Federal Judge Orders State to Pay for Sex Change

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

I see, so according to you conservatives and right wingers never do that?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Even in these threads, the right is far more represented by close-minded individuals than the left. Note, I don't agree with Natty, but your accusation against liberals in general was highly biased to the point of representing what you yourself are attacking.

Again, completely irrelevant.


I'm just tired of seeing natty's ignorant and close-minded (oooh! and bigoted in a bad way!) strawman argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Give it a rest. not wanting to pay for someone else's sex change operation is hardly bigotry.

Asserting that trans-people are all mentally insane (which is exactly what jimbo implied) is bigotry.

Asserting that homosexuals are insane IS very much bigotry. Transgenderism is still more controversial. More evidence is needed before you can flat out claim anyone disagreeing is just a "bigot". 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. Saying someone is mentally ill is, in THIS context, an opinion pertinent to the subject, it is not a slur. If he were saying "hey, these people just don't deserve to live", then maybe. However, I can find posts where you yourself have called people "insane" (and yes, I am guilty as well) simply for disagreeing.

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. That said, for most of us whether transgenders should get surgery at all for that condition is actually irrelevant.

Your sarcastic argument doesn't even make sense. Homeless Americans are needy and giving food to them is not taking away from poor African children. Their problems are distinct.

Paying for non critical surgaries for prisoners directly takes away from both other prisoners and people outside of prison needing assistance.

Oh, so you're the one who gets to assess which operations are necessary and which aren't? Funny, I always thought it was the doctor who would do that.

In the real world, in the US, its generally an insurance company that decides. When it comes to prisoners and such, then it does fall to the voters.

I WISH it were just up to doctors. But, even in that scenario, there is still the point of "triage".

Really, with no exaggeration?

Yes really. Depression is not physically life-threatening, so according to your standards, prisoners suffering from it shouldn't receive treatment for it, at least if it's paid by taxpayers.

Same goes for psychosis, schitzophrenia, anxiety, etc... the whole spectrum of personality disorders. All should go untreated because they're not "critical" or "life-threatening" (hey, if the prisoners try to harm themselves/others, you can always just strap them to their beds and force-feed them, no biggie).

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.

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.

This guy is and continues to recieve hormone treatments. I never said they should stop. (not a doctor, not going to decide that).

So why draw the line at that? If you're ok with the treatments in general, why is the operation such a big deal?

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.

Basically, it would depend on the cost. We ARE limiting healthcare to everyone. Prisoners should not get better treatment than those outside of prison. Yet, they often do. That is just wrong

So why is your solution worsening the healthcare of prisoners, instead of improving the healthcare of everyone else?

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.

If they want them when they get out of prison, they can pay themselves.. or do without like most people.
You like to pretend that costs don't matter, there is no triage, etc. That is just not reality.

So, would you say that a mentally ill person should pay for their own medications, or "do without"? That if you suffer from depression, you should pay for your own doctor, your own anti-depression medication, and if you can't pay for them, just "do without"?

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.

In addition, you have some factory limitations that have nothing to do with ability to pay. Right now, in PA, for example, there has been a shortage in adderol in some areas. Certain cancer drugs are limited. U

Or, are you like Jimbo, and also asserting that gender dysphoria is "not a legitimate condition" despite there being tons of evidence of it being such? Is this a religious thing? Like, you shouldn't change what god made you into and so on? And if so, don't you think religion should be kept separate from politics?

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. 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.

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.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

I see, so according to you conservatives and right wingers never do that?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Even in these threads, the right is far more represented by close-minded individuals than the left. Note, I don't agree with Natty, but your accusation against liberals in general was highly biased to the point of representing what you yourself are attacking.

Again, completely irrelevant.


I'm just tired of seeing natty's ignorant and close-minded (oooh! and bigoted in a bad way!) strawman argument.

Honestly, I am too. However, you did not just attack him, you very much DID make the statement that implies this is typical or common from the left, instead of just a factor of those at the extreme.

We need a diversity of opinion to have good discussions. I am not upset that Natty has a different view, though I am a tad irritated at him and others who often just go on the attack without really understanding or caring about the sheer complexity of ideas. But, we all are guilty at times.

