San Fran. Poised to Pay for Sex Changes

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

A perfect example of ignorance is when someone tries to make someone believe in your personal views but when they refuses to because they simply don't agree with you, they get disrespected and judged in a negative way. Thats exactly what your doing towards me. By using the word "stupid" was not refer to homosexuals. What's stupid are the "Excuses" some are coming up with to make this Tax law seem legit. Question. What's correct number of people in San Francisco that want to crossover but can't cuz their health insurance doesn't cover sex change operations? How many of them are seeking help or committing suicide because they simply cannot afford it? Source please? If you didn't know already, California is already one of the most high taxed state in the nation. More important things need our tax dollars. Schools, Roads, Bridges, Law in forcemeat, Education. Public money should be spent else where.

"This surgery is not an essential health function, especially when it would be taking money away from those suffering from chronic illnesses like cancer, Aids, and heart disease. We are already stretched too thin as San Francisco is facing a budget deficit and won't be able to afford the costs of this.Taxpayers cannot afford this, as there are unintended costs and unintended consequences unrelated to the actual surgery, such as their longer-term hormone treatment, psychology needs and other longer term health issues,” - Thomas Moyer

I went to look up Thomas Moyer who referred to an article from Fox News that was incorrect. The city already pays for hormones and psychological treatments. And this isn't a tax bill.

The daily mail listed the eligibility requirements:

To be eligible for coverage under the new program, individuals will have to be employed by the city for at least one year. There is also a $50,000 lifetime cap and a 15 per cent of 50 per cent deductible, which is determined based on whether or not the physician is within the city's health network.
On average, male-to-female surgeries cost about $37,000, while female-to-male surgeries will cost about $77,000.
The program will also cover hormone treatments but will not fund cosmetic procedures. Employees also must undergo a rigorous medical review process that can take up to six months, and a doctor must deem all procedures medically necessary.

[vega07]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

A perfect example of ignorance is when someone tries to make someone believe in your personal views but when they refuses to because they simply don't agree with you, they get disrespected and judged in a negative way. Thats exactly what your doing towards me. By using the word "stupid" was not refer to homosexuals. What's stupid are the "Excuses" some are coming up with to make this Tax law seem legit. Question. What's correct number of people in San Francisco that want to crossover but can't cuz their health insurance doesn't cover sex change operations? How many of them are seeking help or committing suicide because they simply cannot afford it? Source please? If you didn't know already, California is already one of the most high taxed state in the nation. More important things need our tax dollars. Schools, Roads, Bridges, Law in forcemeat, Education. Public money should be spent else where.

"This surgery is not an essential health function, especially when it would be taking money away from those suffering from chronic illnesses like cancer, Aids, and heart disease. We are already stretched too thin as San Francisco is facing a budget deficit and won't be able to afford the costs of this.Taxpayers cannot afford this, as there are unintended costs and unintended consequences unrelated to the actual surgery, such as their longer-term hormone treatment, psychology needs and other longer term health issues,” - Thomas Moyer

As I stated before, if anyone wants a sex change operation. Pay for it yourself.

----------



Hey. I just talked with 2 democrats. They too think this SF tax law would be wrong. So much for your "Conservative ideology"

So the DSM is a joke of an "excuse." Do you even know what the DSM is?

I am so very glad people like you are not in medicine. The amount of judgement you pass is unheard of.

Can you guys imagine having this guy as a doctor, especially if you see him for a gender identity disorder? He'll think you are stupid and a joke of excuse by the time you walk out the door. And he wouldn't even be ashamed to say it directly to your face.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by vega07

So the DSM is a "joke of an excuse." Do you even know what the DSM is?

I am so very glad people like you are not in medicine. The amount of judgement you pass is unheard of.

Can you guys imagine having this guy as a doctor, especially if you see him for a gender identity disorder? He'll think you are a joke of an excuse by the time you walk out the door. And he wouldn't even be ashamed to say it directly to your face.

I'm fairly certain that Mr. Ice would never work with anyone who had a gender identiy disorder if he was a Doctor. I have a feeling his "beliefs" would get in the way....as they obviously have in this discussion (whether he is willing to admit it or not). The fact that he's using Thomas Moyer as a source and ignoring Mord, who's actually been through it, and the DSM, says it all.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

This issue of discussion has nothing to do with my signature.... On the other hand, What freedom are transsexuals loosing?

