RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer

RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

OttersSwim -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 1:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Which the judge has ordered be provided, after it was identified as necessary and then withheld. Which leads to the question being debated... is the judges decision proper? How many professional and legal positions do you feel you need to be satisfied about a decision to uphold the law of this country? Are you willing to accept the same when your insurance company declines your treatment because they did not consider your doctor's diagnosis proper? You want to let her rot in a cell - others want to cut off her balls - that's great and all, but it is not the law of the land. The 8th amendment is. Feel free the work to change the law - the Republicans have a big head start on you. [8\|]

Marc2b -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 1:47:20 PM)
My condolences on your loss. While I have lost close friends to cancer and accident I cannot imagine the anguish of loosing someone to murder although I know people who have. It is so fucking useless and unnecessary. Pure evil. I wish upon those two punks the worst possible punishment there is... that they actually develop a conscience someday and thus realize the true horror and pain they have inflicted on others.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 1:52:08 PM)
Regardless of what it is, I think it's pitiful that a murderer gets better treatment than a law abiding citizen.

Marc2b -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 2:00:54 PM)
quote: How many professional and legal positions do you feel you need to be satisfied about a decision to uphold the law of this country? Are you willing to accept the same when your insurance company declines your treatment because they did not consider your doctor's diagnosis proper? You want to let her rot in a cell - others want to cut off her balls - that's great and all, but it is not the law of the land. The 8th amendment is. Feel free the work to change the law - the Republicans have a big head start on you. Just because some judge has made a ruling does not mean that I am obligated to agree with it or the law it was supposedly based upon. As for the 8th amendment, well, that's the question. isn't it? Does denying a sex change operation constitute cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think it does. I do feel free to work to change the law if I want to (that's one of the good things about being an American)... but truth be told I'm not huffed enough about this to really bother. I might sign JstAnotherSub's petition (which would be a rarity for me... i'm not really a petition signing kind of guy) but that would be it. Fuck the Republicans. I don't give a rats ass about the Republicans and don't really see what they have to do about my feelings on this issue.

OttersSwim -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 2:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b As for the 8th amendment, well, that's the question. isn't it? Does denying a sex change operation constitute cruel and unusual punishment? I don't think it does. Again, when the law of the land says that when the state takes over the life of a person, they have an obligation to provide that individual with healthcare - physical and mental. Law of the land. When the law and state procedure that the prison system follows is - diagnosis and then treatment of inmate mental and physical ailments for which medical treatment is considered "medically necessary". And then you don't apply it consistently to those pesky transgender people - because some administrator does what you have done exactly here and made themselves judge and jury over what is medically necessary (just like your hot and juicy insurance company would like to do to you, hello!) To the point where we have to get a fucking judge involved and by this time the person for whom the state is medically and mentally responsible for is trying to cut their own balls off or even end their life... Yea, it is just a bit of a problem with the 8th amendment...and basic human dignity for which we are responsible no matter what we feel about the person or their crime.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 2:27:19 PM)
Otters he is not deserving of any human dignity. Not because he is a "pesky transgendered person", but because he made the choice to take another persons life. If he kills him self, he will save us a lot of tax dollars. I know that you are passionate about this for your own reasons, and I am also. I respect you, and you have actually been one of the folks on here who has changed my mind about transgendered folks, but please, believe me when I say my disapproval of this has nothing to do with transgendered, it has to do with the loss of rights a person should have when they make a choice to end the life of another person.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 2:47:49 PM)
How about responding to my point, Otters? Do you think someone in Michelle's state of mind is a good candidate for SRS?

LadyPact -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 2:56:04 PM)
Otters, I'm going to ask you a question regarding your personal opinion. You, by far, are more knowledgeable on this subject than Me, so you'll have to forgive My ignorance. I've read every link provided here and many over the years (some provided by yourself) regarding GID and many related subjects. From the information that I've gathered, I've seen SRS, in general, a long process to obtain, very costly, and a procedure that many can not get for one reason or another. The average American has to save money for years because even many private insurance companies do not fund it. Many can't afford hormones, therapy, or anything else related to this issue. Yet, because this person is in prison, FOR MURDER, she is now elevated to a standard of care that many people can't get. If the law abiding person wants this surgery, THEY are the ones who have to make the sacrifices. And you really don't see anything wrong with that? I mean, I get it. If the system can be worked backwards, this will open the door for people on Medicaid to say this is now a necessary treatment. I can definitely see how this could be considered a victory for transgendered people because it could be used as precedent in future cases. The problem a lot of us have is that people who are NOT incarcerated are suffering, but this murderer doesn't have to because of the crime he committed. (And I'm saying "he" because he was living as a male at the time of his crime and conviction.) I wouldn't have an issue at all if this was the standard of care that we gave everyone, but we don't. There have been other threads on cases where prisoners get better health care than the average person. When people said they didn't feel that was right, there weren't these accusations of bigotry. Why is it only bigoted if the person happens to be trans?

