Mass. judge orders taxpayer-funded sex change operation for convicted murderer

[Rathji]

You are right, I only linked to the WPATH page the third time I wrote my post.when I have a change to get to my computer I will get the other stuff linked that I wanted to.

[Badger Bob]

Don't go to the trouble. No study is going to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that this inmate is entitled to having the taxpayers foot the bill.

You know what you could do, though? If you know more in depth knowledge about the actual procedure, I'm curious if these surgeries only alter the genetalia. Point is - does the surgeon perform any invasive procedure on the prostate? Ditto for the uterus on the other side.

Possession of those organs (OK, the prostate is technically a gland) does significant damage to the "gender is social construct" feminist theory. Yes, it's understood that there are hermaphrodites, before You Know Who chimes in.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Don't go to the trouble. No study is going to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that this inmate is entitled to having the taxpayers foot the bill.

Correct - but not for the reasons you think.

Proof is the domain of mathematics, not science. Furthermore, the standard of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" isn't even one that is required in the legal realm either. That is to assume that any scientific study would directly deal with the question of whether taxpayers should pay for something - which would be an unlikely scenario.

[Rathji]

Gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with possessing a penis, vagina, prostate, uterus, or unicorn horn.

Sex on the other hand, does (except for the horn of course.)

I have no idea what any of that has to do with feminist theory though, since the definition of gender and sex have pretty much been distinct for as long as people have realized that the 2 don't always match, which is far longer than there has been anything that resembles any modern feminist theory.

So as far as the specifics of the various GRS go, they don't remove all the parts you mention AFAIK, but the hormone treatments pretty much render them useless.

Also, as Fink said, I can show you what medical organizations and the science says, and use that to establish that as a medically necessary procedure that it should be covered as much as any other medically nessecary procedure. I could then show you, even through you already know, that prisons there cover these costs.

From there, you would need to make up your own mind. I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but eventually you might be sitting there and be ready to say or do something really ####ty to some transgender person , and maybe you might stop and think that you wouldn't do that same thing to some else who had been born with a medical problem, so why would you do it to this person. Or maybe you won't, and my effort will be in vain.

That's your choice though.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Correct - but not for the reasons you think.

Proof is the domain of mathematics, not science. Furthermore, the standard of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" isn't even one that is required in the legal realm either. That is to assume that any scientific study would directly deal with the question of whether taxpayers should pay for something - which would be an unlikely scenario.

Certainly similar cases were tried, but obviously had different outcomes.

Originally Posted by Rathji

So as far as the specifics of the various GRS go, they don't remove all the parts you mention AFAIK, but the hormone treatments pretty much render them useless.

It's straying far off topic, but actually the prostate does perform non-sexual functions. It regulates urine flow, which could lead to other complications. So, it's not so simple, is it? You're the one who kept insisting that this was "medically necessary." One quick surgery could lead to several others.

Originally Posted by Rathji

From there, you would need to make up your own mind. I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but eventually you might be sitting there and be ready to say or do something really ####ty to some transgender person , and maybe you might stop and think that you wouldn't do that same thing to some else who had been born with a medical problem, so why would you do it to this person. Or maybe you won't, and my effort will be in vain.

That's your choice though.

Because people think they taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill, you and that other obnoxious poster totally derail the discussion with accusations of violence that don't exist. Neither of you can just focus on the matter at hand without making everything personal.

Grow up.

[Rathji]

Who was talking about violence? I was thinking about mouthing off to or about them, like is happening in this thread.

I kind of assumed that you, and anyone else in this thread, wasn't going to be party to going out and beating on people because they were transgender, and don't think I ever indicated anything like that. If you took me trying to provide some understanding as that, then I apologize.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Who was talking about violence? I was thinking about mouthing off to or about them, like is happening in this thread.

I kind of assumed that you, and anyone else in this thread, wasn't going to be party to going out and beating on people because they were transgender, and don't think I ever indicated anything like that. If you took me trying to provide some understanding as that, then I apologize.

