Should gender reassignment surgery be covered by health insurance providers?

[Star Pupil]

I am transgender and I deserve equal healthcare as anyone else.

This was the facebook post that stopped me from scrolling and had me raising an eyebrow. The post linked this change petition, which I took a look at so I could get a bit of an explanation on why they wanted something that is technically considered a cosmetic surgery to be covered under a health insurance plan.

To summarize the petition:

The problem is, there are two different groups of chemicals: one causes the body/DNA to become male and the second causes the physical neuronal structure of the brain to become male. If a developing fetus is exposed to either set of chemicals without the other, the baby will be transgender.

Since males and females had different evolutionary purposes before the advent of modern society, different areas of their brains are more or less active - for example, men tend to process information visually and think in practical terms, while women tend to process information through reading/writing and think in abstract terms - and these varying levels of activity between lobes of the male and female brain can be readily observed by fMRI.

Health insurance providers should require nothing else to provide these suffering human beings with the surgical procedure that they need to live healthy, fulfilling lives.

So I read that, and I'm still scratching my head. I could probably do a bit of research, but I thought I'd have a much more stimulating conversation about it here. Right now, my stance is neither for nor against...though there is a single question in mind: Is it truly required to switch your genitals to live a healthy, fulfilling life?

I have heard Hormone Replacement Therapy can be covered under health insurance, but sometimes it can't. That's true with a lot of things, because health providers have the freedom to pick and choose what they want to cover. Is it really necessary to force HPs to cover a surgery that isn't really saving an endangered life but rather making them feel more fulfilled?

What about liposuction? There have been studies that have proven obesity can be hereditary, though I have never heard of HPs covering the procedure because it's considered cosmetic. And obesity is actually life threatening.

I would love to hear more opinions on this.

On a side note, I'm kind of annoyed with my friend for saying she deserves equal health care...she is getting it, and there are things that aren't covered for non-transgendered population as well as the transgendered.

 

[Trygon]

I'm not sure whether they deserve it or not. What I do know is that if mental aberrations are treated with physical surgery, then I'm next in line so my mental aberration will shut up about how we need scales and wings.

I usually find the notion of a 'slippery slope' to be the last-resort excuse when all else fails, but here the line seems appropriately placed.

Physical maladies are treated by doctors and surgeons. Mental ones by psychologists and therapists. Otherwise, yes, an anxiety sufferer who wants a subdermal sheathe of experimental bullet-stopping armor is completely justified in expecting it to be done. By the state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC-HWBX1YhY

I love the dude in this video. 'There is no box', indeed. You can be whatever gender you want to be - Irregardless of what's in your pants. You can switch gender daily, based on your mood. THe social rule is that others must be accepting of this now, and with good reason... But it weakens the argument that you NEED appropriate bits to be fulfilled. No, you just think the bits are a key part of the box. The one that doesn't exist.

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

I'm kind of torn. But if they aren't covered I can sort of see why because gender is not limited to your physical body and genitals, and typically the surgeries are to fix this and alter features so that they match the biological sex they wish to have.

Their physical health is not at risk by not having the surgery, therefore it is not crucial and typically... insurance companies will only cover certain surgeries. Hell I recently heard of someone who's health insurance wouldn't cover a surgery to remove a cancerous tumor because they deemed it a non-crucial surgery.

Some could argue that mental health is just as important as physical health but either way most surgeons who do gender reassignment surgeries require the individuals to get a clean bill of mental health before undergoing the process. It's not good to have the mentality that "I will only be happy if I can have this surgery." I think the person must first make a transition and be content with who they are in case the surgery cannot happen for one reason or another.

 

[AzizSolomon]

I'm going to have to say no. It's not that transgendered people don't 'deserve' a sex change operation or that I'm not making an effort to understand what it may feel like to be a gender internally and another physically. For the most part, I just suppose that it's not an operation that they are entitled to. For the most part, HPs will assist in medical procedures that are for the betterment of one's health. That being said, I suppose the main question would be, 'Is a sex change operation beneficial to a transgendered person's mental and/or physical health?' It's not really something that can be easily monitored or determined with some sort of test, as I'd imagine it would be skewed by the sense of euphoria that they would be feeling due to acquiring something that they've wanted for a while. Perhaps after they've had time with their operation and for things to settle down, then it could be determined whether or not it has made much of a difference in their lives.

