PLAYER57832 wrote:Asserting that homosexuals are insane IS very much bigotry. Transgenderism is still more controversial.
Oh, I see. Your pet issues matter. Everyone else: fu
How can you even say that? Can you seriously not see the hypocrisy in your claim? It's like saying "racist against black people IS very much bigotry. Racism against asians is still more controversial
PLAYER57832 wrote: More evidence is needed before you can flat out claim anyone disagreeing is just a "bigot".
No it's not. There are people who are suffering because they feel their body parts do not match their experience of their gender. Are you saying that those people's experiences are invalid? That you know better than them? Why not just classify them as "insane" like was done for homosexuals a few decades ago. Problem solved
sweeped under the carpet.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, context matters. Saying "I don' think this is a legitimate illness" is a legitimate argument when the question is should we be paying for this surgery.
No, it doesn't matter. The ends do not justify the means. Would you tell a depressed patient to just suck it up and grow a pair because their "illness is not legitimate" and then justify it with "I don't want to be paying for your treatment so it's ok for me to say that"?
PLAYER57832 wrote: Saying someone is mentally ill is, in THIS context, an opinion pertinent to the subject, it is not a slur.
No... just, no. Here's a fun thought experiment for you: Replace transgender people with homosexuals and see how you feel about that sentence.
PLAYER57832 wrote:. If he were saying "hey, these people just don't deserve to live", then maybe.
Oh. Just "maybe"? Ok, everyone, Player thinks it's maybe
wrong to assert that transgender people don't deserve to live. Maybe
they should be allowed to live.
Player, I think you should check your cisgender privilege.
PLAYER57832 wrote:However, I can find posts where you yourself have called people "insane" (and yes, I am guilty as well) simply for disagreeing.
Maybe, but that still doesn't make it ok. The "but someone else also did it" is never a justification for anything.
Also, I've never classified an entire group of people as "insane" because of their sexuality, gender, ethnicity or other attributes. That makes all the difference.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Freedom means allowing a diversity of opinion, not that anyone who disagrees with anyone else is automatically a bigot. Open discussion means allowing people to express opinions, find facts to back them up. Rather than calling him a bigot, why not ask him to provide legitimate sources to back up his beliefs ... and provide some of your own.
So, now it's the "you have to be tolerant of peoples' intolerance" line? So if I'm calling out racists for calling black people n***ers, are you going to tell me that I should just let them voice their opinions?
PLAYER57832 wrote:That said, for most of us whether transgenders should get surgery at all for that condition is actually irrelevant.
I think it's pretty relevant.
PLAYER57832 wrote:At some point, when kids are being denied vaccinations and food in school so the state can pay for drugs for prisoners.. yes, we have to make limits.
So, first you put more people in prisons for more ridiculous sentences than any other civilized country. Then you're complaining that you have to pay for the healthcare of your prisoners.
I say, you made your bed, now lay in it.
PLAYER57832 wrote:The problem is not the basic idea that limits must exist. The issue is that they need to be made based on evidence, within an intelligent framework. In any case, the idea of taxpayers having to pay for an UNUSUAL surgary that most insurance companies won't pay for, that most law-abiding citizens, who may be equally in need cannot get.. is just wrong.
So again... why not campaign for the same treatment being available for non-prisoners instead of taking away from the ones that are in the worst possible position to defend themselves?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Cost, and need. This surgery is not covered by most insurance plans. That alone, says there is some justification for denying payment. Though I don't think the insurance standard should be "the standard," it does point to this being an issue reasonably worth consideration and not just automatic approval.
So, it appears you think insurance companies should
be the ones deciding who gets what treatment. Funny - I keep thinking it should be up to the doctors to decide.
And "automatic approval" is a total red herring, that's not even what's in stake at here. Don't move the goalposts. "Automatic approval" is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to operations such as gender reassignment.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Necessity. To claim I am not for care for everyone is to deny most of what I have written on the subject and to go off on a tangent. None-the-less, whether we like it or not, we are not, tommorrow or anytime soon going to get universal healthcare. Even if we did, there is still going to be a limit to the number of doctors practicing in some specialties, some areas, etc.
Its triage. Triage is one of the nastiest words there is in health care, particularly emergency services, because it means you actually let some people die, BUT, it is a standard of protocols that assess how to best utilize limited resources (of ANY type) to do the most good for the most people. Triage says you turn your back on some people you might otherwise try to save, BUT you are then able to save many more as a result.
Stop trying to pretend the world is ideal and that everything is just an obscure intellectual excercise. You sound like a fanatic, not a sensible person when you ignore reality.
Aren't you being a bit overly dramatic here? It's not like you live in a 3rd-world country or anything - it's not like there's a shortage of malaria shots and you need to decide which 6/10 of the children in your family get vaccinations and assess which ones are least likely to die of starvation or scurvy anyway.
Maybe if you stop wasting so much money into supporting insurance companies, bailing out banks, subsidizing oil & coal and playing world police, you could use that money for healthcare.
PLAYER57832 wrote:That IS what happens, that is my point. Millions of people DO have to "go without", not just for psycotic medications, but for blood pressure, cancer, other medications.
Really? That's insane. Why wouldn't you give medications to those people? In my country, the state pays for the necessary medications of anyone who's too poor to afford to buy them, and even pays part of the cost for people who just have low income. We've yet to go bankrupt because of it. We've yet to have to deny surgery to transgender patients because of it, or even consider matters of "triage".
PLAYER57832 wrote:Oh please. I am not weighing in on that, except to say that it is more controversial than the idea of homosexuality being something inherent. I mean, from the liberal side, there is a debate as well --- among other issues, if we are aiming for a gender equal society as our goal, then why would anyone even need to change.
Seriously? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've heard this whole week. Just think about it for a while.
PLAYER57832 wrote: I am not debating this, but for you to just make such blanket statements shows YOU are not even trying to understand other people's perspectives and, to be honest, have not really looked fully at all the literature.
Sorry, but I don't need to read Mein Kampf to know that racism is wrong.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Tolerance goes many ways. Its not just about accepting people who are different.. its also about accepting people with whom you fundamentally disagree, and acknowledging that even if you dislike their ideas, they still have a fundamental right to those ideas and to express them.
And I have the right to call them out on their bullshit.
It's been fun, let's do this again sometime.