Just didn't understand why this comment was necessary:

I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but eventually you might be sitting there and be ready to say or do something really ####ty to some transgender person , and maybe you might stop and think that you wouldn't do that same thing to some else who had been born with a medical problem, so why would you do it to this person.

Apology accepted.

BTW, inmates in those situations are probably quite likely to be confined from the rest of the prison population.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Who was talking about violence? I was thinking about mouthing off to or about them, like is happening in this thread.

I kind of assumed that you, and anyone else in this thread, wasn't going to be party to going out and beating on people because they were transgender, and don't think I ever indicated anything like that. If you took me trying to provide some understanding as that, then I apologize.

I was in the same boat Rathji, I give the full support for anyone of any orientation, I just don't think this is a reasonable use of tax dollars (and I was bashed in this thread for it). I have read about the medical community support, to me that is not the issue. The issue is we cannot pay for everything, we currently do not pay for everything, so for this type of procedure to be covered over many other things is mind boggling. For this to happen in a jail makes it more absurd.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

'It' or 'they' can often be used mistakenly from a desire to try to NOT be offensive. Not wanting to say the wrong thing (he when it should be she or vice versa) and saying something else bad anyway. I know I've done that in the past with absolutely NO ill intent. Just confusion and a nervous desire to NOT say the wrong thing.

Can we build some bridges instead of tearing everyone down? There is some good conversation in this thread.

Its Flash. He loves to contribute absolutely nothing to the thread besides stupid driveby comments.

And no I wasn't trying to be offensive. The article said the person was still a male, so I referred to him that way.

The idea of saying 'it' is exactly like you said, and I have done it before as well because its easy to tick people off if you get it wrong.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its Flash. He loves to contribute absolutely nothing to the thread besides stupid driveby comments.

And no I wasn't trying to be offensive. The article said the person was still a male, so I referred to him that way.

The idea of saying 'it' is exactly like you said, and I have done it before as well because its easy to tick people off if you get it wrong.

and you don't think you tick people off by referring to a human being as an 'it'. You should think before you speak or post.

[rubecube]

Gotta give Badger Bob some credit. At least he's very eloquent in his ignorance. I'm not sure what exactly the issue is here for the "against" crowd. The guys is a mudered, yes. He is a terrible person and I hope he rots in hell. That being said, the state he is currently imprisoned in provides medical care for inmates. I can pretty much guarantee you that this includes plenty of examples of non-critical care (i.e. knee or back surgeries, chronic physical pain, and mental disorders). Since this person's condition falls under one of these categories, by law, they are entitled to the treatment that will correct this disorder.

You can debate whether inmates should be entitled to medical care for mental health problems vs. physical problems, or to what extent physical problems should be covered. Personally, I believe that mental illness can be as debilitating as any physical disorder. However, under the current law, and based on what is provided to other inmates, this person is entitled to her surgery.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Suggestion, maybe next time you want to get in a face-to-face discussion on such topic, toss out one of your names, then see what happens.

Also, I did like the internet tough guy approach on the first page. Stay classy, Bob.

[gargamel]

I asked about John Bobbitt several pages ago but didn't get a real answer because I doubt that Massachusetts has ever had occasion to answer that question. Along the same lines, though, does Massachusetts cover breast augmentation surgery for female inmates who have mastectomies? I can't see any justification for gender reassignment surgery being treated differently than that.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So someone self identifies as a woman and presents themselves as a woman, but you would not call them a woman unless there was an F on their drivers license and no penis between their legs>?

Must be awkward asking every female you meet for ID and a peek up the skirt before you use any gender specific pronouns.

I do this all the time but it has nothing to do with gender specific pronouns.

And FTR it is only awkward when she slaps me.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by rubecube

At least he's very eloquent in his ignorance. I'm not sure what exactly the issue is here for the "against" crowd.

From the article (that you didn't read):

While courts around the country have found that prisons must evaluate transgender inmates to determine their health care needs, most have ordered hormone treatments and psychotherapy. Wolf is the first judge to actually order sex reassignment surgery as a remedy to gender-identity disorder.