[natty dread]

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".

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.

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"?

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.

. 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

[patches70]

I think natty should take up the cause and offer to pay for the inmate in question's sex change operation. After all, someone will have to pay for it. It would be better for someone who is willing to pay for it rather than confiscate from people who are not willing.

Wouldn't you agree natty? Or do you believe that if a person is against something, for whatever reason, that they must be forced through the power and violence of The State to comply even if their objections are not unlawful?

It is not unlawful for a Player or an OP to object to being force to pay for this inmate's procedure. Are you saying it's all right to say "Screw you", reach into their wallet and just take the funds anyway?

You're for the procedure, you pay for it then. Simple, expedient and fair. Voluntary charity is better than coerced...um...charity. Can it be called charity if it's coerced? I'll have to look into that....

[patches70]

Massachusetts is running at a projected $1.3 billion budget shortfall. They can't afford their police, firemen, civic services and such. We need people like Natty to step up to pay for things like this felon's sex change operation. So, Natty, can Massachusetts expect a check from you forthcoming?

Here is the address you can send your payment to-

Massachusetts State Treasurer's Office
c/o Debt Management Department
One Ashburton Place, 12 th Floor Boston, MA 02108-1608

[jimboston]

Please explain how my comments a bigoted in any way.

Your transphobic assertions that trans-sexual people are not really the gender or sex they say they are, or that gender dysphoria is not a real thing, are bigotry. It's analoguous to claiming that all homosexuals are mentally insane.

Have have made no transphobic assertions. I am not afraid of some freak whom claims to be a different sex than they are. I just don't want to give money to someone who claims to be a different sex than they are.

Gender dysphoria is a real thing... in the sense that someone wants to be a different sex than they are. The person obviously has some serious mental issues.

Just because someone claims they are one sex doesn't make it so. Nature, God, chance, or whatever made you the sex that you are. Wanting to be the other sex doesn't make it so.

Do people with this "disorder" have a problem... yes. Should I be forced to pay for some pseudo-scientific "reconstruction" to help "fix" a their problem.

NO.

As an aside... I don't think that just because we can (kinda) change the sex of a person doesn't mean we should.

Aside number two... I have not made any analogy to "gender dysphoria" and homosexuality or bisexuality. The two are unrelated.

Aside number three... I also don't believe a significant number of "mental disorders" that the medical profession claims are real are indeed REAL. At least not in the sense that Cancer, broken bones, and heart attacks are real. I think ADD is somewhat real... but not to the extent that many claim, I don't think obesity is a "medical disorder" I think it's just a lack of self control, I also don't think alcoholism is a "medical" issue; again a lack of self control.

Are some people (because of genetics or upbringing) more prone to these issues... yes. Does that put these things on par with Cancer and Lou Gehrig's Disease... NO.

(Though this Aside 3 is a debate for another thread. The main point of this thread is to debate that question as-to whether or not the Tax Payer should pay for this freak's "treatment".)

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

I see, so according to you conservatives and right wingers never do that?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Even in these threads, the right is far more represented by close-minded individuals than the left. Note, I don't agree with Natty, but your accusation against liberals in general was highly biased to the point of representing what you yourself are attacking.

Again, completely irrelevant.


I'm just tired of seeing natty's ignorant and close-minded (oooh! and bigoted in a bad way!) strawman argument.

Honestly, I am too. However, you did not just attack him, you very much DID make the statement that implies this is typical or common from the left, instead of just a factor of those at the extreme.

We need a diversity of opinion to have good discussions. I am not upset that Natty has a different view, though I am a tad irritated at him and others who often just go on the attack without really understanding or caring about the sheer complexity of ideas. But, we all are guilty at times.

I do not deny that a group within the right-wing exemplifies such stupidity. Just look at PS for some great examples!

I do constantly hear that strawman argument from close-minded and ignorant people on the left. Note the qualifiers "close-minded" and "ignorant" for "people on the left." My criticism only applies to those kind of people--but not all people on the left. There are my "friends on the left" who tend to be much more reasonable and understanding of my views--and more knowledgeable of their own.

