Conquer Club

Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Is it right for the Federal Gov't to force Massachusetts to Pay for Inmates Sex Change?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:49 pm

Symmetry wrote:
jimboston wrote:
Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Try again with another strawman Patches. You get so angry knocking them down.


It's very simple.

I don't think that NOT paying for sex transformation surgery is "cruel and unusual".

I think having the Taxpayer footing the bill is "cruel and unusual" for the Taxpayer... a person (group of people) who have NOT committed any crime.

Apparently we now live in the Twilight Zone... a place where the "rights" of murderers supersede the Rights of the citizen.

It is "usual" to get a broken bone mended, and to get antibiotics for infections.

It is not "usual" to get your penis cut off, and get a surgeon to put some facsimile of a vagina in its place. This is not "usual". Since it's not "usual" it is therefore not "cruel and unusual" to NOT get this done. Follow?


Well, I doubt you'll have much sway on the law with that. Denying surgery recommended by doctors seems a bit cruel.

If you want to see a law whereby murderers are stripped of citizenship, and/or denied healthcare, go ahead and propose it.

It seems a little crazy.


We'll see. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to try to get this activist judge removed. I will be supporting it.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Symmetry on Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:56 pm

jimboston wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
jimboston wrote:
Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Try again with another strawman Patches. You get so angry knocking them down.


It's very simple.

I don't think that NOT paying for sex transformation surgery is "cruel and unusual".

I think having the Taxpayer footing the bill is "cruel and unusual" for the Taxpayer... a person (group of people) who have NOT committed any crime.

Apparently we now live in the Twilight Zone... a place where the "rights" of murderers supersede the Rights of the citizen.

It is "usual" to get a broken bone mended, and to get antibiotics for infections.

It is not "usual" to get your penis cut off, and get a surgeon to put some facsimile of a vagina in its place. This is not "usual". Since it's not "usual" it is therefore not "cruel and unusual" to NOT get this done. Follow?


Well, I doubt you'll have much sway on the law with that. Denying surgery recommended by doctors seems a bit cruel.

If you want to see a law whereby murderers are stripped of citizenship, and/or denied healthcare, go ahead and propose it.

It seems a little crazy.


We'll see. I don't think it's completely unreasonable to try to get this activist judge removed. I will be supporting it.


Activist how? He ruled on a basic point of law.

If you want the law changed, argue for the law you want. The one where punishment for murder includes being stripped of citizenship, and denied medical treatment.

As is, these aren't punishments for murder.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:56 pm

Symmetry wrote:If you want the legal punishment of a prisoner to include reserving medical treatment, argue away. As is, and as proven by court, it's cruel and unusual.

Yes, but I am others are arguing that this crosses the line too far in the OTHER direction. That providing this surgery will negatively impact other people, including other transgenders who committed no crime, children and other prisoners, even matters.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:36 pm

Woodruff wrote:
It seems to me that while someone is incarcerated, their basic necessities should be taken care of, which of course includes medical care. But this isn't. I mean...diagnosed with cancer, take care of the cancer treatment, of course. So yeah...bad decision, in my view.


Well, I have a hard time agreeing with this, even. We're in a country where many are outraged at a fairly recent policy change that tries to ensure that more Americans have some healthcare because many are too poor, many jobs no longer provide healthcare in full or even in part.

But prisoners get treatment those on the outside cannot? Nope, have a hard time with it. Let the prisoners' families pay for anything that's not communicable, or let the prisoner do some labor to earn money and give him a telephone call or two to find a medical insurer on his own.

At any rate, back to topic, perhaps it's something that came up as part of some prison-required therapy and the guy got a "prescription" to have it done to help with whatever mental disorder he's having?

Last year sometime there was a guy who "held up" a bank, giving the teller a note and requiring her to give him a dollar or some piddly amount, in order to be arrested so an illness would get treatment. I guess in Massechussetts, those who want sex change operations will try holding up banks so a judge can order their operation at prison (taxpayer) cost.