That means no other court took this position before, big guy. Next time you want to accuse someone else of ignorance, be sure to have all your ducks in a row. Your obsession with me is a little creepy, too, but whatever.

Otherwise, thanks for participating in the thread!

[Vulcan]

In Canada the surgery was covered for inmates until the Conservatives ordered a halt.

Here's some info from the physicians side of the issue.

Trevor Corneil, a B.C. physician with expertise in gender identity disorder, says there is much misunderstanding around GID, with many Canadians viewing sex reassignment surgery as expensive and "cosmetic."
"The public is very sensitive to their health care dollars, and there's a lot of misunderstanding about whether it's a choice or not, "he said. "It is not a choice. Your gender is not something you choose, it's something you're born with. And the actual anatomical sense may differ from your gender."
Corneil said in the long run, it is cost-effective to support people through the procedure because it makes them more productive, happy and healthy citizens. And that should apply for every Canadian.
"It's not about whether you're a criminal or not - it's about what your health-care needs are," he said.
kathleen.harris@sunmedia.ca

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2.../16228256.html

Here's an interesting article where a guard had a sex change.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/arti...ter-sex-change

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

From the article (that you didn't read):



That means no other court took this position before, big guy. Next time you want to accuse someone else of ignorance, be sure to have all your ducks in a row. Your obsession with me is a little creepy, too, but whatever.

Otherwise, thanks for participating in the thread!

So your first argument is an appeal to ignorance (can't prove 100% that gender reassignment cures GID), and the second is ad populum. Congrats on your fallacious reasoning.

And I didn't even know who you were until your insane post in the Chick-fil-A thread, but sure, "obsessed." Really I've just mentally put you in the same category as mikey and calgaryborn.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So your first argument is an appeal to ignorance (can't prove 100% that gender reassignment cures GID), and the second is ad populum. Congrats on your fallacious reasoning.

Funny, nobody even made that point in this thread.
When name-calling doesn't register. Just lie and exaggerate.
Nobody even cares if the inmate gets the surgery or not.

Just don't expect a lot of sympathy from US taxpayers, especially when they have to pay much or sometimes all of their own health insurance premiums. Millions still have to go without. Of course, you never had to pay, yourself, so you wouldn't be able to relate.

Originally Posted by rubecube

And I didn't even know who you were until your insane post in the Chick-fil-A thread, but sure, "obsessed." Really I've just mentally put you in the same category as mikey and calgaryborn.

Oh, that's makes sense. You feel that you've got a score to settle, like your LBGT buddy, earlier in this thread. Yeah, it's obsession when frequently discussing other posters. That was kind of the point of not really wanting to "debate" with obnoxious 20 year olds.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Badger Bob

Funny, nobody even made that point in this thread.
When name-calling doesn't register. Just lie and exaggerate.
Nobody even cares if the inmate gets the surgery or not.

Just don't expect a lot of sympathy from US taxpayers, especially when they have to pay much or sometimes all of their own health insurance premiums. Millions still have to go without. Of course, you never had to pay, yourself, so you wouldn't be able to relate.




Oh, that's makes sense. You feel that you've got a score to settle, like your LBGT buddy, earlier in this thread. Yeah, it's obsession when frequently discussing other posters. That was kind of the point of not really wanting to "debate" with obnoxious 20 year olds.

It's because your incorrect arguement got completely destroyed in that thread, and you refuse to come back and speak to it, you kind of pussied out.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by Daradon

'It' or 'they' can often be used mistakenly from a desire to try to NOT be offensive. Not wanting to say the wrong thing (he when it should be she or vice versa) and saying something else bad anyway. I know I've done that in the past with absolutely NO ill intent. Just confusion and a nervous desire to NOT say the wrong thing.

Can we build some bridges instead of tearing everyone down? There is some good conversation in this thread.

Maybe just stick with 'they' next time.