natty dread wrote: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: fuck them.
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".
In that post, you were the one not even bothering to consider that he might have justification (even if you disagree.... ). Your response was just to claim "evil", rather than to even bother to bring up data to refute the point. YOU acted the closed-minded bigot.
Aside from that, what I said IS true. You don't get to decide facts. Nor do you get to decide, alone what is and is not correct. That you are not willing to even DISCUSS or consider the possibility that you might be wrong doesn't translate into a right to bully those who disagree. In fact, unless you can come up with some firm and definite facts to back up your belief, your attitude of ignoring other opinions pretty much invalidates your right to have a say in this.
READ THIS AGAIN. I am saying that not everyone gets the healthcare they need, and when push comes to shove, I am willing to deny extreme care to a convicted MURDERER (not just even "any criminal"..this guy killed other people) , rather than kids. For you to continue pretending that is not the real question means you are not paying attention. Either pay attention, listen to the REAL debate or get out. Right now, you are not debating, you are harassing anyone voicing an opinion disagreeing with yours ... and NOT providing data to back up your ideas.natty dread wrote: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"?
Again, I did not even TACKLE the issue of whether transgender people should or should not get surgery, whether it is or is not a legitimate illness. I am dealing with whether tax payers have an obligation to provide care not absolutely necessary to sustain the prisoner's life. AND I am saying that triage, not "what I wish to happen" is the standard of who does and does not get care. If obtaining sex change operations were something freely available to the general public, you would have an argument. They are NOT. They are patently not, so to insist that a convicted murderer has the right to get this at taxpayer expense is just not reasonable.
AND, I made perfectly clear that MY position was quite consistant. There is no "free pass" here just becuase this person is transgender.
CONTEXT almost ALWAYS matters. It makes the difference between intelligent, thinking discussion and radical fanaticism. Right now, you are not even paying attention to what folks are saying. You just hear "not in favor of transgender surgery".. and leap to your conclusions. You are the one being bigoted here, not we.
Been there, done that and not just with homosexuality, but religious belief, gender issues AND race. In an open discussion about these issues, you have to allow people to express their opinions, as opinion, in a reasonable manner.. no matter how strongly you disagree. Else, you are not being educational or free.. you are being oppressive. Oppression of ideas is the greatest harm there is on EARTH.natty dread wrote: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.
Like I said, that you cannot distinguish between "hey, I don't think this is a valid illness"... and "I want all these people to jump in a hole and will take the shovel to cover them myself" shows YOUR bias and YOUR bigotry, not j's.
natty dread wrote: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.
I am a scientist, so I almost ALWAYS qualify things. There is almost always an exception to almost every rule.
And what the heck is "cisgender privilege" anyway.
natty dread wrote: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.
And note that I made no such specifications. I said just "people who disagree with you".
If we cannot discuss even base values openly and even allow people to express disagreement, then contrary to your beliefs, it winds up with those ideas flourishing, not decreasing. Evil hides in darkness. By bringing the repugnant ideas out, by considering that people can have even repugnant ideas, based on THEIR experience (whites who know only what they have heard about blacks, for example), and claiming they are just stupid or evil for not automatically coming to the same conclusion you have leads to them feeling THEY are oppressed, that you are hiding from their ideas. It gives them MORE validity, not less.
Again, the proper response to disagreeing with the statement that (to paraphrase) was basically "I don't approve of this surgery because I don't think this is even a valid illness" is to bring up proof that it IS a valid illness, not to cry "discrimination".. BAN the guy! The way he phrased it was in disagreement, not abusive.. unless you are so hypersensitive that you cannot tolerate anyone even barely disagreeing with you on these issues. And, to be frank, that DOES seem to be you of late and it definitely is not a nice picture of you. Its a picture of even more intolerance than that you oppose.
It very much depends on the context. And yes, see the above. I not only say that, I live that.natty dread wrote: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?
I don't expect to debate people with whom I agree. I debate people who think differently from me... and sometimes I convince them, sometimes they convince me, sometimes we agree to disagree, and more often we each learn a tad, but still disagree or only shift our positions slightly.
An open mind is a GOOD thing. Only when people begin disputed real and verified facts does the story change.. but again, if you feel you have real and verified facts, then bring them up, don't just shout "BIGOT!"
Really? I answered exactly the same for each and every condition you brought up. Its triage. That means some people don't get even things they might otherwise be determined to need. You really ought to look up that definition, because you have, to this point, pretty much ignored its meaning and my use of the term in this debate.natty dread wrote: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.
OH please, I say no such thing. Are you now trying to claim that this convicted murder was falsely imprisoned. That is yet another debate. And still irrelevant. The fact is that people with NO convictions cannot get this surgery paid for them, so why should we pay for it for this convicted murderer?natty dread wrote: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.
Well, yeah, read above. I am not the hypocritical one here, sorry.natty dread wrote:I say, you made your bed, now lay in it.
Read my earlier post. I addressed this.natty dread wrote: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?
Oh.. yeah, you cut it off, but here it is:
Funny, I keep talking about the real world that actually exists and you keep going back to the ideal. Again, look up the word "triage".natty dread wrote: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 for the record, I have railed against insurance company judgements countless times. Still, it is a place to BEGIN.
Not when it involved prisoners. Not in this case.natty dread wrote: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.
Childhood hunger was essentially eradicated in the late 70's, but with the election of Reagan, we began to see it emerge again. I can point to dozens of kids who's parents cannot afford to take them to the doctor (not the kids of the "deadbeats", mind you, but kids of working families).natty dread wrote: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.
So, again, try reality for a change.. not your idealized dreams.
NO disagreement with ME there. How does that relate to what is actually happening?natty dread wrote: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.
Triage involves reality, not fictional wishes or ideals.
Actually, your state does consider triage, but they do so upfront and in an evidence-based manner. Its also, for the most part, done in the realm of medical science and ethics, not politics.natty dread wrote: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".
Also, EVERY civilized, modern nation absolutely uses the triage system in emergencies. They do so becuase it WORKS. It saves the most lives with what resources are available.
But, this discussion is not about your country, its about the US.
OH please, I grew up in CA. Good chance I have heard ALL sides of this debate far longer than you... for one thing, I do believe I am a few years older than you (thougth not sure about that).natty dread wrote: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.
Again, try listening to what people are actually saying instead of just jumping to assumptions.
natty dread wrote: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.
Ah, yes, knew we could expect Nazis to be brought in. But see, my FAMILY was impacted by that.. and it is ALSO something I have written about in great deal.
You are not fighting racism or sexism here. You are simply promoting a liberalized version of oppression and unwillingness to consider other people's opinions. As I said before, YOU are the one being the bigot here. You are looking at titles, not what people are saying.
You did not do that. You called "mommy.. tell them they are bad!". "Calling them out" would involve actually providing refuting data. You did not do that.natty dread wrote: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.