San Fran. Poised to Pay for Sex Changes

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I don't want the government paying for anything they were not paying for 100 years ago. The Constitution lays out the responsibility of government very clearly, and I am in complete support of that role for government.

What we have allowed government to "do for us" is only going to result in the total collapse of the country.

Curious as to why 100 years ago is your yardstick of measurement, but okay let's go with that.

So let's see...100 years ago, no EPA, no FDA so you are on your own with safe food and water. Child labor was okay. Social Security didn't exist so hopefully you have a nest egg under your bed (if not sucks to be you), medicare didn't exist (course people's life expectancy wasn't so great either...it's possible you'd already be dead at your age!)..yeah those were the golden years. The problem with your logic is that people thought those things were in fact NOT so great which is why all the changes happened in the first place.

But hey, if you think that life was grand 100 years ago, maybe you should build a time machine and go back. Just don't expect me to pay for it.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by NickZac

You implied it directly below a quote with my name. In a text form, you should have been more specific.

It was a follow up related statement and that implication was certainly not my intent.

Originally Posted by NickZac

I was under the impression that there is an inner movement to remove it from the DSM 5 TR when it is released in a few years. The DSM 5 reclassifies it. Some advocates say that since it is not a disease, it should not be in the DSM. Some other advocates have said if it is removed from the DSM then there won't be a medical backing for insurance payments for anything deemed 'treatment'. I'm not aware of how reimbursement with it works, but I am aware with how US policy works and the tasks that would be needed before any large body of officials support it.

"Gender Identity Disorder" is being removed from the DSM 5, though it's being replaced by "Gender Dysphoria" and the recommendations for treatment are largely similar. I've not seen any evidence that it's going to be removed entirely though even were it to be the established treatment would not be invalidated and not much would change really, plenty of disorders not included in the DSM still require and routinely get treatment.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Mord

It was a follow up related statement and that implication was certainly not my intent.


"Gender Identity Disorder" is being removed from the DSM 5, though it's being replaced by "Gender Dysphoria" and the recommendations for treatment are largely similar. I've not seen any evidence that it's going to be removed entirely though even were it to be the established treatment would not be invalidated and not much would change really, plenty of disorders not included in the DSM still require and routinely get treatment.

Fair enough. My apologies for misinterpreting. I've read that historically the DSM prevents the value as acting as a knowledge base for treatment. Not sure how that would affect this though.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Fair enough. My apologies for misinterpreting. I've read that historically the DSM prevents the value as acting as a knowledge base for treatment. Not sure how that would affect this though.

Not so much, the treatment side is specified by the WPATH Standards of Care, http://www.wpath.org/publications_standards.cfm

the DSM just serves as what it is, a diagnostic handbook, were it not to be included it wouldn't make much difference, though it would be a little odd as a psychiatrist is usually required to make the initial diagnosis. That's the crux of the issue really, on the one hand being in the DSM implies it's a mental health issue, which has social stigma. On the other a shrink is required to figure out if it's a delusion or fetish. I think ideally it wouldn't be within the DSM however all similar things would be and thus to proceed with treatment one would have to have those things ruled out by a psychiatrist.

The current debate has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the treatment, just the protocol for the diagnosis and the naming of the condition. There is no current mainstream serious debate over whether this surgery is necessary or not, even the IRS accepts that it is tax deductible and thus neither cosmetic nor elective.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Mord

Not so much, the treatment side is specified by the WPATH Standards of Care, http://www.wpath.org/publications_standards.cfm

the DSM just serves as what it is, a diagnostic handbook, were it not to be included it wouldn't make much difference, though it would be a little odd as a psychiatrist is usually required to make the initial diagnosis. That's the crux of the issue really, on the one hand being in the DSM implies it's a mental health issue, which has social stigma. On the other a shrink is required to figure out if it's a delusion or fetish. I think ideally it wouldn't be within the DSM however all similar things would be and thus to proceed with treatment one would have to have those things ruled out by a psychiatrist.

The current debate has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the treatment, just the protocol for the diagnosis and the naming of the condition. There is no current mainstream serious debate over whether this surgery is necessary or not, even the IRS accepts that it is tax deductible and thus neither cosmetic nor elective.