Some however don't care to be criticized and don't care to listen. Natty fit the description with his straw man argument. He was clearly being close-minded and ignorant at that time, so I have to call that out.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think natty should take up the cause and offer to pay for the inmate in question's sex change operation. After all, someone will have to pay for it. It would be better for someone who is willing to pay for it rather than confiscate from people who are not willing.

I agree with this. Why not have people put their money where their mouth is?

How much do they really want to pay for the price of their own worldview?

[patches70]

I think natty should take up the cause and offer to pay for the inmate in question's sex change operation. After all, someone will have to pay for it. It would be better for someone who is willing to pay for it rather than confiscate from people who are not willing.

I agree with this. Why not have people put their money where their mouth is?

How much do they really want to pay for the price of their own worldview?

It'd go something like this-

"It costs how much!? Screw you! Make someone else pay for it! <rabble rabble>"

[PLAYER57832]

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

. 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.

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.

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?

It very much depends on the context. And yes, see the above. I not only say that, I live that.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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?

I say, you made your bed, now lay in it.

Well, yeah, read above. I am not the hypocritical one here, sorry.

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?

Read my earlier post. I addressed this.

Oh.. yeah, you cut it off, but here it is:

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.

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".

and for the record, I have railed against insurance company judgements countless times. Still, it is a place to BEGIN.

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.

Not when it involved prisoners. Not in this case.

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.

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).

So, again, try reality for a change.. not your idealized dreams.

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.

NO disagreement with ME there. How does that relate to what is actually happening?

Triage involves reality, not fictional wishes or ideals.

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".

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.

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 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.

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).

Again, try listening to what people are actually saying instead of just jumping to assumptions.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Have have made no transphobic assertions. I am not afraid of some freak whom claims to be a different sex than they are.

... right, I'm the bigot. (I fully expect to see this sentence in the out-of-context quotes thread).

Gender dysphoria is a real thing... in the sense that someone wants to be a different sex than they are. The person obviously has some serious mental issues.

Jimbo, why are you so afraid of anything different from yourself? Could it be that... you're a bigot?

Just because someone claims they are one sex doesn't make it so. Nature, God, chance, or whatever made you the sex that you are. Wanting to be the other sex doesn't make it so.

A, you're conflating "sex" and "gender". B, you have no evidence for your assertions, no matter how loudly you shout "NUH UH" it's not going to make your bigoted opinions any more valid.

Here's a quick 101 for you - sex refers to the physical attributes of a person's genitalia and other sexual characteristics. In layman's terms, it's whether you have a penis, vagina or something in between. Gender refers to your identity, whether you identify as a male or female or something in between. Transgender people are people whose sex and gender are mismatched.

So because you're so small-minded that you can't see anything past your narrow place in the world where "men are men and women are made of wood" or some shit, you claim that anything outside your narrow definition of "normal" is wrong. Who are you to make that judgement? Who made you the gender police?

So, since you seem to know everything about sex and gender, please tell me what makes someone a "man" or a "woman". Is it your genitalia? For example, a war veteran loses his penis while defending his country, in a macho, patriotic way, jumping on top of a hand grenade to save a whole platoon or some shit. Would you then say this patriotic war veteran whose mustache is in the shape of a bald eagle is not a man because he doesn't have a penis?

As an aside... I don't think that just because we can (kinda) change the sex of a person doesn't mean we should.

And how exactly does it harm you if some people want to change their sex? Are there transsexuals hiding under your bed, waiting to attack you with their ambiguous genitalia?

Face it, Jimbo, you're a bigot.

Aside number three... I also don't believe a significant number of "mental disorders" that the medical profession claims are real are indeed REAL. At least not in the sense that Cancer, broken bones, and heart attacks are real. I think ADD is somewhat real... but not to the extent that many claim, I don't think obesity is a "medical disorder" I think it's just a lack of self control, I also don't think alcoholism is a "medical" issue; again a lack of self control.