Yes, it's almost indisputable that physical gender can affect the hearts and minds of people, especially while still in mental development stages as shown with Freud's analysis on Penis Envy and Oedipus Complex. However, these relate to the primal sexual nature of mankind rather than the more emotional level on which is generally disputed as being the important part of a transgendered person's gender identity. If such is the case, I personally don't believe that a sex change operation would qualify as anything more than an elective surgery to try. I mean, I myself show general observatory qualities of females such as enjoying reading/writing quite a lot and thinking in abstract ways more-so than practical. Have I ever thought to myself that I'd like to be a woman temporarily? Yes. Was it purely for sexual reasons? Yes and no. Sometimes of course, but at others, I merely find myself wondering what impact it would actually have on my emotional state and how the different chemical balance in my body would affect my thoughts and ideas.

Overall, though, it merely seems like a waste of time to me. It's similar to looking back to past events and daydreaming of 'what could have been'. It's more important to live in the moment or perhaps look to the future rather than dwell on what could have been. Even if you have the option to change the past doesn't necessarily mean that you should. It's less-so something I see as immoral and more-so a procedure I find unnecessary and generally only available to pander to one's Ego and self-confidence much like plastic surgery.

 

[Demie]

Well, to refer back to something from the original post... and just to clarify I'm not accusing you of being wrong here, since I did see it was a quote. I'm just taking the ammo out of the handgun before someone figures out the code to the gun-safe.

The problem is, there are two different groups of chemicals: one causes the body/DNA to become male

Flat out not true - gender reassignment does not alter your DNA in any way whatsoever. Frankly it's not even possible, let alone legal if it was given that you have to go through about fifteen years of testing to be allowed to grow genetically modified rice outdoors. [source] The difference between male and female is decided even before conception, female egg cells and male sperm cells are both haploid -i.e. they contain half the amount of DNA required to make a viable human cell that can proliferate. Eggs cells contain an 'X' chromosome which is universal in both females and males alike. Sperm cells can either contain a second 'X' chromosome, or a 'Y' chromosome, and they have a roughly 50/50 chance of being either one or the other. The sperm and the egg cell combine DNA and produce either an 'XX' cell which will result in a female child or a 'XY' cell which will result in a male child. That's basic sex ed.


Getting back a bit more on topic though, reading through that petition the first thing it says is that a transgender nature is not a mental health problem. And there's your answer - it's not a problem with health, so health insurance shouldn't cover it, right? Well, no.

A lot of transgender people suffer from depression, suicidal tendencies and a state of fear due to lack of acceptance and understanding. [source]

Now those things mentioned above are definitely a good reason for health insurance to pay out, as it has become something that directly and negatively effects mental well-being, and possibly physical well-being since stress can be a precursor to many other issues.

Now I don't know how it works in the USA (which is where your petition seemed to be based) but in the UK we have the NHS - which is essentially government funded health insurance. Part of the service they provide is the ability to choose a treatment that is right for you, or at least to have your opinions and preferences considered and weighed in before a treatment is suggested.

So why is it so unreasonable to think that the solution to depression resulting from not matching up to your birth assigned gender mentally, would be a surgery to realign the two? If surgery and hormones are what it takes to make a healthy, happy person who is free of other mental afflictions which arise due deep distress, that is a health issue, and health insurance should cover it.

 

[Star Pupil]

Haha, Demie that was what I quoted directly from the petition. I thought you were against it for a moment because you disproved something the petition directly stated.

Reading the responses, I am not really against the petition myself. I just personally agree with Trygon...if your genitals can be changed to make you happy, then other elective surgeries should be covered as well to make others happy. The thing is, you can look like any gender you want. I have seen very convincing trangendered individuals who were happy with just looking the part physically. You don't need surgery to be a specific gender. You can look and feel that way without altering your actual sex.

Depression and fear of acceptance has nothing to do with what is in your pants. There will always be people prejudice against transgender regardless of whether or not they are pre op or post op. I have had a post op friend who I've had to comfort because her boyfriend left her after she finally told the truth about being born a man. Elective surgery will not solve all their problems. It will make them happy at first, but in the long run they will still have to face their depression of never fully being 100 percent female or 100 percent male.

Health insurance in the US is not free or government funded unless you are older or if you have a child and/or on welfare. You usually get it through an employer or you can get it through this new "Obamacare" marketplace that just came into effect this year. The petition is trying to get the government to force all health providers to cover sexual reassignment surgery. In this country, that's pretty frowned upon. American's don't like the government forcing anything on them, so there are further political issues to consider as well as other issues such as what Mrs. Muffintops stated: Some HPs don't even cover having cancerous tumors removed, which WILL make an individual sick.