It has everything to do with freedom - specifically not feeling imprisoned in one's own body. If you don't think that is a loss, then I invite you to wear the clothing of the opposite sex for a month. I doubt that the distress that would cause you would come even close to the despair that transsexual people often feel. If you actually stand by your words and do this, post pictures.....

They can still have the surgery.

Provided they're wealthy enough to pay. 'To each according to their wallet' is much harder to defend ethically than 'to each according to their need'.

Paying for the procedure themselves doesn't make them slaves. Please, your comparing burn victims and people with tumor operations to sex change operations? Obviously burn victims and tumor patients didn't chose to have such surgeries.

Aha. I get it. A transsexual person's gender is a lifestyle choice. Where have I heard this one before? When exactly in their lives do you think transsexuals choose the traumatic option of having a gender identity that does not match their body? Why would anybody make that choice knowing how much distress it would cause them? Why would anybody choose surgery on their genitalia unless they were desperate? When exactly did you choose your gender? Please think about what you are saying.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Hey. I just talked with 2 democrats. They too think this SF tax law would be wrong. So much for your "Conservative ideology"

Ignorance knows no political bounds. Just because there are ignorant people on the other side of the aisle does not make you automatically correct in your thinking.

Originally Posted by Vanilla Ice

Please, your comparing burn victims and people with tumor operations to sex change operations? Obviously burn victims and tumor patients didn't chose to have such surgeries.

And obviously the people we are talking about here, didn't chose to be born the wrong gender either. Your point???? Burn victims get surgeries not just to recover from the burn, but to make them look cosmetically better as well. Are you suggesting that burn patients should only be given the absolute minimum surgery and then be forced to walk among us looking hideous until they can afford additional surgery at some point possibly far into the future?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

Burn victims get surgeries not just to recover from the burn, but to make them look cosmetically better as well.

There is an attempt to return burn victims to something close to the state they were in before they were burned.

People don't believe they were burned. They were burned. Tissue was damaged, and there is an attempt to repair that damage to return the patient to a state they had previously been.

On the other hand, people believe they were born the wrong gender. THere is no way to prove this. We have to go by their word, their feelings that something is wrong. Tissue is not damaged, it is healthy. And yet this healthy tissue is surgically altered. The procedure does not return the patient back to a previously healthy state. The procedure changes the person into something they never were in the first place.

After reading that, I sure you believe I'm ignorant and insensitive to the suffering of transgender people.

But that is not the point I'm trying to put forward here.

I actually am sympathetic to their situation and personally don't care if San Francisco or any other locality wants to cover this treatment for the relatively few people who will seek it.

But my point is that this is an unusual form of care, one that takes what is a healthy physical state and alters it significantly simply because the patient believes it is necessary ... not because it is medically required.

Even if you didn't add the component of sexuality, and especially deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexuality, there'd still be people raising an eyebrow or two over public funding. Add to that mix the sexual nature of the procedure and it sends some people over the top. As demonstrated in this thread there are a number of people who just can't maturely and rationally discuss the subject.

Putting them aside, I believe it is possible to talk about this treatment and to acknowledge its unique nature without it being assumed that we're denigrating those who seek it or likewise, those who question it.

It isn't the same as treating a burn patient. That doesn't mean that it isn't a valid treatment necessary to alleviate significant suffering. But we should be able to talk about its differences without automatically being seen as ignorant and uncaring.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

...especially deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexuality...

I don't think the words "norm" and "sexuality" work together very well.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

On the other hand, people believe they were born the wrong gender. THere is no way to prove this. We have to go by their word, their feelings that something is wrong. Tissue is not damaged, it is healthy. And yet this healthy tissue is surgically altered. The procedure does not return the patient back to a previously healthy state. The procedure changes the person into something they never were in the first place.

I do not "believe" that I was born the wrong gender, I am what I am, there was no intent behind my birth, nor plan for my personality. I grew up with a female persona and it quantifiably caused me enough distress that I felt a imperative need to bring how I present myself and my body into alignment with that.

This isn't about belief, the statement of belief that one is "born in the wrong body" is a phrase oft touted by the media to simplify an issue primarily to sensationalise, the pathology of the condition however is somewhat more clinical.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

After reading that, I sure you believe I'm ignorant and insensitive to the suffering of transgender people.