OttersSwim -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:05:02 PM)
Thanks for your reply. [:)] I have not responded to your posts, nor your other topic because I know you to be a kind and reasonable person. I too offer my condolences for the loss within your family to a violent crime. I do not in any way condone what this person did - it was horrible. I am also a person who believes that prison should be just "a little bit bad for ya" as Ellen DeGeneres once put it. And I weep for the fact that it is a transgendered person over whom this fight is over - Lady H is totally right, it will harm the cause of transgender acceptance. But this is about more than Michelle Kosilek. It is first about upholding the laws for which we call ourselves a nation that honors law and human rights - we have no gulags. And regardless of people's opinions of what GID is, or how it affects a person - the law says we treat inmates and provide them with medically necessary treatment. We entrust those judgements to doctors and in this case, there are at least two who are employed by the prison system itself who are saying that this treatment is "medically necessary". To deny it is applying your own laws inconsistently - and in this case because this person is transgendered, it is a statement of what GID is and how it affects a person made by a person who is not a medical doctor, nor a mental health professional - a bean counter - applying the law inconsistently - for whatever reason, bias, money, politics...D) all of the above. Second, it is about what happens to a transgendered person down the road when they find themselves incarcerated or held by law enforcement. The transgender movement is about giving humans the legal right to define themselves - specifically their gender, and have that declaration of authenticity acknowledged and honored by the laws of the country in which they live. It is true that Michelle Kosilek did a horrible thing to another human being. For which she is being punished by the laws of the land to which we have all agreed who live under them. I am certain that for her, prison is a special kind of hell - think about it. But what happens around her declaration of self will go right down through the future to a county jail holding someone for a drunk and disorderly charge and arbitrarily deciding to put a person presenting as a female into a holding cell with males - or vice-versa. It is part of the argument that insurance companies are making about SRS being "optional" and "cosmetic"...and the list goes on and on and on. I understand that healthcare for inmates is an affront to many people when we ourselves have to pay for everything we get. Even as we speak, someone I know is in Thailand spending a month to get her surgery- completely on her own dime - years and years of work and saving. It is not fair that people who do horrible things get treatments that some on the outside cannot afford. It totally steers my voting in this country and I hope it steers yours too. We are not going to agree on what this person should or should not get in the way of treatment. I am here calling for consistency in how we apply the law - even to the least of us, and trying to increase awareness of the concepts around transgender self determination - something for which we still have a long way to fight for.

OttersSwim -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:18:14 PM)
Lady H, you know, I don't know exactly what her state of mind is - just that at least two doctors have signed off on the treatment and defined it as medically necessary for her. I know that part of that decision process is fairly extensive psychological evaluation. It boggles the mind when you are talking about a murderer incarcerated in a prison living as a female in a population of males for more almost two decades...concepts of normal psychology go right out the window... I do know that achieving even partial authenticity is a relief. Lady P, I am saying that the rules are being applied inconsistently to this person because they are transgendered. That someone not qualified is denying the treatment that others qualified have deemed necessary for the health and welfare of this person for whom the state is responsible. As I said before, it is likely that they have denied it because of politics - they may not be bigoted at all, but they know what the blowback would be. Also why I said we have a long way to go.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:19:17 PM)
Still not answering my question... And glad you agree that this is a disaster in the making as far as improving the 'face' of trans rights.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Still not answering my question... And glad you agree that this is a disaster in the making as far as improving the 'face' of trans rights. I agree with Hib!

OttersSwim -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:26:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Still not answering my question... And glad you agree that this is a disaster in the making as far as improving the 'face' of trans rights. Was this in response to my first post, or the follow on where I addressed your question? I guess I would say that I don't believe I am qualified to say if she is a good candidate for SRS or not. I am arguing for consistent application of the law.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:29:25 PM)
Thank you for sucking up, JJ!

LadyPact -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 3:51:45 PM)
quote: I understand that healthcare for inmates is an affront to many people when we ourselves have to pay for everything we get. Even as we speak, someone I know is in Thailand spending a month to get her surgery- completely on her own dime - years and years of work and saving. It is not fair that people who do horrible things get treatments that some on the outside cannot afford. quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim Lady P, I am saying that the rules are being applied inconsistently to this person because they are transgendered. That someone not qualified is denying the treatment that others qualified have deemed necessary for the health and welfare of this person for whom the state is responsible. As I said before, it is likely that they have denied it because of politics - they may not be bigoted at all, but they know what the blowback would be. Also why I said we have a long way to go. I'd actually think that your friend in Thailand, who WORKED to get surgery, would be affronted by this story. If this inmate was on the outside, THAT'S the person who would have to find the means to get the surgery. That is the inconsistency. The only reason the state of Massachusetts is footing the bill here is because we are dealing with a convicted murderer. Some time back, there was a thread in Introductions on this site. Basically, it was one of those "pay for the transition" types. Do you happen to remember how many people were offended by that, including some trans people? The thread was hacked because people weren't "welcoming" to someone who wanted to leech surgery off of somebody else. If I recall correctly, it wasn't very well received. I don't remember anybody jumping up and down that other people should be willing to foot the bill. One of the links on this thread is from a Veteran who transitioned after her service. The VA didn't pay for that surgery. (Hormones and therapy in some cases. In fact, part of the article is about getting doctors to look the other way signing forms.) Again, because this person is a prisoner, different treatment than someone who defended the country. A situation (how vets/military can't get equal care) that I've made statements about before in this section.