Like I said, I'm not against it...but with all the other problems with our healthcare system, I'd say that this would be a lower priority considering this surgery isn't going to 100 percent fix someone who is considering killing themselves because they weren't born the gender they feel that they are.

 

[Rudolph Quin]

I've seen this discussion before and some of the things brought up were how transgenderism where they actively seek to physically change their genitals to make themselves feel "whole" is a form of body dysmorphic disorder. Thinking that you are supposed to be a different sex than the one you were born is a lot like how anorexics feel when they look in the mirror and see a fat person. It's just not based on reality and it's something mental that needs to be dealt with by a trained mental health professional. And those transgenders who are actually of sound mind and comfortable with who they are don't always seek out reassignment surgery.

Transgenderism is occurring in high rates among certain species, such as a type of bass in the mood Atlantic in which 90% of males are carrying eggs. (on my phone or I would post a link.) it is easy to Google and it is on our own govt website. The fish are changing gender due to xenoestrogens, synthetic hormones and endocrine disruptors in the water supply. I believe that humans are affected as well, and our society would rather normalize the results of pollution rather than do something about it.

 

[Protagonist]

Well, the way I see it:

Gender alteration surgery isn't technically "healthcare". Hear me out, now. A pre-op transwoman is still healthy and not in anyway sick. More directly, because it's just an elective surgery, the insurance company can decide whether or not it wants to include that in the package.

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

I've seen this discussion before and some of the things brought up were how transgenderism where they actively seek to physically change their genitals to make themselves feel "whole" is a form of body dysmorphic disorder. Thinking that you are supposed to be a different sex than the one you were born is a lot like how anorexics feel when they look in the mirror and see a fat person. It's just not based on reality and it's something mental that needs to be dealt with by a trained mental health professional. And those transgenders who are actually of sound mind and comfortable with who they are don't always seek out reassignment surgery.

Transgenderism is occurring in high rates among certain species, such as a type of bass in the mood Atlantic in which 90% of males are carrying eggs. (on my phone or I would post a link.) it is easy to Google and it is on our own govt website. The fish are changing gender due to xenoestrogens, synthetic hormones and endocrine disruptors in the water supply. I believe that humans are affected as well, and our society would rather normalize the results of pollution rather than do something about it.

That's an interesting theory. We are indeed being exposed to more hormones than we should be. And I was doing research on Polycystic Ovaries Syndrome and one of the common symptoms is issues with gender identity.

I'm not trying to dismiss the legitimacy of those who are transgendered but it makes you wonder if there could be an any cause to those who struggle with gender identity.

 

[DoneWriting]

So, was just flipping through and figured I'd put my two cents in as well. Healthcare providers will cover surgeries that SAVE them money in the long run. So, we'll take a friend of mine going in for bariatric surgery. In this case the insurance company is only covering 50% of the costs on a $20,000 surgery, although he's well over grossly obese and it will save them the possibility of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run (should he develop type 2 diabetes, heart disease and a myriad of other conditions because of his obesity). And that's literally how they put it to him. And that's with tons of research going into the dangers of obesity.

So, when looking at it from that viewpoint, why would an insurance company want to cover the costs of a transgender operation? I can't think of any reason it would want to. In the long run, the person getting the operation is going to cost the insurance company way more if the operation is performed (considering they cover the hormone therapy both before and after the operation) and while I haven't done any research into what sort of complications can erupt after turning genitals intended to be one thing into another, it can't be 100% foolproof can it? After all, at the very least we have to account for the fact that the people doing the operation are human.

And, really, if we're arguing that it should be covered because of some chemical imbalance, don't you think the insurance company would opt for chemical therapy to treat the issue? Thus balancing those chemicals so the person in question identifies more readily with their birth gender.

Well, my two cents, take it for what they're worth.

 

[Ms_Muffintops]

So, was just flipping through and figured I'd put my two cents in as well. Healthcare providers will cover surgeries that SAVE them money in the long run. So, we'll take a friend of mine going in for bariatric surgery. In this case the insurance company is only covering 50% of the costs on a $20,000 surgery, although he's well over grossly obese and it will save them the possibility of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run (should he develop type 2 diabetes, heart disease and a myriad of other conditions because of his obesity). And that's literally how they put it to him. And that's with tons of research going into the dangers of obesity.