But that is not the point I'm trying to put forward here.

I get that, which is why I'm engaging with you, not calling you ignorant, I won't retract the statement with regard to other posters though.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I actually am sympathetic to their situation and personally don't care if San Francisco or any other locality wants to cover this treatment for the relatively few people who will seek it.

Cool.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

But my point is that this is an unusual form of care, one that takes what is a healthy physical state and alters it significantly simply because the patient believes it is necessary ... not because it is medically required

It is somewhat unusual, though it's not merely based upon the patients belief, you don't just walk along to your doctor, say you're a woman now and they hand you a pile of estrogen and put you on the waiting list for surgery. The issue here is that those who are passing judgement on this treatment don't know a damned thing about how it works, so I'll walk you through it.

Typically treatment starts one of two ways, you either have therapy for a 3 months or so and/or you transition to living socially as female and change your name, if you do either successfully and they think you're suited they may prescribe you HRT which in itself is a diagnosis. If you as a man start taking estrogen simply put you'll in all likelihood feel awful, your sex drive will vanish, you'll be moody and you'll just feel out of sorts, if a trans person takes appropriate hormones they typically start to feel better, much much better. This is not a case of self definition, and while the patient themselves will always initiate the carepath they do not diagnose themselves they are diagnosed and their own belief is one small part of this.

It's even been proven that gender is innate and not socially constructed, see the case of David Reimer who after a botched circumcision was assigned female, operated on and given hormones while growing up, he ended up committing suicide, there are a number of similar cases often with intersex children where they were "corrected" to the wrong sex.

There's even substantial evidence that we genuinely do have the brain structure of the sex with identify with http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rain-scan.html

Given that sexual orientation varies as it does naturally it's really unsurprising that gender identity does too, and given that it's *proven* that growing up assumed one gender when one is mentally the other is so very harmful does it not seem obvious that assuming there is this variance that it would be cruel to needlessly inflict such al life of misery when there exists such a treatment that is proven to substantially increase our quality of life?

This isn't just a whim, it isn't just a belief and frankly it's incredibly frustrating that it's just assumed to be, even by someone such as yourself who seems genuinely reasonably open minded about this.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Even if you didn't add the component of sexuality, and especially deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexuality, there'd still be people raising an eyebrow or two over public funding. Add to that mix the sexual nature of the procedure and it sends some people over the top. As demonstrated in this thread there are a number of people who just can't maturely and rationally discuss the subject.

Certainly, it's a great shame really.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Putting them aside, I believe it is possible to talk about this treatment and to acknowledge its unique nature without it being assumed that we're denigrating those who seek it or likewise, those who question it.

It isn't the same as treating a burn patient. That doesn't mean that it isn't a valid treatment necessary to alleviate significant suffering. But we should be able to talk about its differences without automatically being seen as ignorant and uncaring.

I still feel that to question the treatment out of ignorance is fundamentally ignorant, a tautology I know, but really, you guys don't know a damned thing about this, even when you're genuinely trying, why is it so difficult to leave it to the experts?

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Mord

I still feel that to question the treatment out of ignorance is fundamentally ignorant, a tautology I know, but really, you guys don't know a damned thing about this, even when you're genuinely trying, why is it so difficult to leave it to the experts?

I am willing to leave it up to the experts.

All I am trying to do is explain why this subject can be a leap for some.

As this thread has revealed, it's pretty obvious why the procedure should be covered by insurance and why we should be content to leave it to the experts.

But this is a political forum and we often have to work through the issues. I believe a number of people will walk away from this discussion with a greater understanding than before this thread started.

Lastly, I have to give you kudos. You've been very open and understanding with your answers when it would have been easy to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by skunk

I don't think the words "norm" and "sexuality" work together very well.

I actually prefer to describe it as a rainbow world of fruity flavors.

My flavor included.

[vega07]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

But my point is that this is an unusual form of care, one that takes what is a healthy physical state and alters it significantly simply because the patient believes it is necessary ... not because it is medically required.

I think you're thinking too far deep. You're definitely right that is is unusual. At the end of the day, gender identity disorder is still a mental health issue. So whatever can be done, needs to be done. But to go along with your line of thought, that "physical state" that is healthy to you is not healthy for the patient. This procedure therefore is "medically required."