:roll:
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby rdsrds2120 on Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:55 pm

transgenderism/transsexuality is not a disease, a mental illness, or otherwise. Suggesting so is a form of bigotry equally on par with that of saying homosexuality is a disease/mental illness or that being a woman means you're there only to bear children.

Everyone keep those comments out of the discussion. I understand that the idea of transgenderism isn't something many know about, but forms of it's bigotry will be acted on like any other kind. The real argument is not whether or not you agree with it, but whether taxes should be paying for it, and why or why not (as many of you have addressed). Thanks,

--rdsrds2120 (Head Global Moderator)
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:07 am

A minor clarification. Gender identity disorder (also known as "transsexualism") is, however, recognised as a medical condition that can require treatment if the person in question wishes it. One such form of treatment is gender reassignment surgery. Now don't even try to be smartasses and claim "the mods say it's not a disease so there's nothing to treat in the first place".
That would be trolling at this point.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby rdsrds2120 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:12 am

MeDeFe wrote:A minor clarification. Gender identity disorder (also known as "transsexualism") is, however, recognised as a medical condition that can require treatment if the person in question wishes it. One such form of treatment is gender reassignment surgery. Now don't even try to be smartasses and claim "the mods say it's not a disease so there's nothing to treat in the first place".
That would be trolling at this point.


Oh, good catch! Thanks MeDeFe.

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby maxfaraday on Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:12 am

If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.
Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".
I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...
From: Karl_R_Kroenen
To: maxfaraday

I have noted this post and if it continues, there will be consequences for you.
Sergeant 1st Class maxfaraday
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:48 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:39 am

maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.
Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".
I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

So you propose brainwashing people and/or keeping them on psychoactive drugs for the rest of their lives. Correct?

The other option is a surgery at the behest of the patient and monitoring/maintaining hormonal levels afterwards.

Despite the physical changes, the second option seems like the simpler one to me.

If natty's quote from Wikipedia is any guide at all, it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.

Surgery may also well be cheaper in the long run, if you wish to bring economic arguments into this. Psychoactive drugs cost a lot, and we may well be talking about 50 to 70 years here during which the person has to take them or start feeling like they're living in the wrong body again.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:56 am

maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.
Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".
I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

You are wrong, but that gets way off topic and I don't care for another round here, today. Just do the research.

Mental illness is treated by a combination of therapies that can include surgery in some specific, more extreme cases. Even electroshock treatment is being brought back, though in a much more controlled, specific and monitored fashion than when it got the bad name.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:59 am

MeDeFe wrote:
maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.
Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".
I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

So you propose brainwashing people and/or keeping them on psychoactive drugs for the rest of their lives. Correct?

The other option is a surgery at the behest of the patient and monitoring/maintaining hormonal levels afterwards.

Despite the physical changes, the second option seems like the simpler one to me.

If natty's quote from Wikipedia is any guide at all, it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.

Surgery may also well be cheaper in the long run, if you wish to bring economic arguments into this. Psychoactive drugs cost a lot, and we may well be talking about 50 to 70 years here during which the person has to take them or start feeling like they're living in the wrong body again.


Can we back up a second? Why would we want to treat this condition (or whatever we want to call it) in the first place? If someone would prefer a sexual reassignment surgery, why should we say nay to that?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby MeDeFe on Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:10 am

thegreekdog wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.
Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".
I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

So you propose brainwashing people and/or keeping them on psychoactive drugs for the rest of their lives. Correct?

The other option is a surgery at the behest of the patient and monitoring/maintaining hormonal levels afterwards.

Despite the physical changes, the second option seems like the simpler one to me.

If natty's quote from Wikipedia is any guide at all, it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.

Surgery may also well be cheaper in the long run, if you wish to bring economic arguments into this. Psychoactive drugs cost a lot, and we may well be talking about 50 to 70 years here during which the person has to take them or start feeling like they're living in the wrong body again.