I am not doubting the validity of treatment, or even if the surgery is or is not necessary. I have absolutely no authority to make that kind of a call. I am, however, saying that if it is to become something in the US that is done with tax money that a specific type of research needs to be done, and that this research is done in a specific manner for very important reasons. Furthermore, anyone who is a government employee is likely going to be thrown into a different debate. Not sure about the UK, but in the US, private issues of public officials often become everyone's business. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is a common theme with American government. The most obvious proof of this is almost surely Bill Clinton.

I am not sure how private insurance companies use the WPATH or individual agencies. To my understanding, there are some private insurance companies that do cover the procedure and related treatment. My note on the DSM was more that a formal backing may have some benefit. However, as you noted, it also could mean stigma. I would assume though that in most cases, prior to a surgery, a psychiatrist is involved who specializes in the area given the permanent nature of the operation, which is not all that different from many other operations given how important state of mind affects recovery and future health...and so whether it is or isnt in the DSM may just be a minor detail.

[vega07]

I just had a lecture on LBGT health and gender dysmorphic disorder and learned that Kaiser just very recently approved sex-change operations to be covered! Yay for progress!

[tshrimp]

I read some earlier posts about this and conclude we now officially live in odd world.

[LIVEFRMNYC]

All sex change people should be required by law to disclose their sex change to any future partners.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

All sex change people should be required by law to disclose their sex change to any future partners.

while this may be a law that may have merit, I fear it would open a Pandoras box. Should we also require people to disclose STD's, mental health issues and the like? How about people taking Viagra? Or with low testosterone? Where would this end?

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by tshrimp

I read some earlier posts about this and conclude we now officially live in odd world.

No, we just live in a world. You happen to find it odd because you're out of touch with it.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

while this may be a law that may have merit, I fear it would open a Pandoras box. Should we also require people to disclose STD's, mental health issues and the like? How about people taking Viagra? Or with low testosterone? Where would this end?

I don't know about the "required by law" part but I would disclose, and expect to be disclosed, all that and more. Especially I would want to know how much money they grew up with. Nothing more damaging to a relationship than someone expecting a new car every other year and a couple of very expensive vacations every year.

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

while this may be a law that may have merit, I fear it would open a Pandoras box. Should we also require people to disclose STD's, mental health issues and the like? How about people taking Viagra? Or with low testosterone? Where would this end?

Maybe law is not directly written in that specific manner, but you can be arrested and charged for knowingly spreading STDs. And sometimes even a murder charge if it's sonething like HIV/AIDS.

Mental Health speaks for itself. You can't possibly expect disclosure, depending on type of mental issue.

Everything else you mention does not affect the partner.

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Where would this end?

In this world http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/

[Mord]

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

Maybe law is not directly written in that specific manner, but you can be arrested and charged for knowingly spreading STDs. And sometimes even a murder charge if it's sonething like HIV/AIDS.

Mental Health speaks for itself. You can't possibly expect disclosure, depending on type of mental issue.

Everything else you mention does not affect the partner.

Originally Posted by LIVEFRMNYC

All sex change people should be required by law to disclose their sex change to any future partners.

Curious how you think this effects the partner unless said partner a) finds out b) is a prejudice jerk.

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Originally Posted by Mord

Curious how you think this effects the partner unless said partner a) finds out b) is a prejudice jerk.

You can't be serious.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Mord

Curious how you think this effects the partner unless said partner a) finds out b) is a prejudice jerk.

To be honest changing your gender seems like a pretty big deal - and therefore something that you shouldn't hide from future partners.

[Mord]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

To be honest changing your gender seems like a pretty big deal - and therefore something that you shouldn't hide from future partners.

For a relationship, sure I don't think you should keep anything from a spouse, but that's me. I don't feel you should be bound to disclose for every roll in the hay.

Sometimes I have, others I've not. I don't see why it's my responsibility to slam the anchors on when something is mutually desired and frankly, that detail isn't even really on my mind?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by Mord

For a relationship, sure I don't think you should keep anything from a spouse, but that's me. I don't feel you should be bound to disclose for every roll in the hay.

Sometimes I have, others I've not. I don't see why it's my responsibility to slam the anchors on when something is mutually desired and frankly, that detail isn't even really on my mind?

OK, I think I've misunderstood your position. I was thinking about a relationship.

[aerok]

I have a friend that received a free boob job because her small breasts made her depressed, if that worked then certainly sex change should too.