INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Adam on November 07, 2010, 07:54:28 PM
-
Just saw somtrhing someone said on WP...
should sex changes be funded by the state at all?
That's a whole other thread! :orly:
So what does everybody think?
-
I think that unless there was some sort of birth defect, surgery for an adult who wanted to change genders would be considered elective surgery.
I think sometimes a sympathetic doctor can get the medications covered, though.
-
but you think IVF should be covered? ???
As long as someone is diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, they should be able to get the treatment they require.
Someone shouldn't be forced to live their life the wrong sex just because they are poor
-
but you think IVF should be covered? ???
As long as someone is diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, they should be able to get the treatment they require.
Someone shouldn't be forced to live their life the wrong sex just because they are poor
If you think that people who can't afford to pay for infertility treatments themselves should be unable to make use of medical treatment to have children, then how can you possibly justify the expense of having the taxpayers pay for elective surgery for someone who feels they were born into the wrong gender body?
-
Because gender identity Disoder is called as a mental illness. Forcing someone to live their life in the wrong body is worse than not paying for someone;s IVF. We should be encouraging adoption.
-
NO!
This is fucking retarded! Sex change operations are expensive and it is beyond fucktarded to expect strangers to foot the bill for this bullshit!!
-
Wouldn't a sex change fall under the category of cosmetic surgery though? If so, it wouldn't be eligible for state funding to begin with I don't think; otherwise it would open the flood gates for loophole claims. I suppose that could be solved by rigorous and gruelling safeguards being instated to filter out fraudulent claims (such disguised as "partial sex changes" or "sex enhancement" because they feel not like their sex enough). But you can see the complications of allowing such a thing. If there's assurance that loopholes can be closed and mitigate wasted expenditure, then it could be plausible to allow state funding, or at least subsidies.
-
I don't think it is cosmetic surgery. I don't just mean the surgery though, I mean hormone therapy etc
-
I don't think it is cosmetic surgery. I don't just mean the surgery though, I mean hormone therapy etc
In that case, I don't see why not. But the state might be more incline to say, "We'll pay for some of it providing you can prove 100% that this claim is genuine, and you'll have to chip in too."
But that still leaves the loopholes that need closing, to ensure the right people are granted treatment and are not exploiting the system.
-
surgery for an adult who wanted to change genders would be considered elective surgery.
I didn't elect to be trans...
Consider this:
I was born mentally female, physically male. I've been diagnosed as such, so I'm medically recognised as transsexual. But to be legally recognised as my mental or chosen gender I have to have the Sexual Reassignment Surgery. There's no ifs buts or maybes. Without that surgery I won't be legally recognised as female. So I have to fork out several thousand dollars to be afforded the same legal recognitions and rights as any other female. Without that legal recognition I could legally be discriminated on the grounds of gender and gender history.
I think that unless there was some sort of birth defect,
As above, there is much evidence to suggest to transgendered conditions are innate. That is, I was born with a female mind, psyche, what have you. From this perspective it IS a birth defect. My physical sex is incogruent with my mental gender.
I think sometimes a sympathetic doctor can get the medications covered, though.
In most places, especially UK and Australia HRT is covered or partially covered for trans people.
how can you possibly justify the expense of having the taxpayers pay for elective surgery for someone who feels they were born into the wrong gender body?
The same way you can justify the many treatments for born conditions that are covered through government subsidies. I don't know how it works in the US, but Australian government subdidises or completely covers many conditions, including Autism, ADHD, Downs, Intersex, almost all congenital conditions. They're all justifiable, but trans is not?
Because gender identity Disoder is called as a mental illness. Forcing someone to live their life in the wrong body is worse than not paying for someone;s IVF. We should be encouraging adoption.
GID is not a mental illness. A mental condition perhaps. Most trans people do not see at all mental, but rather biological. It's the body that is wrong not the mind.
-
Mental disorder then. I didn't say I saw it as a mental disorder, I don't - my point was that as long as it's considered by healkth authorities to be a disorder, it should be treated in the same way any other condition is (ie it should be funded)
And I agree with all your other points
-
For FtM people there are three surgeries, double mastectomy, hysterectomy and phalloplasty. The first two are required by most jurisdictions to grant legal recognition of male sex, the last is also often required, but not always. Only the double mastectomy is needed to assist in the presentation of being male. The hormone therapy pretty does the rest, facial hair, voice, muscle development changes, facial fat deposit changes etc.
For MtF people there are also three surgeries, Sexual Reassignment Surgery, Breast Enlargement, and Facial Feminising Surgery. Only the first one is required for legal recognition of female sex. But the latter two are sometimes needed to assist in the presentation of being female. Not all MtF trans people can grow adequate sized breast (by adequate I mean socially obvious), and so enhancement is often required. Facial Feminising Surgery is a form of cosmetic surgery where they make subtle changes to the bone, cartilage and muscles of the face to make it appear more feminine. This is not always needed, but it can make a HUGE different in appearance.