Can we back up a second? Why would we want to treat this condition (or whatever we want to call it) in the first place? If someone would prefer a sexual reassignment surgery, why should we say nay to that?

I'm under the impression that if it indeed requires treatment it has a similar impact on a person's life as a depression, a condition which I believe is treated in prisons even in the USA. I'm not excluding the possibility that there may be transsexual people who are ok with not having surgery or taking hormones, but, if a measure like surgery is required, and if withholding it has a similar impact as withholding medication from someone who's depressive, and if inmates who're suffering from depression receive treatment, then the surgery should be provided to the inmate who wishes to have it.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:39 am

MeDeFe wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
maxfaraday wrote:If it's a disease it's a mental one anyway so I don't see any reason to treat it with surgery.
Therapy and pills would be the proper solution to that "disease".
I mean, it seems to me that lobotomy is not used anymore to treat mental diseases...

So you propose brainwashing people and/or keeping them on psychoactive drugs for the rest of their lives. Correct?

The other option is a surgery at the behest of the patient and monitoring/maintaining hormonal levels afterwards.

Despite the physical changes, the second option seems like the simpler one to me.

If natty's quote from Wikipedia is any guide at all, it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.

Surgery may also well be cheaper in the long run, if you wish to bring economic arguments into this. Psychoactive drugs cost a lot, and we may well be talking about 50 to 70 years here during which the person has to take them or start feeling like they're living in the wrong body again.

Can we back up a second? Why would we want to treat this condition (or whatever we want to call it) in the first place? If someone would prefer a sexual reassignment surgery, why should we say nay to that?

I'm under the impression that if it indeed requires treatment it has a similar impact on a person's life as a depression, a condition which I believe is treated in prisons even in the USA. I'm not excluding the possibility that there may be transsexual people who are ok with not having surgery or taking hormones, but, if a measure like surgery is required, and if withholding it has a similar impact as withholding medication from someone who's depressive, and if inmates who're suffering from depression receive treatment, then the surgery should be provided to the inmate who wishes to have it.


I don't think you understood my question. There are two separate issues: (1) Should people have a sexual reassignment surgery? I'm not interested in denying people that and there should be no reason why they shouldn't be permitted surgery. That was my question: why are we debating the merits of the surgery in the first place. Issue (2): Should the state pay for such surgery? That's what you've appeared to have answered.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:50 am

Symmetry wrote:Activist how? He ruled on a basic point of law.

If you want the law changed, argue for the law you want. The one where punishment for murder includes being stripped of citizenship, and denied medical treatment.

As is, these aren't punishments for murder.


No.

He (the judge) obviously expanded the commonly held and reasonable view of what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual". The public and standards/common societal norms should be applied to guide the judge. He ignored these norms and created his own definition which the vast vast majority would not agree with.

The Gov't (via my taxes) is not and should not be in the business of providing questionable "surgery" for questionable "conditions".
The Gov't (via my taxes) does not provide questionable "surgery" for questionable "conditions" to people not incarcerated.
Please explain how the Gov't should now be required to provide this same "treatment" for those incarcerated... when they don't do so for those not incarcerated???

If the individual wanted to pay for his own "sexual reassignment surgery (SRS)" while in state custody that would be a different argument. ... by not paying, the Gov't would not be denying his right to said proceedure. If the judge ruled that this man could pay for his own surgery that would be different. The judge demanding that we pay is a completely new realm.

The Gov't's duty is to take reasonable measures to provide for the health and safety of those it the care, custody, and control of the prison system. Basic meals, clean clothes, and medical care required to keep a person physically healthy. The gov't should not be required to provide overly comfortable living conditions. Steak dinners, cable TV, ice cream, and sexual reassignment surgery are not items necessary to provide for the reasonable basic health and safety of inmates. Since these are not necessary, they should not be provided.

... by NOT providing SRS the gov't would be making this man no worse than he was when he entered the system. It is not the Gov't's job to improve an incarcerated murderer's life.