Ok, so now you're the reality police. How about you try to make your bigotry stop being real, it might make your life much happier.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, natty's was being a bigot too! In a bad way!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177873&start=45#p3887001

[natty dread]

Hey, natty's was being a bigot too! In a bad way!

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

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.

No, what you said is an ad populum fallacy.

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.

Oh, well now that you posted it in an enormous font I suddenly agree with everything you say.

So you're saying that healthcare is something that only "good people" should get, gotcha. If you do crimes, you're no longer worthy of being treated like a human being. Gotcha.

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.

So, again: why not argue for sex change operations for everyone? Why do you need to go about it ass-backwards and demand that prisoners don't get them?

Sex change operations for everyone!

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.

Who's "we"?

It very much depends on the context. And yes, see the above. I not only say that, I live that.

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!"

No, I shout "bigot" when someone says something like this:

Gender dysphoria is a real thing... in the sense that someone wants to be a different sex than they are. The person obviously has some serious mental issues.

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?

Have I asked you to pay for it? Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it. They're the ones profiting from the enromous incarceration rates in your country, they should be able to afford it.

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.

Interesting, it appears that human rights have "exceptions". I never realized!

Also, google is your friend. I'm not your fucking dictionary.

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.

I'm not censoring anyone here. I don't have any such powers, I can't keep anyone from posting anything or ban anyone from the forums. That doesn't mean I can't express my disagreement when someone spouts some hateful, bigoted bullshit and call them out on it. If someone says stupid shit, I have the right to ridicule them for it.

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

Sorry, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Jimbo claims that gender transgenderism is just "made up shit" that "insane people do because they're insane". It's not up to me to prove it false, it's up to him to prove his claims.

But if you insist - I don't even have to go further than Wikipedia:

Androphilic MtF transsexuals

Studies have consistently shown that specifically androphilic male-to-female transsexuals (sometimes called homosexual MtF transsexuals in studies) show a shift towards the female direction in brain anatomy. In 2009, a German team of radiologists led by Gizewski compared 12 androphilic transsexuals with 12 biological males and 12 biological females. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), they found that when shown erotica, the biological men responded in several brain regions that the biological women did not, and that the sample of androphilic transsexuals was shifted towards the female direction in brain responses.[78]

Rametti and colleagues used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to compare 18 androphilic male-to-female transsexuals with 19 gynephilic males and 19 typical (heterosexual) females. The androphilic transsexuals differed from both control groups in multiple brain areas, including the superior longitudinal fasciculus, the right anterior cingulum, the right forceps minor, and the right corticospinal tract. The study authors concluded that androphilic transsexuals are halfway between the patterns exhibited by male and female controls.[79]
Gynephilic MtF transsexuals

Conversely, gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals also show differences in the brain from non-transsexual males, but in a unique pattern different from being shifted in a female direction. Researchers of the Karolinska Institute of Stockholm used MRI to compare 24 gynephilic male-to-female transsexuals with 24 non-transsexual male and 24 non-transsexual female controls. None of the study participants were on hormone treatment. The researchers found sex-typical differentiation between the MtF transsexuals and non-transsexual males, and the non-transsexual females; but the gynephilic transsexuals "displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus."

These researchers concluded that "Contrary to the primary hypothesis, no sex-atypical features with signs of 'feminization' were detected in the transsexual group....The present study does not support the dogma that [male-to-female transsexuals] have atypical sex dimorphism in the brain but confirms the previously reported sex differences. The observed differences between MtF-TR and controls raise the question as to whether gender dysphoria may be associated with changes in multiple structures and involve a network (rather than a single nodal area)."[80]

In Sweden, non-androphilic transsexual women were tested when they were smelling odorous steroids. The results showed that the transsexual women demonstrated "a pattern of activation away from the biological sex, occupying an intermediate position with predominantly female-like features." [81]

Anne Lawrence, a sexologist, physician, and self-identified autogynephilic transsexual, has hypothesized that the desire by persons with autogynephilia, including some cross dressers and some transsexuals, to alter their body can be compared with apotemnophilia (alternately body integrity identity disorder if framed as an identity issue rather than a fetish).[82] Explanations of the desire to transition based on libido, such as this, have been criticized by some transsexuals who argue that they are unscientific[83] or transphobic.[84]

And so on. Need more?