tazzygirl -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 4:03:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Thank you, tazzy. I read both links. While the second one goes into "there will be no discrimination" angle, I saw that more as those items that really aren't related to transition no longer being able to stop being covered on that basis. The first article was geared more toward paperwork juggling and special advice for those who are eligible for benefits through the VA. I saw that therapy, hormones, etc would be covered, but nothing that stated that SRS would be a part of ACA. I could have missed it since it's late in My time zone. I'll read them over again after some sleep. Thanks again. Welcome. Just offering up answers to your question.

stellauk -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 4:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus How about responding to my point, Otters? Do you think someone in Michelle's state of mind is a good candidate for SRS? Can I take the opportunity to respond to this? So far in the thread I have argued that on the basis of having transitioned to the point of functioning as a woman in society and completing a course of hormones Michelle Kosilek should be considered eligible for SRS surgery. However this does not mean that I agree with the fact that the State pay for the surgery. I don't. I go back to my original premise which is based on gender acquisition and the only way to acquire a gender identity is to show that you can function normally in society by living in your acquired gender role 24/7/365 and undertaking to do so permanently. Telling people that you feel like a woman trapped in a male body doesn't cut it. Having looked further into it I have been unable to find verifiable sources that Michelle Kosilek did actually function as a woman for a sufficient enough period prior to the murder. In fact the photo posted earlier in the thread at the time of the arrest shows Robert Kosilek. This should not be seen as a landmark case by any means. Probably unlike the United States, here in Europe gender reassignment therapy and surgery is available to some within the parameters of state provided healthcare, and the gender acquisition legislation was designed to protect those who are transitioning towards SRS surgery and provide them with legal protection against discrimination. However this is given on the basis of eligibility i.e. the ability to function in society in your acquired gender but you can make yourself ineligible either through the development of mental illness or anti-social behaviour, such as the committing of a violent crime. Had Robert made sufficient effort to establish a gender identity as Michelle Kosilek then yes, she should be allowed SRS surgery, paid for by Michelle Kosilek. However from what I can see there isn't enough evidence of such a transition and certainly no justification for the State paying for the SRS surgery. There are far more deserving cases out there in the US among the transgendered who haven't committed crimes. This isn't one of them.

OttersSwim -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 4:09:36 PM)
We are still objecting to the treatment - thereby invalidating the right of self determination of this person, and by association all trans people everywhere. Yea, we are. If it were cancer, no one would say boo to a goose. It is because people believe that SRS is not medically necessary and believe that they are somehow qualified to overturn medical doctors and judges who have stated professionally that the treatment IS medically necessary. We live in a country where we pay for medically necessary treatments for inmates of our prisons. We don't get to decide better than the professionals we entrust to make these decisions...because if we do, then your insurance company is going to want in on that action I can assure you. I too want parity on such things - I am 100% for universal healthcare that would include treatment for transgender individuals. This whole thing is a trainwreck. It shows the unfairness of our healthcare system, and it shows the biases society still has to overcome regarding transgendered people - even the bad ones.

kalikshama -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 4:16:36 PM)
FR, I have a medical condition for which a non-invasive, almost adverse effects-free procedure has been FDA approved since 2004. My insurance company (and most others) will only cover the invasive, serious adverse effects (which include death) procedure which costs twice as much - around $30,000 at the Mayo Clinic. I wouldn't begrudge any female inmates who had my preferred procedure performed. I wasn't able to get any results for female inmates + my procedure, but do see that it is available in India for $1,340. I think this decision should be between me and my doctor, and not insurance company administrators. Michelle's doctors found the procedure medically necessary for her, and the judge agreed. Case closed.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassignment surgery for convicted murderer (9/6/2012 4:17:35 PM)
Thanks, Stella, that was what I was driving at. We really don't know that Michelle is a good candidate, do we? GID is one thing that can affect a person. It's not the ONLY thing that Michelle has going on. I am making that guess based on the fact that she killed someone with her bare hands, not the behaviour of most people, and that she's shown suicidal ideation and self harm. Surgery is not going to fix any of those issues. She's not going to be able to transition into life as a female for a long time, if ever. And again, I will point to the women and men who are living without having had surgery. Gender does not equal genitalia.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125