Even if you didn't add the component of sexuality, and especially deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexuality, there'd still be people raising an eyebrow or two over public funding. Add to that mix the sexual nature of the procedure and it sends some people over the top. As demonstrated in this thread there are a number of people who just can't maturely and rationally discuss the subject.

Exactly. This is why I think it's great progress for SF to advocate for its transgendered patients, and even more important to educate the rest of America about this real disorder. I hope transgender equality doesn't lag behind homosexual equality too much.

It isn't the same as treating a burn patient. That doesn't mean that it isn't a valid treatment necessary to alleviate significant suffering. But we should be able to talk about its differences without automatically being seen as ignorant and uncaring.

It definitely isn't the same. This is why I was confused as to why it was brought up to begin with. If anything, it only brought more confusion and doubt to the issue. Every health problem is unique, so why the need to compare? What's important that is people understand that transsexuality is a legitimate health problem outlined in the DSM.

Definitely kudos to Mord. If I were transsexual, I wouldn't be able to calmly discuss the issue if others called my plight a "stupid excuse."

[Mord]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I am willing to leave it up to the experts.

All I am trying to do is explain why this subject can be a leap for some.

As this thread has revealed, it's pretty obvious why the procedure should be covered by insurance and why we should be content to leave it to the experts.

Fab That was an open question and not directed at yourself and I do appreciate the point you were trying to make there. I just used it as a talking point.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

But this is a political forum and we often have to work through the issues. I believe a number of people will walk away from this discussion with a greater understanding than before this thread started.

Lastly, I have to give you kudos. You've been very open and understanding with your answers when it would have been easy to do otherwise.

That was certainly my aim

[niuniu]

Massive suicide risk for transgenders.

http://www.livescience.com/11208-hig...er-people.html

I would have no problem for my taxes to go to their operations. If you need to find the cash, you can take a chunk out of this.

[iBlue]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

...
But my point is that this is an unusual form of care, one that takes what is a healthy physical state and alters it significantly simply because the patient believes it is necessary ... not because it is medically required.....

Define "medically required". If a child is born with a deformity that isn't life-threatening but will cause them a lifetime of suffering, would you say that corrective surgery isn't medically required? Do you not consider quality of life to be medically significant?

Originally Posted by citizenzen

On the other hand, people believe they were born the wrong gender. THere is no way to prove this. We have to go by their word, their feelings that something is wrong. Tissue is not damaged, it is healthy. And yet this healthy tissue is surgically altered. The procedure does not return the patient back to a previously healthy state. The procedure changes the person into something they never were in the first place.

Define "healthy tissue". An extra limb may technically be healthy but if it is not wanted then removing it returns that person to a healthy state.

I'm a little confused by your posts. You acknowledge that gender identity disorder exists. If there isn't a psychological "cure" to make someone just accept their biological gender then hormones and surgery are the other option. You even say that insurance should cover it. I'm not sure what you're debating. Or are you just discussing it?

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by vega07

It definitely isn't the same. This is why I was confused as to why it was brought up to begin with. If anything, it only brought more confusion and doubt to the issue. Every health problem is unique, so why the need to compare?

I brought it up (along with other examples of surgery that change appearance).

I suppose I was trying to understand why some people believe some procedures that affect appearance are OK, but others are optional. You say gender reassignment is different. In what way? How do you draw the line? I note somebody implied that interfering with 'healthy tissue' might be the boundary, but to me this begs the question of what is healthy.

What's important that is people understand that transsexuality is a legitimate health problem outlined in the DSM.

DSM has always been controversial because it is hard distinguishing among neurological illnesses, psychological and behavioural disorders, and simple nonconformity. DSM is simply the pooled current opinion of psychologists and psychiatrists (or more accurately some psychologists and psychiatrists). Don't forget that DSM once listed homosexuality as an illness. Of course DSM is getting refined over time, but it's not as though it is flawless or immune to social influence. The new version of DSM is already being challenged on many fronts, from specific putative disorders to its whole approach for classifying disorders. Thus, for me I found the type of evidence that Mord and others have raised (e.g., bran scans, mortality rates, reports of dysphoria, etc.) far more compelling than DSM.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by iBlue

Define "medically required". If a child is born with a deformity that isn't life-threatening but will cause them a lifetime of suffering, would you say that corrective surgery isn't medically required? Do you not consider quality of life to be medically significant?