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.

Evidence please.

Also, EVERY civilized, modern nation absolutely uses the triage system in emergencies.

Yes, in emergencies. Stop moving the goal posts.

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.

No, YOU are the bigot here.

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.

My grandfather fought with & against nazies in the WWII, so there.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, natty's was being a bigot too! In a bad way!

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Oh, I'm so sorry! You see how it's labeled, "bigot ... in a bad way" as I said before? You fit the description very well!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175364&p=3832395&hilit=bad+bigotry#p3832265

show

Case in point:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=177873&start=45#p3887001

I don't deny that such an operation may be necessary or is a disease, but I balk at the taxpaying argument.

So you're saying, everyone should pay for their own medical care then. So poor people who can't afford medical care should just do us a favour and die, right?

Why do such close-minded, ignorant liberals/social democrats/people on the left constantly make such a stupid strawman argument?

So, you were being open-minded, open to revising your stance, and tolerant of other people's opinions when you used that strawman argument, amirite?
And you in no way exemplify any economic bias at all, amirite? (e.g. sweatshop debate and apparently here with your obstinate refusal to admit to acting like a bigot in a bad way).
Here's another example of you being a bigot in a bad way (here)


Or instead of being a bigot in a bad way....

After reading my statement, your mind closed, you got emotional, you let loose something ignorant, and then you continue to deny being a bigot in a bad way.
(Let's include the examples of other clear cases of you exemplifying bad bigotry).

The above somehow lends no evidence to my position that you are a bigot in a bad way?

Clearly, as of now, you were being a bigot in a bad way.

[natty dread]

Oh, I'm so sorry! You see how it's labeled, "bigot ... in a bad way" as I said before? You fit the description very well!

[BigBallinStalin]

Nice job, PhatNatty.

Just make sure that whenever you call someone else a bigot (in a bad way), you're not a good standard of tolerance, open-mindedness, and all that exemplifies not being a bigot (or rather, being a bigot in a good way). At times, you've got some serious faults which continued ignorance and posts of pictures can't cover up.

[patches70]

Here's another example of you being a bigot in a bad way (here)

Ouch! Dang, natty's own words paint a pretty bad picture of his thinking.

I like this little bit of wisdom-

Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it.

LMAO. I wonder who he thinks pays for the prisons, the guards, the food, medical attention and all the other things associated with the prison system.

Let's see, looking into it, the Massachusetts DOC has a budget of $516,374,451*. That's a cost, natty, BTW.

The prison industries and farm service program brought in $2,600,000. (The budget for this department is $2,082, 694. Ignoring the rest of the costs of the entire DOC, they "made" $517,306. About 1/1000th of the total costs of the DOC. Great business plan there! They got pllleeennntttyyyy of money to pay for whatever, right?)

The DOC received $3,000,000 from the Federal Government for housing Federal prisoners. (1/117 the total costs of the DOC)

So, let's add this up. Mass spent $516,374,451 total. The get the meager profits from their industry projects and the federal payments which adds up to $5,600,000. The total COST of the DOC? $510,774,451. That's cost, natty.

So tell me, where is all this "profit" that you seem to think exists from the prison industrial complex?


As always, when it comes down to paying for your beliefs you are quick to say-

"It costs how much? Screw that! Make someone else pay for it!"



Good job there, buddy. Way to stand up for your beliefs.
You know, I bet you couldn't pay a dime anyway, to see your most precious beliefs come to fruition. You're dead broke most likely. That probably makes you feel bad, which explains why your quick to be "The boy who cried wolf bigot!" to make you feel better about yourself.
Hey, whatever lets you get to sleep at night, more power to you. Just don't try to make everyone else be as broke (economically) as you, if you don't mind.



*Fiscal year 2011. All data is from said fiscal year.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... mlpQI95zMQ

[Symmetry]

Here's another example of you being a bigot in a bad way (here)

Ouch! Dang, natty's own words paint a pretty bad picture of his thinking.

I like this little bit of wisdom-

Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it.