Also of those surgeries are risky, and as with all surgeries potentially life threatening. They also cost several thousand dollars each, and in some cases to get the best possible surgery, and thus the best possible outcome, people have to travel overseas to get better trained doctors, further adding to the cost.
All in all, being trans is incredibly expensive, even in Australia where alot of my treatment is covered. I see a psychologist, psychiatrist, speech therapist, endocrinologist, all of which are partially covered or not covered at all. On average I'm out of pocket $70 each time I see any of them. This is on top of the cost of hormones which is about $10 a month, roughly, and it's that cheap only because I'm both on a pension and a low income earner.
On the flipside, if a trans person didn't pursue transition they could end up suffering from depression and anxiety and may end up in the mental health system, which is covered by the government anyway...
-
Only the double mastectomy is needed to assist in the presentation of being male.
Not necessarily even that.
-
Only the double mastectomy is needed to assist in the presentation of being male.
Not necessarily even that.
True, some FtMs are naturally less endowed, and/or can use binders, but that's not a permanent solution, and once their undress...
-
Yeah I was thinking you just meant on the street etc, so with clothes on
-
If they do, screening would have to be done to see if the person will transistion well. If they look like they can, they'll qualify. Otherwise you're stuck with what you have. Can't have fucking ugly Barbaras walking in the street now eh? :zoinks:
-
Yeah I was thinking you just meant on the street etc, so with clothes on
I did yeah, but then I thought about in more intimate settings...which is another thing entirely
-
If they do, screening would have to be done to see if the person will transistion well. If they look like they can, they'll qualify. Otherwise you're stuck with what you have. Can't have fucking ugly Barbaras walking in the street now eh? :zoinks:
Just as we should do pre-natal screenings for Autism. Don't want those damn autistics walking around now eh? :asthing:
-
If they do, screening would have to be done to see if the person will transistion well. If they look like they can, they'll qualify. Otherwise you're stuck with what you have. Can't have fucking ugly Barbaras walking in the street now eh? :zoinks:
Just as we should do pre-natal screenings for Autism. Don't want those damn autistics walking around now eh? :asthing:
I fail to see the comparison. A better comparison would be that people wanting to transistion would be similar to autistics wanting a cure.
As for pre-natal screenings for Autism, I would do that if I wanted children. I don't want my children to have the same spazzyness as me. Living with myself was tough enough, minding someone with difficulties that I had would be worse.
-
As for pre-natal screenings for Autism, I would do that if I wanted children. I don't want my children to have the same spazzyness as me. Living with myself was tough enough, minding someone with difficulties that I had would be worse.
To each their own.
If they do, screening would have to be done to see if the person will transistion well. If they look like they can, they'll qualify. Otherwise you're stuck with what you have. Can't have fucking ugly Barbaras walking in the street now eh? :zoinks:
Just as we should do pre-natal screenings for Autism. Don't want those damn autistics walking around now eh? :asthing:
I fail to see the comparison. A better comparison would be that people wanting to transistion would be similar to autistics wanting a cure.
My point was that autistics have as much right to life, as trans people do to their chosen gender, regardless of their ability to function in that life/gender.
Funny you should liken transition to wanting a cure. My Mum has now taken to saying that, while I didn't want a cure for my autism I seem to have found one anyway.
Wanting a cure can be similar to transition...But they're not the same the mental mechanism is different.
-
This is all irrelevant. Your journey belongs to you, from beginning to end. The only control people can have over you is what you allow, and trust me, you can't prevent it by all sorts of means.
In short, just do what the fuck makes you feel good folks.
-
I don't think anything has a "right to life" at the moment of conception. Women have the right (or should have the right) to terminate first trimester pregnancies for any reason, autism or otherwise. If I had kids I personally wouldn't want them to be autistic or transgendered. I'd rather have an autistic kid than a trans kid though.
-
btw I don't mean because it would be easier for me or whatever - I mean I would want my child to have the best chance of a decent life and I think being autistic makes that harder and being trans makes that even more harder. If I had kids and they turned out to be autistic or trans I would love them just the same. I would be surprised a child of a trans person was trans though, and maybe worried about what conclusions that would lead people to make
-
We know what you mean, bud. At least I do. ;)
-
This is all irrelevant. Your journey belongs to you, from beginning to end. The only control people can have over you is what you allow, and trust me, you can't prevent it by all sorts of means.
In short, just do what the fuck makes you feel good folks.
While I agree with your sentiment :) it doesn't really add to the discussion... What's you opinion on the whether the treatments should be funded? Or about the legalities of gender recognition...
I don't think anything has a "right to life" at the moment of conception. Women have the right (or should have the right) to terminate first trimester pregnancies for any reason, autism or otherwise. If I had kids I personally wouldn't want them to be autistic or transgendered. I'd rather have an autistic kid than a trans kid though.