So, when looking at it from that viewpoint, why would an insurance company want to cover the costs of a transgender operation? I can't think of any reason it would want to. In the long run, the person getting the operation is going to cost the insurance company way more if the operation is performed (considering they cover the hormone therapy both before and after the operation) and while I haven't done any research into what sort of complications can erupt after turning genitals intended to be one thing into another, it can't be 100% foolproof can it? After all, at the very least we have to account for the fact that the people doing the operation are human.

And, really, if we're arguing that it should be covered because of some chemical imbalance, don't you think the insurance company would opt for chemical therapy to treat the issue? Thus balancing those chemicals so the person in question identifies more readily with their birth gender.

Well, my two cents, take it for what they're worth.

I think the chemical thing could tie with Quin's theory. A lot of people, while becoming more open to mental disorders and anything going on with the mind and brain, are also not helping because a lot of people think you should embrace your mental illness. I got into an argument with a friend a few days ago because it was suggested that she get medication for her depression. She said medication is unnatural and will give her fake emotions and she isn't going to deny what is naturally her.

Just because there is nothing apparently altering your feelings or your thoughts doesn't mean it's naturally you. But a lot of people nowdays have a victim complex and want to think there is nothing to fix, they're just fucked up or different. And I'm not saying that just because something is different that it needs to be changed. But for instance, Autism. Autism is a disorder but I also feel like it should simply be treated like a different personality type or a different way the mind works.

Perhaps this is the way (some) transgendered people feel. There's obviously a chance that there is something not yet discovered that is making them feel and think this way, but they don't want to feel like there is a possibility that there is simply something off in their brain.

I suppose it could also be like offering some miracle treatment for someone who's Autistic. They've been this way their entire life. You'd rid them of certain limitations and burdens but you would also essentially be changing who they are as a person. I think many Autistic people would rather they change in a way that they conform and blend into society physically while still being the way they've always been than to change the way their mind works. Same goes for transgendered people. I think they'd rather blend in by physically looking like the gender they feel they mentally are than for their mind to suddenly start leaning toward their biological gender.

 

[Cryptic Anomaly]

I think about this story - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/transexual-demands-10000-nhs-sex-4356169

Basically a man had a sex change to become a woman, 7 months later he/she has decided that it is too much hard work being a woman what with all the make up he has to apply etc to look like a woman and therefore wants the NHS (British Health Care) to pay the bill to have him changed back into a male.

So no, I don't think Gender Reassignment Surgery should be covered by the tax payers.

 

[Jolie]

Read this thread awhile back; thought about it. Flipped back and forth between yes and no. I have a lot of sympathy for the transgendered and want them to be able to receive and afford the medical care they need. I know some mental health issues are covered, such as depression. I might have driven into the wall if I couldn't have gotten help when I was depressed. But I also know we do have limited resources for health care.

So if we look at health care as a right and we look at health insurance not as insurance (for unforeseen accidents), but as coverage for life events involving health care, then there has to be some way of deciding what should be covered and what shouldn't be covered. And I don't think that decision should be a political one (decided by politicians based on how they feel about transgendered lifestyles and whether surgery is icky or good), but rather based on things like how much money do we have available for health care (assuming the pot of money to pay for health care isn't unlimited) and is this actually going to help the person receiving the benefit.

I kind of like the Oregon system where they prioritized health care services, emphasizing prevention and patient education. In general, Oregon would rank treatments that help prevent illness higher than services that treat illness after it occurs. And I would put prioritizing that list in the hands of health care professionals with input from impacted communities. In other words, it's a God damned committee and we know how effective committees are!

But I don't want to put the decision of whether gender reassignment surgery is or is not covered in the hands of politicians of any political stripe. I actually don't like the current Obamacare system, which I feel is more about funneling huge sums of money into insurance companies and other third-parties than making sure everyone has health insurance. Sigh, a hard question. I guess the bottom line for me is yes, but throw out the current health care system and design it from scratch and prioritize all health care ... including the current subject ... by need and effectiveness. I question whether a second gender reassignment surgery ... for example ... is going to be (a) needed; or (b) effective. But I'd rather a health care professional made the decision than me or any other group of non-involved individuals.