LMAO. I wonder who he thinks pays for the prisons, the guards, the food, medical attention and all the other things associated with the prison system.

Let's see, looking into it, the Massachusetts DOC has a budget of $516,374,451*. That's a cost, natty, BTW.

The prison industries and farm service program brought in $2,600,000. (The budget for this department is $2,082, 694. Ignoring the rest of the costs of the entire DOC, they "made" $517,306. About 1/1000th of the total costs of the DOC. Great business plan there! They got pllleeennntttyyyy of money to pay for whatever, right?)

The DOC received $3,000,000 from the Federal Government for housing Federal prisoners. (1/117 the total costs of the DOC)

So, let's add this up. Mass spent $516,374,451 total. The get the meager profits from their industry projects and the federal payments which adds up to $5,600,000. The total COST of the DOC? $510,774,451. That's cost, natty.

So tell me, where is all this "profit" that you seem to think exists from the prison industrial complex?


As always, when it comes down to paying for your beliefs you are quick to say-

"It costs how much? Screw that! Make someone else pay for it!"



Good job there, buddy. Way to stand up for your beliefs.
You know, I bet you couldn't pay a dime anyway, to see your most precious beliefs come to fruition. You're dead broke most likely. That probably makes you feel bad, which explains why your quick to be "The boy who cried wolf bigot!" to make you feel better about yourself.
Hey, whatever lets you get to sleep at night, more power to you. Just don't try to make everyone else be as broke (economically) as you, if you don't mind.



*Fiscal year 2011. All data is from said fiscal year.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... mlpQI95zMQ

Strawman much?

[patches70]

Here's another example of you being a bigot in a bad way (here)

Ouch! Dang, natty's own words paint a pretty bad picture of his thinking.

I like this little bit of wisdom-

Make the prison-industrial complex pay for it.

LMAO. I wonder who he thinks pays for the prisons, the guards, the food, medical attention and all the other things associated with the prison system.

Let's see, looking into it, the Massachusetts DOC has a budget of $516,374,451*. That's a cost, natty, BTW.

The prison industries and farm service program brought in $2,600,000. (The budget for this department is $2,082, 694. Ignoring the rest of the costs of the entire DOC, they "made" $517,306. About 1/1000th of the total costs of the DOC. Great business plan there! They got pllleeennntttyyyy of money to pay for whatever, right?)

The DOC received $3,000,000 from the Federal Government for housing Federal prisoners. (1/117 the total costs of the DOC)

So, let's add this up. Mass spent $516,374,451 total. The get the meager profits from their industry projects and the federal payments which adds up to $5,600,000. The total COST of the DOC? $510,774,451. That's cost, natty.

So tell me, where is all this "profit" that you seem to think exists from the prison industrial complex?


As always, when it comes down to paying for your beliefs you are quick to say-

"It costs how much? Screw that! Make someone else pay for it!"



Good job there, buddy. Way to stand up for your beliefs.
You know, I bet you couldn't pay a dime anyway, to see your most precious beliefs come to fruition. You're dead broke most likely. That probably makes you feel bad, which explains why your quick to be "The boy who cried wolf bigot!" to make you feel better about yourself.
Hey, whatever lets you get to sleep at night, more power to you. Just don't try to make everyone else be as broke (economically) as you, if you don't mind.



*Fiscal year 2011. All data is from said fiscal year.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... mlpQI95zMQ

Strawman much?

LOL, if you say so. But you are pretty bad at having a constructive conversation.

The OP and others don't feel as though they should have to be forced to pay for this inmates procedure, and this is a legitimate concern.
Natty, instead of addressing the concern merely calls them bigots and then says it doesn't cost the OP anything because the prison will pay for it.

However, the OP does live in Mass. and is being forced to pay for it. Which he is against because his state is already in the hole as it is. To the tune of $1.3 billion just for this current fiscal year.

The question comes down to, "Who pays for it". It's a simple question I asked. There are people like Natty who think it's a legitimate use of funds, even though the state of Mass. lacks the funds to pay (they are $1.3 Billion in the hole as it is after all).
Therefore, the simple, fair solution is that instead of forcing people who don't wish to pay for it, just have the people who do want to pay for it pony up the money from their own personal funds.

