admit that you're prejudice.

There's no third option here, I gave you the option to use religion as a scapegoat and you refused.

[sk1wbw]

Originally Posted by Mord

Because it's as medically indicated as any other equally covered treatment. Either admit that you think they should stop treating other medical issues mental and otherwise or admit that you're prejudice.

There's no third option here, I gave you the option to use religion as a scapegoat and you refused.

That's assuming that being the wrong sex at birth is a medical condition and not a mental condition?

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

as far as tax payers paying for sex changes goes. It's completely WRONG and not right. Why is it the citizens of San Francisco responsibility to pay for such a thing?

I'll get to that in a minute. But first... philosophical context.

To quote James Truslow Adams' definition of the American Dream:

"...that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

Or, in short: Everyone should have the right to start at pole position, but from that point on, it's all up to you -- may the best (wo)man win.

Here in Europe, where we're more 'leftist' if you will, we share a very similar dream, and that is precisely why we have stuff like universal healthcare and free education (including university level in many countries), so that no matter if you're rich or poor, and no matter if you have health issues that put you at a disadvantage, you should have the same opportunity for success. This has nothing to do with 'takers' piggybacking on 'givers', the idea isn't that everyone must be forced to finish the race simultaneously (you want communism for that), it's about giving everyone a fair START so that they even have a chance of competing. If they end up rich and successful, awesome, more elbow power to them.

Now, maybe it's just me, but I can't help but think that our system is more attuned to Truslow Adams' definition of the American Dream, and that it's now America which has an aristocracy that can't interpret the dream adequately. How else can a bumbling buffoon like Dubya become president, while many better suited would-be leaders of the future end up flipping burgers because their parents couldn't afford to send them to college?

Finally, to tie the above together with a sex change op. If anyone was born with the wrong set of genitals for who they really are, I'd say that's one hell of a disadvantage in the race, one that will lead to a life in misery. And if you think that such a thing isn't possible, that these individuals are just afflicted with some wonky psychosomatic disorder that leads them to falsely believe they belong on the other side of the gender fence, I'd encourage you to google images of Walter Carlos, who later became Wendy. There are some pics online from the 60's when she was still Walter. What do you see? A guy? I see a person whose appearance screams WOMAN but who's trying her damnedest to fit in the role of a man, overcompensating by sporting the biggest sideburns in history but ending up looking like a woman in drag. On the rare occasion, that biological coin toss doesn't work the way it's supposed to. It can be corrected. Nobody does it for fun.