If you believe the gov't should provide this, and it is required for the health of the patient... you must also agree that the gov't should provide lyposuction, laser hair removal, and 100% organic diets to those patients who claim that they "need" these things.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:55 am

MeDeFe wrote: it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.


it's not clear that gender identity disorder is caused by variant structures in the brain....

rather it's equally possible (perhaps more likely) that believing oneself to be "in the wrong body" may cause the brain to change.

(quotes fixed)
Last edited by jimboston on Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby maxfaraday on Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:48 pm

jimboston wrote:
MeDeFe wrote:
maxfaraday wrote: it also appears that gender identity disorder is at least partly caused by variant structures in the brain. That means we're not talking about chemical or hormonal imbalances that can be treated by swallowing pills and normalising the levels, but about cellular structures. We're not nearly advanced enough to physically rewire a person's brain right now, and I for one don't think we should do it even if we could. As you said, we don't use lobotomies any more.


it's not clear that gender identity disorder is caused by variant structures in the brain....

rather it's equally possible (perhaps more likely) that believing oneself to be "in the wrong body" may cause the brain to change.


????

Jim I'd like you not to put words in mouth (or anything else).
I'm not the one who made this post.
From: Karl_R_Kroenen
To: maxfaraday

I have noted this post and if it continues, there will be consequences for you.
Sergeant 1st Class maxfaraday
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:48 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:53 pm

maxfaraday wrote:
Jim I'd like you not to put words in mouth (or anything else).
I'm not the one who made this post.


Fixed the quote... sorry.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Symmetry on Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:23 pm

jimboston wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Activist how? He ruled on a basic point of law.

If you want the law changed, argue for the law you want. The one where punishment for murder includes being stripped of citizenship, and denied medical treatment.

As is, these aren't punishments for murder.


No.

He (the judge) obviously expanded the commonly held and reasonable view of what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual". The public and standards/common societal norms should be applied to guide the judge. He ignored these norms and created his own definition which the vast vast majority would not agree with.

The Gov't (via my taxes) is not and should not be in the business of providing questionable "surgery" for questionable "conditions".
The Gov't (via my taxes) does not provide questionable "surgery" for questionable "conditions" to people not incarcerated.
Please explain how the Gov't should now be required to provide this same "treatment" for those incarcerated... when they don't do so for those not incarcerated???

If the individual wanted to pay for his own "sexual reassignment surgery (SRS)" while in state custody that would be a different argument. ... by not paying, the Gov't would not be denying his right to said proceedure. If the judge ruled that this man could pay for his own surgery that would be different. The judge demanding that we pay is a completely new realm.

The Gov't's duty is to take reasonable measures to provide for the health and safety of those it the care, custody, and control of the prison system. Basic meals, clean clothes, and medical care required to keep a person physically healthy. The gov't should not be required to provide overly comfortable living conditions. Steak dinners, cable TV, ice cream, and sexual reassignment surgery are not items necessary to provide for the reasonable basic health and safety of inmates. Since these are not necessary, they should not be provided.

... by NOT providing SRS the gov't would be making this man no worse than he was when he entered the system. It is not the Gov't's job to improve an incarcerated murderer's life.

If you believe the gov't should provide this, and it is required for the health of the patient... you must also agree that the gov't should provide lyposuction, laser hair removal, and 100% organic diets to those patients who claim that they "need" these things.


The questionable procedure was recommended by their own medical professionals. If you're not accepting the advice of doctors or judges, and just going by the queasy feeling in your gut, and a desire that the government run some sort of pit, then there's not much to say.

And yes, rehabilitation should be part of the government's role in the incarceration process.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:32 am

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:18 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Can we back up a second? Why would we want to treat this condition (or whatever we want to call it) in the first place? If someone would prefer a sexual reassignment surgery, why should we say nay to that?