Not exactly what I meant. If the woman wants to have a child and a test says they might be autistic, should they, morally speaking, terminate and try again? Or even if a test said they might be trans. Sure the mother has every right to her body, but if she's committed to seeing a pregnancy to full term, then she should be willing to play the genetic lottery. In that context an autistic conception should have as much right to go full term as any other.
I would only screen for life threatening conditions, like heart defects and the like. And let the rest come as they may. I have a really unique view on life that autism and being trans afford me, I wouldn't deliberately seek to remove the possibility of someone else having a similar view on life. A society is enriched by it's uniqueness.
btw I don't mean because it would be easier for me or whatever - I mean I would want my child to have the best chance of a decent life and I think being autistic makes that harder and being trans makes that even more harder. If I had kids and they turned out to be autistic or trans I would love them just the same. I would be surprised a child of a trans person was trans though, and maybe worried about what conclusions that would lead people to make
I disagree. Autism or Trans is no more or less difficult than any other way of being. They have downsides but they also have positives, just as with everything else.
-
I don't really see any positives to being transgendered.
And while there are good things about AS, it is still technically a disorder. It's a disability and from my own experiences autistic people tend to be unhappier than non-autistic people. I wouldn't want to inflict any of what I've been through on another child just to enrich society. That child's quality of life is more important.
If a woman finds out her baby might be autistic/trans and wants to abort it, she should be able to.
-
While I agree with your sentiment Smiley it doesn't really add to the discussion... What's you opinion on the whether the treatments should be funded? Or about the legalities of gender recognition..
The state gets a shitload of money from the citizen, so why not give some back eh? Sure they should fund stuff like this. And it should be legally recognized. Like I said, everyone has the right to do what it takes to make them happy. YES, the right. Even in shitty depressed countries, or even in america in the slums.
I say rebel. Anyway i'm going on a tangent now. You got me started on human rights. :laugh:
-
I don't really see any positives to being transgendered.
And while there are good things about AS, it is still technically a disorder. It's a disability and from my own experiences autistic people tend to be unhappier than non-autistic people. I wouldn't want to inflict any of what I've been through on another child just to enrich society. That child's quality of life is more important.
If a woman finds out her baby might be autistic/trans and wants to abort it, she should be able to.
You're not inflicting, or saving anyone from anything. An aborted child can never again exist. So an autistic child with autism removed is not the same as a normal child. Never will be.
Aborting a pregnancy whilst wanting children is a big decision, and people should take into account that each conception is so inherently unique that it can never ever again exist after terminated.
While I agree with your sentiment Smiley it doesn't really add to the discussion... What's you opinion on the whether the treatments should be funded? Or about the legalities of gender recognition..
The state gets a shitload of money from the citizen, so why not give some back eh? Sure they should fund stuff like this. And it should be legally recognized. Like I said, everyone has the right to do what it takes to make them happy. YES, the right. Even in shitty depressed countries, or even in america in the slums.
I say rebel. Anyway i'm going on a tangent now. You got me started on human rights. :laugh:
Australia is the last western democracy not to have a Human Rights Declaration.
-
Like I said. Its high time for a massive worldwide rebellion against the elites. Elites being people with ridiculous abounts of assets and wealth that they don't need and will not be able to use up in several generations of their families. Ridiculous.
I can't be the only one thinking this.
-
how can you possibly justify the expense of having the taxpayers pay for elective surgery for someone who feels they were born into the wrong gender body?
The same way you can justify the many treatments for born conditions that are covered through government subsidies. I don't know how it works in the US, but Australian government subdidises or completely covers many conditions, including Autism, ADHD, Downs, Intersex, almost all congenital conditions. They're all justifiable, but trans is not?
There's something called a cost/benefit ratio AKA law of diminishing returns. Gender reasignment sugery isvery expensive, with no measurable benefit to society.
If you want to get your junk changed, pay for it yourself!!! >:(
-
My point was that autistics have as much right to life, as trans people do to their chosen gender, regardless of their ability to function in that life/gender.
It's still a bad comparison. A right to life isn't the same as a right to change your gender, as transgenders too share the right to live. Changing gender/sex is secondary.
I liken it to a cure for autism because both follow very similar objectives: To change oneself. You were born biologically male as one was born autistic. To change it despite you apparently being mentally female ultimately means you're changing yourself.
-
I see curing autism more as changing who you are, while a sex change is changing what you are.
I think the IVF thing is a better comparison. And IVF is funded by the NHS here, so hormone therapy definitely should be imo
-
Like I said. Its high time for a massive worldwide rebellion against the elites. Elites being people with ridiculous abounts of assets and wealth that they don't need and will not be able to use up in several generations of their families. Ridiculous.
I can't be the only one thinking this.
I agree with you.