The inmate desires an operation but lacks the funds. Someone must pay for it, which makes it an act of Charity. It doesn't matter if it's the State or private individuals, it's still charity.
The problem is, the State is incapable of charity because it derives it's funds through taxation. Charity is expressly a voluntary transaction. What the State does is the exact opposite of Charity.

Natty should be the one who donates to the charitable cause because he is the one who supposedly believes in the cause. Thus, he should pay for it and not try and force others to pay in his place.

[Symmetry]

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.

[jimboston]

Just because someone claims they are one sex doesn't make it so. Nature, God, chance, or whatever made you the sex that you are. Wanting to be the other sex doesn't make it so.

A, you're conflating "sex" and "gender". B, you have no evidence for your assertions, no matter how loudly you shout "NUH UH" it's not going to make your bigoted opinions any more valid.

Here's a quick 101 for you - sex refers to the physical attributes of a person's genitalia and other sexual characteristics. In layman's terms, it's whether you have a penis, vagina or something in between. Gender refers to your identity, whether you identify as a male or female or something in between. Transgender people are people whose sex and gender are mismatched.

So because you're so small-minded that you can't see anything past your narrow place in the world where "men are men and women are made of wood" or some shit, you claim that anything outside your narrow definition of "normal" is wrong. Who are you to make that judgement? Who made you the gender police?

Here's the definition of Gender from Merriam-Webster;
a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Definition "A" clearly 100% agrees with how I have been using the term. Definition "B" does not 100% agree with my usage... but it doesn't agree with your "re-definition" of the term. Perhaps you should learn the language before you start lecturing me on the proper usage of specific words. I checked a few other dictionaries as well... and "sex" was always the first / primary definition.

Gender may be used to identify traits of an item... it is NEVER used to mean "identity".

Transgendered people are not people whose sex and gender are mismatched. They are people who are born one sex/gender... but identify themselves with the other/opposite sex/gender. This is a mental disorder. What someone wants to do to themselves to "fix" this issue is their own business. It's not something I should EVER pay for. EVER.

(Note I want to specifically exclude Hermaphrodites... as that is a physical issue from birth, not a mental issue.)

So, since you seem to know everything about sex and gender, please tell me what makes someone a "man" or a "woman". Is it your genitalia? For example, a war veteran loses his penis while defending his country, in a macho, patriotic way, jumping on top of a hand grenade to save a whole platoon or some shit. Would you then say this patriotic war veteran whose mustache is in the shape of a bald eagle is not a man because he doesn't have a penis?

THIS IS A STOOPID FUCKIN' QUESTION. I won't give it any dignity by answering it.

[jimboston]

As an aside... I don't think that just because we can (kinda) change the sex of a person doesn't mean we should.

And how exactly does it harm you if some people want to change their sex? Are there transsexuals hiding under your bed, waiting to attack you with their ambiguous genitalia?

Face it, Jimbo, you're a bigot.

It doesn't... and (as I have stated) I don't really care at all about someone fucking with their own body. I personally don't think it should be done, and I generally wouldn't want to associate with a person so fucked up that they would do that to themselves. I'm not saying it should be illegal... or the Gov't (Big Brother) should stop them... I don't think that. I just can't understand how or why someone would do that... nor do I want to bother to attempt to understand it.

Now... not only do I think Gov't shouldn't stop the person. I also don't think Gov't should be in the business of helping a person do that to themselves.... and I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

Aside number three... I also don't believe a significant number of "mental disorders" that the medical profession claims are real are indeed REAL. At least not in the sense that Cancer, broken bones, and heart attacks are real. I think ADD is somewhat real... but not to the extent that many claim, I don't think obesity is a "medical disorder" I think it's just a lack of self control, I also don't think alcoholism is a "medical" issue; again a lack of self control.

Ok, so now you're the reality police. How about you try to make your bigotry stop being real, it might make your life much happier.

Your retort here makes no sense. If you have something to say... say it. Clearly you don't.

[jimboston]

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?

[Symmetry]

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.