San Fran. Poised to Pay for Sex Changes

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by glocke12, Nov 10, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #1
    Can someone explain to me why this is the taxpayers responsibility?

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93510&page=1#.UJ6gX0Lnv7I

    "San Francisco is prepared to make history by becoming the only city to pay for employees’ sex changes — a move some say is long overdue in ending discriminatory practices against transsexuals.

    “It really is a civil rights issue,” said Marcus Arana, a transgender San Francisco Human Rights Commission discrimination investigator. “We have an insurance issued that will pay for a hysterectomy in Mary but not in Marcus, and will pay for hormone therapy in Mary but not in Marcus.”
    "
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Personally, I don't believe it is.

    But it is going to be voted on by a group of elected officials, and their constituents will have the opportunity to vote them out of office when their term is up if they don't agree with the decision.

    It's local politics at work.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #3
    It is considered part of medical care.

    In any case, before everybody goes ballistic about this, how much money are we talking about?
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #4
    Its elective surgery, not something that is mandatory for them to live.

    The same as it was for the orthodontics I had an adult which were elective and not covered under my medical insurance.

    Seriously, why should the taxpayers be burdened with this?
     
  5. vega07, Nov 10, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #5
    This comparison shows the glaring ignorance on your part about the subject. There is a mental health issue when your brain is disconnected from your body (e.g. your brain tells you you're a male, but you're living inside a female body). Thus, it can be a matter of life or death if the individual has suicidal ideations and attempts to commit suicide.

    The world is changing, and we are becoming more aware of sexual identity disorders. I would recommend that you read up on it and learn. Don't expect San Francisco to not progress.

    ETA: The more I think about it, I'm kind of surprised that sex changes aren't yet covered under insurance, considering sexual identity disorders/sexual dysphoria has been in the DSM for a while already. If this works out for SF, I will be happy and hope that the rest of the country follows.
     
  6. glocke12, Nov 10, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012

    thread starter macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #6

    ok, fair enough...I am ignorant according to you. You know what? Maybe my crooked teeth made me self concious enough that it was affecting my personal relationships and made me want to kill myself....Where is my tax funded dental procedure?

    Anyway, In my book this is one more example of frivolous spending of taxpayer money.

    my question is at what point does the taxpayer spending stop??? Do we have to subsidize everything for everyone?
     
  7. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #8
    Of course we shouldn't subsidize everything for everyone. No one disagrees with you there. But this issue clearly falls under healthcare. If you actually talk to people with sexual identity disorders, you wouldn't think it's frivolous spending. And again, you only think it's frivolous spending because you don't know enough on the subject.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #9
    Money....thats the issue. CA is one of the, if not the most cash strapped states in the nation. This is the type of thing that led to that problem.

    I don't deny that gender identity issues are real, I just fail to see why taxpayers should shoulder the burden of paying for the operations. Seriously, we can't just keep raising taxes to continue to pay for everything.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #10
    That is shocking!

    Very interesting, especially when you compare Iran's culture to that of America's. Thanks for the link! :D
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    so you're pissed that we decided not to pay for your teeth?
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #12
    If that's your criteria, a couple choosing to have a baby is not something that is mandatory for them to live. So why do single taxpayers have to pay for the coupled up taxpayers who want children? How about someone who knowingly has a high risk pregnancy, like later in life?
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #13
    I thought you'd go there.

    When that disorder (suicide ideation secondary to crooked teeth) is listed in the DSM, then we can start discussing.
     
  14. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #14
    I don't agree with that subsidy either.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #15
    Right, because once it's allowed, everyone on this forum will run to their nearest sex change clinic and get one.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    OK. But, I'm still trying to figure out if you:

    1) Object to the government paying for anything but a navy to keep foreign invaders away ("pure" Libertarian)
    2) Object to transgender operations but not cardiovascular surgery
    3) Are concerned mainly about the cost

    If it is the third issue -- how much money are we talking about? How common is the surgery, how much does it cost, what is the experience in other places that pay for it?

    If it is the first issue -- we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not willing to just let people die for want of a bypass operation.

    If it is the second issue -- you may think that this is analogous to cosmetic surgery. Others seem to disagree. Perhaps we could use some more information from those who know more about it than I do.
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    So, you think the insurance should only cover life-saving treatments?
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #18
    That's just wrong... and nasty

    I'm sorry if i offend, I have plenty of gay friends and have no hate towards them at all.. but I can't stand sex changes.. especially sex changes when they go wrong.. ughh I can't even give an example. its funny that my homosexual friends agree with me also
     
  19. macrumors demi-god

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    Typical cost seems to be $25-$30K

    Really? Letting the inmates run the asylum via Propositions is the type of thing that has lead to CA's current problems (namely Pro 13 that got the ball rolling).

    Transgender and homosexuality aren't the same thing and from my knowledge, which is limited, transgender people seem to be as misunderstood by homos as they are by heteros.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Location:
    NYC
    #20
    That really made me LOL. :eek: :p
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #21
    Has anyone else ever noticed that those who have "homosexual friends" seem to have discussed every possible issue with them, and find that their homosexual friends always seem to agree with their own beliefs.

    Even those who have homosexual friends who are against homosexual rights. Uh huh.
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #22
    Perhaps the taxpayers gave it a good long think and decided they'd just as soon take their chances.
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #23
    Naturally. If ever there was a group comfortable with their own bodies and their own genitalia, it's lesbians and gay men.

    Many years ago I read an autobiography by the British travel writer Jan (formerly James) Morris, in which she explained all her reasons for feeling like a woman. And I was just puzzled, because none of them, to my thinking, had anything to do with being male or female. They were just traits and activities that were more common among women.

    I've made my peace with the knowledge that I'll never understand what it is to be transsexual. I don't get it and I never will.

    But I don't have to understand it to accept it. Including understanding that it's a medical necessity for those who are transsexual.
     
  24. macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #24
    Funny? Mmmmm, no!

    Perverse yes, but that is the Internet all over again.

    ;)
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #25
    I can't even begin to understand what it is like to be a transexual but from what I've read, it can cause severe mental anguish in some people. Some are fine with the bodies they are born with, others take hormones and some really feel they need to physically change their body to more match their gender identity. I know people see this as elective procedure but I think for the people that have it, it helps their mental being so I am not against it.

    And transexuality has nothing to do with homosexuality.
     

Share This Page