 

[Tierhund]

The amount of ignorance towards the correct terminology and the nature of gender dysphoric disorder for transgender and gender-nonconforming people in one small thread is continually astounding to me. And its still shocking, even after yeeaarrss of reading it.

But I'm not at all shocked all of you are most likely cisgender.

How your opinions continue to help those unlike yourselves. siiighhh

Maybe I'll come back to this thread to explain how ignorant you guys are being when I can stop my eyes rolling out of my head, and can safely stop myself from mentally dry retching.

 

[Star Pupil]

The amount of ignorance towards the correct terminology and the nature of gender dysphoric disorder for transgender and gender-nonconforming people in one small thread is continually astounding to me. And its still shocking, even after yeeaarrss of reading it.

But I'm not at all shocked all of you are most likely cisgender.

How your opinions continue to help those unlike yourselves. siiighhh

Maybe I'll come back to this thread to explain how ignorant you guys are being when I can stop my eyes rolling out of my head, and can safely stop myself from mentally dry retching.

I made this thread to educate myself, so if your next post could be something that actually contributes to the discussion instead of putting down others with different views(whether or not they are educated), that wold be great. BMA is not here for this type of posting.

 

[sorchasilver]

Tierhund BMA threads are for discussion. If you cannot respectfully discuss the topic at hand please refrain from posting at all. If I see another post that is little better than an attack on the posters here or in ANY BMA thread, I will remove.

 

[Rudolph Quin]

But I'm not at all shocked all of you are most likely cisgender.

Actually a lot of blue moons membership identifies as genderfluid and are very accepting of transgenderism as an expression of identity and sexuality. But the topic is: should tax payers pay for the surgery to change someone's gender. I'm genderfluid and have been in a relationship with a transgendered man who felt stuck in a mans body. My support of her and her struggle is not retracted just because I understand that the underlying issue would not be changed by her becoming fully female.

 

[Tierhund]

I made this thread to educate myself, so if your next post could be something that actually contributes to the discussion instead of putting down others with different views(whether or not they are educated), that wold be great. BMA is not here for this type of posting.

BMA is for debate, correct? And I've seen debating, and I'm communicating that I'm displeased, distressed and personally affected by the ignorance I'm seeing. Others insecurity isn't my responsibility, it's perfectly natural and functional to point out shameful, below par or discouraged behaviour.

If someone says 'should police be able to shoot black people?' Or 'do gay people REALLY exist?' there is going to be an obvious segregation of Those Opposing, Those supporting and Those Apathetic. Compliant, privileged and unaffected folk contribute to the oppression of minorities. Those active in contribution to the oppression just steer the wagon.

I'm saying I MAY spend my emotional resources stretching my coping capacity and long overworked efforts to educate, but if it isn't going to be good for me the I won't. I want to, but sometimes the emotional consequences of fighting recurring losing battles against subnormal ideology might mean I decide it's not worth the distress.

Do you understand? I said I wanted to contribute at late to this debate, for I have a lot of relevant perspective to the issue. But I've seen some of the politics and social views on this site already and it's quite taxing

 

[Tierhund]

But I'm not at all shocked all of you are most likely cisgender.

Actually a lot of blue moons membership identifies as genderfluid and are very accepting of transgenderism as an expression of identity and sexuality. But the topic is: should tax payers pay for the surgery to change someone's gender. I'm genderfluid and have been in a relationship with a transgendered man who felt stuck in a mans body. My support of her and her struggle is not retracted just because I understand that the underlying issue would not be changed by her becoming fully female.

Well that's definitely more encouraging, it's cool to see there is perhaps a sizeable collection of transgender folk.

Though I am a bit confused by your terminology - transgender men are FTMs, female to male. Trans women are MTF, male to female

And you're right, for many (but not all) transgender people, physical, social and legal transition can only go so far to remedy the distress and dysphoria that comes with being transgender. It's a really awful and sad reality for the transgender community, and probably why the suicide rate is at such a high of 40%.

But just because a disorder cannot be fully eradicated doesn't necessarily mean there is any point in a society supporting it. People tend to be apathetic towards people's they do not relate to, and won't support problems they are not personally effected by. It also depends on the social and economical climate- I'm guessing the perspective here is the USA.

On morale grounds I don't agree that any basic standard healthcare should only be available with those with financial security, it breeds sickness and dishealth amongst already detrimental poverty in first world countries.

As I mentioned, cuisine rates are almost half of the population, and murder of transgender people (majoritively women of colour) is horrifying. If it were truly cosmetic, then therapy, self love and CBT would be a cure-all. But unfortunately transgenderism is still here, children are still killing themselves, families are still abandoning individuals for not identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth.

I guess in the differing socioeconomical climate difference of the UK and the USA, some people are more prepared and comfortable for certain leaps of faith. For example I wouldn't want my taxes going towards police brutality, but my god is that a common occurance in large areas of the US.

 

[sorchasilver]

Teirhund my point was, that you were not debating the topic at hand. If you would like to create a thread to discuss how people view transgender folks, be my guest. You did not state your opposition to the topic or your agreement or site any reasons why. You simply stated the people here were ignorant you would educate them if you felt up to it. Your post was unnecessary, if you wanted to post later after gathering your thoughts, you could do so without such an aggressive attack first. This is now your second warning. I will not be giving a third.

 

[Star Pupil]

Sigh.

BMA is for debate, correct? And I've seen debating, and I'm communicating that I'm displeased, distressed and personally affected by the ignorance I'm seeing. Others insecurity isn't my responsibility, it's perfectly natural and functional to point out shameful, below par or discouraged behaviour.

I'm sorry you see peoples view points as a personal attack, though no one here was talking about any one individual. You are purposely attacking everyone who's views you don't agree with. Debates are conversations that use factual evidence supporting someones opinions. What you just did in your first post was just put everyone down. It's one thing to express your frustration but a whole other thing to lump everyone together and call them ignorant without even stating why or how. The behavior of everyone in this thread has been civil thus far. I don't understand how it is sub par or shameful.

If someone says 'should police be able to shoot black people?' Or 'do gay people REALLY exist?' there is going to be an obvious segregation of Those Opposing, Those supporting and Those Apathetic. Compliant, privileged and unaffected folk contribute to the oppression of minorities. Those active in contribution to the oppression just steer the wagon.

I'm sorry, what? Any debate is going to have a majority, minority, and an apathetic bunch. I don't know what wagon you are talking about. This discussion doesn't exist outside of the topic. No one is going on a witch hunt for what you deem as the minority. No one is even putting down any particular group of people, except you.

I'm saying I MAY spend my emotional resources stretching my coping capacity and long overworked efforts to educate, but if it isn't going to be good for me the I won't. I want to, but sometimes the emotional consequences of fighting recurring losing battles against subnormal ideology might mean I decide it's not worth the distress.

If you are debating on whether or not you wish to spend the effort expressing your view point, that's fine. What you didn't need to do is post about how everyone is ignorant and how you COULD spend the time to educate, but you probably can't be bothered to. Sounds really elitist to me and frankly counterproductive to who you obviously side with. You're making whoever you're defending look bad, really.

Do you understand? I said I wanted to contribute at late to this debate, for I have a lot of relevant perspective to the issue. But I've seen some of the politics and social views on this site already and it's quite taxing

Again, that's fine. But you didn't need to be so hostile in your initial post. It's bound to discredit whatever you say next because of how negative you were in your introduction. Again, counterproductive to your defense when people just think you're being hateful.

I'm sure you read kuro's post. Just be careful what you say when/if you decide to back up your opinion with factual details and logic.

 

[Tierhund]

Ach I've been tryin to wire a reply but something keeps fucking up. Let me get to a computer

 

[Tierhund]

Oww my head. Ok. Let's see if I can get into this askjdaasjd jffccc am I gonna regret this O|-< here we go

Ok. That post, for context, was made in significant emotional distress due to the subject matter and a long list of other distressing things happening in the news recently. Human suffering upsets me woops

Firstly I'm sorry if my initial post is viewed as a non-contribution, and for size and content you're probably right. I'm afraid I don't have the resources, also, to give sources and factual evidence because I live on a very restricted internet access atm, and due to illness my mental organisational skills for the location of information is really not up to par.

I can only really give my personal perspective, I'm sorry if that's not enough, and I'm sorry if it appeared antagonising. I do tend to have emotional fallout when I anticipate stress, its a defense mechanism common in people, including myself, who have had this conversation many times over but have usually being discredited and things devolve down to personal beliefs. Not saying thats bad- personal beliefs are valid. But I see the results of these social politics and it upsets me.

My disclaimer as to the fact that I want to contribute, but find it harrowing and difficult in some situations, is not elitist. It is so far from elitist I'm kinda just....buh. I'm not saying I'm better than people? Or that you aren't worthy of my time? But that I maybe might not benefit from this discussion, even though it effects me and many many people I care about, because I am trying to protect myself from anticipated consequences. I would appreciate if I wasn't assumed to be an elitist or an asshole because I don't give everyone a slideshow and projection about everything, but of course that is the nature of this particular forum so

I understand hostility can be discrediting but that is really problematic for people who have had shitty experiences. Just because someone feels affronted doesn't always mean the person causing that is automatically in the wrong. I'd be really angry if someone said something that was genuinely frightening and horrific (extreme example for the sake of unsubtle transparancy, Denial of the Holocaust). I'm sure people get angry when horrific things happen- it's a common but strange phenomenon. If a person does a bad thing, if people say 'omg that was BAD', it doesnt seem 'right' that the bad person replies 'omg youre attacking me'.

I'm also stressed by the possibility cisphobia, heterophobia, reverse racism or misandry might turn up in such debates as this, don't even get me started lol!

It's such a huge issue, the one of this thread, it's rather difficult to organise my thoughts enough to even know where to begin


@Kuro
If my initial post is upsetting for viewers, I won't be offended if its removed from the thread. I'm not trying to push the issue here, but I continue to be confused as to the second warning, and what I've done to deserve it? idk. I'd prefer to be talked to than just given warnings, if that is something available. I'm trying to communicate and explain myself here o|-< I dont know if I have to, but I would like to appeal the decision for the second warning if you think it is entirely necessary?? I'm not a troublemaker i promise lmao

being at the computer again feels nicer omfg

 

[Tierhund]

I'm starting to consider this possibly not something I can debate, because I think perhaps my bias towards transgender people having the right to not being in debt or unable to altar their bodies to conform to the gender binary, might make it difficult to make my point clear and debate-worthy because it just seems inherent to me.

I saw someone mention that transgender people aren't necessarily at physical risk if they don't have any surgeries- I would like to mention/argue that especially in the Americas that we hear of constantly and of course globally, transgender folk are in constant danger of assault. I haven't been to one Gender conference or youth group that hasn't taught safety before all else, even before mental health- that the reality is that even if going to the X's bathroom may be the right thing for you mentally, if you're at risk of rape, assault, harassment or murder you may need to sacrifice your emotional wellbeing for preserving your life. So I'd like to make the tentative argument that, in the society we live in, 'visibly' transgender and gender-non conforming folk are in constant danger of attack due to the high amount of transphobia in society. It simply isn't safe for many people- especially trans women, who are murdered in horrific ways every year, not including those who were not publically known to be transgender or those who go unreported.

I think if the social climate was a lot more safe (in all manners of the word) for any means of 'taboo' folk, there would be a more relaxed, comfortable and healthy transition and integration for all people involved.

Also, the deterioration of mental health can lead to physical health being at risk. Suicide, suicide attempts, substance abuse, addictions, manic or depressive behaviour. The stress of not being viewed at the 'correct' gender, the dysphoria and dysmorphia of how ones internal body map does not match the reality of the physical form, the threat of assault from strangers, the threat of being called 'liars', 'fakers', 'tr*annys' etc when trying to engage in an intimate relationship, being viewed as Other by society (people often include trans people in a: male, female, trans - as if being transgender is not being male or female, it is its own strange little gender pocket), being at risk of losing home, job, relationship, family ties, financial security, etc.

 

[Star Pupil]

Well said, but I'd like to just point something out.

I would like to mention/argue that especially in the Americas that we hear of constantly and of course globally, transgender folk are in constant danger of assault.

I think everyone is in constant danger of assault, especially in the bad areas of the states. Prejudice is everywhere, against straight or gay, white or minority, rich or poor...the only difference is that there is no surgery to change your skin color, or your money problems, or your sexual preference. Even if someone gets a sex change, they could still very well be in danger. The surgery will not garner you automatic acceptance or safety, you can just hide yourself a little better. Even then, some people aren't lucky/rich enough to get the extra cosmetic surgeries outside of switching their sex organs to look exactly the way they want to look. Aaand no matter what gender you are, you're going to be at risk for rape/battery anyway. So I don't really see how this would be considered a life saving procedure in that example.

I've already brought up the mental health thing. It's not 100 percent that anyone will stop being suicidal or depressed after a sex change when they have a whole other set of problems to deal with(recovery, unmet expectations, still coping with the fact that they will never be 100 percent man or woman).