I still see a difference here.

The patient doesn't feel they have a deformity.

They physically have a deformity.


Edit: not discounting physical origins of transgender. But it isn't as easily determined as a clubbed foot.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Once upon a time, sex change operations were not seen as a partisan statement particularly, more of a curiosity. The story of the first successful operation on an adult recounted in the BBC Magazine:

News of a pioneering sex change operation, one of the first involving both surgery and hormone therapy, was announced in 1952 - exactly 60 years ago this weekend.

"Ex-GI becomes blonde beauty!" screamed one headline as newspapers in the United States broke the news.

A quiet boy from New York, George Jorgensen, shocked a nation by returning from a trip to Denmark transformed into the glamorous Christine.

As the slender, blonde 27-year-old woman wrapped in a fur coat stepped out of the plane on to the tarmac in New York, her long eyelashes, high cheekbones and full red lips betrayed little of the shy man she had once been.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20544095

Some estimates suggest that as many as 1 in 4,500 men may be transsexual and 1 in 8,000 women:

http://transgenderexplored.com/common.htm

In recent years, it seems that everything has a partisan aspect.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk

Once upon a time, sex change operations were not seen as a partisan statement particularly, more of a curiosity. The story of the first successful operation on an adult recounted in the BBC

In recent years, it seems that everything has a partisan aspect.

I agree. And I think a lot of it is fueled by lack of understanding. Public knowledge regarding transgenderism is well, pretty small in terms of scope/breadth. I must admit that I am one of the ones lacking any understanding and that the concept of transgenderism or gender reassignment procedures is one that is foreign to me.

[thewitt]

I could care less if someone wants a sex change operation.

What they DON'T deserve is to pay for it with other people's tax money.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I could care less if someone wants a sex change operation.

What they DON'T deserve is to pay for it with other people's tax money.

I'll happily fund thousands of sex change operations with my tax money over having my taxes used to fight needless wars and kill people against my wishes.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I could care less if someone wants a sex change operation.

What they DON'T deserve is to pay for it with other people's tax money.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

I'll happily fund thousands of sex change operations with my tax money over having my taxes used to fight needless wars and kill people against my wishes.

Could we compromise to not fund either and put that saved money towards knocking out the national debt?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I could care less if someone wants a sex change operation.

What they DON'T deserve is to pay for it with other people's tax money.

So should they be able to pay for counselling and disability benefit with YOUR tax money?

[FreeState]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I could care less if someone wants a sex change operation.

What they DON'T deserve is to pay for it with other people's tax money.

This is not a question of deserve. This is necessary medical treatment - something that should be left up to a patient and their doctor. They are not seeking not are they asking for your medical advice.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Could we compromise to not fund either and put that saved money towards knocking out the national debt?

No. The national debt can be taken care of in a number of other ways without sacrificing the mental health of people who feel they are the wrong gender but cannot afford to pay for the surgery.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

No. The national debt can be taken care of in a number of other ways without sacrificing the mental health of people who feel they are the wrong gender but cannot afford to pay for the surgery.

Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch

No. The national debt can be taken care of in a number of other ways without sacrificing the mental health of people who feel they are the wrong gender but cannot afford to pay for the surgery.

That was said in more of a jocular sense...if you look at my previous post I took a view of detachment, as I (and based on probability and statistics) you cannot speak directly on this topic with any sort of primary understanding for better or worse. The DSM-V is changing both the classification and what constitutes GID to Gender Dysphoria. There is a movement to remove it from the DSM altogether, although the outcomes of this could be counterproductive as it would remove 'medical basis'.

“All psychiatric diagnoses occur within a cultural context. We know there is a whole community of people out there who are not seeking medical attention and live between the two binary categories. We wanted to send the message that the therapist’s job isn’t to pathologize.” (Dresher, APA, 2012)

[Ariii]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I could care less if someone wants a sex change operation.

What they DON'T deserve is to pay for it with other people's tax money.

Gender identity disorder exists, so sex change surgery isn't like cosmetic surgery. The government should be able to fund it.