I think you might have misunderstood. No one is denying it to them.. we are saying taxpayers should not have to pay, at least not when the person in question is a convicted murderer.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby jimboston on Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:05 pm

Symmetry wrote:
The questionable procedure was recommended by their own medical professionals. If you're not accepting the advice of doctors or judges, and just going by the queasy feeling in your gut, and a desire that the government run some sort of pit, then there's not much to say.

And yes, rehabilitation should be part of the government's role in the incarceration process.


Ignore all my points and go back to the original bad decision by the judge.

Answer this...

Are humans fallible?
Is the judge human?
Is the doctor human?

The answer to the first question is obviously yes.

Are you saying that "just because a doctor (or judge) said so... that that must mean it's right"?

So you agree with every decision a judge makes?

I am sure I could find many example in this forum where you disagreed with some judge's ruling.

So how about addressing my points and not just falling back on "the judge said so".

Have some intellectual integrity!
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:20 am

Jimbostan, in fairness, saying "he followed the law" IS a relevant response to "oust this activist judge"

Judges ARE limited in what they can rule. You claimed this was some outlandish activist judge. Symmetry responded that he followed the law. If you dislike the law, you change the law, you don't try to oust the judge.

To disagree with the judge's ruling, as opposed to the actual rules themselves, you would have to study previous higher court rulings, the laws those rulings were based upon, etc. If you found he ruled in a manner significantly different from the LOCAL precedents (doesn't matter what other areas, judges decide.. he is bound by rulings in his area), THEN you might have a legitimate "activist judge" claim.

So far, though I disagree with this guys ruling, I also acknowledge it is consistant with prior rulings regarding prisoners. I think the rules need to be changed.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby MeDeFe on Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:25 am

thegreekdog wrote:There are two separate issues: (1) Should people have a sexual reassignment surgery?

If it is medically/psychologically warranted and the person in question wishes to have such surgery, yes.

That was my question: why are we debating the merits of the surgery in the first place.

Beats me.
I guess some neckbeards who play online games and post on forums think they know more about some rather specialised medical issues than other people who have made it their profession to study those issues and figure out how they can be treated. Other neckbeards who play the same game and post on the same forum think the first group of neckbeards is wrong in their evaluation and feel they have to respond.

Issue (2): Should the state pay for such surgery? That's what you've appeared to have answered.

Yes, I did. In doing so I also strongly implied my answer to your question (1).
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby thegreekdog on Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:41 am

MeDeFe wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:There are two separate issues: (1) Should people have a sexual reassignment surgery?

If it is medically/psychologically warranted and the person in question wishes to have such surgery, yes.

That was my question: why are we debating the merits of the surgery in the first place.

Beats me.
I guess some neckbeards who play online games and post on forums think they know more about some rather specialised medical issues than other people who have made it their profession to study those issues and figure out how they can be treated. Other neckbeards who play the same game and post on the same forum think the first group of neckbeards is wrong in their evaluation and feel they have to respond.

Issue (2): Should the state pay for such surgery? That's what you've appeared to have answered.

Yes, I did. In doing so I also strongly implied my answer to your question (1).


I asked the question in the first place because I was concerned that people believed that they could determine whether people could have sexual reassignment surgery. That shocked and appalled me. If I want to become a woman, no one should have the ability to tell me I cannot. You clearly understood given your comment regarding neckbeards and the like.

Whether the state should pay for the surgery is not tied in any way to whether the person can have the surgery. Sexual reassignment surgery is plastic surgery. It is an elective surgery. If we continue down this path, perhaps the state will be paying for breast augmentation, nose jobs, and liposuction as these surgeries are necessary for the psychological health of the potential patient. As far as I'm concerned, that's patently ridiculous. And I don't have a neckbeard.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:23 am

1. Fat people suffer from a disease which prevents them from reducing their fatness.
2. Suppose these fat people are in jail.

3.Therefore, in order for them to be the thin people which they internally idealize, they should be provided elective surgery at the taxpayers' expense.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee