Trans
Please Log in to join the conversation.
However, to address the argument at its heart. I can tell you from my own personal experience it was by cutting away at all the things about myself I didn't like but could accept anyway until there was nothing left but my dysphoria that eventually led me to transition. It was the one thing that I couldn't accept no matter how hard I tried. Its been 5 years now since I made that decision and I can say unequivocally that my life is better for it. I'm more emotionally stable, I am better able to love and accept myself for who I am and am better able to show love and compassion for others than I ever was before. As much as we are to seek to give comfort before seeking comfort to ourselves there is the counterpoint that if we neglect ourselves we diminish our capacity to comfort others. There's a reason they tell you to take care of your own breathing mask on the plane before the child's. If you pass out the child can't care for you in the same way you could care for them if they were to. As it relates to Jediism transition and surgery are "putting on our breathing masks".
Now as to the question of insurance. Lets remove the details about it being for transsexual people for the moment. We have a medical diagnosis for a condition administered by a physician which is backed up by the prevalent medical texts and organizations of the day. This condition has only one successful treatment course and that treatment course has over a 90% success rate. I as the patient with this diagnosis pay for insurance that covers these same treatments for other conditions even though these other conditions are quite rare. Is it fare for the insurance company to deny me coverage of my condition because of a social stigma surrounding it?
To add to this, while a therapist is recommended for hormone therapy, an endocrinologist has to sign off on it even with informed consent models. For surgery, you have have to have a psychiatrist sign off, not just a psychologist, because a medical professional's opinion is required. Further the surgeon themselves have the right to refuse if they think the psychiatrist's assessment was premature or no longer relevant. The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organization all agree that these are the best treatments. At what point should the opinion of people without medical training, significant research into gender studies, nor personal transgender experiences override the medical assessment of these trained professionals and respected medical bodies?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
At what point should the opinion of people without medical training, significant research into gender studies, nor personal transgender experiences override the medical assessment of these trained professionals and respected medical bodies?
Sorry lila, but that point is where they pay for it. That's how insurance works. For national insurance systems it's even worse. Insurance companies aren't banks. Sometimes people put in more than they get back. Sometimes they put in less than they get. You could very well get a bank loan and pay for exactly what you want/need. Heck you could pay for it with credit cards.
The argument is the same for breast or testicular cancer survivors. Pay for the diagnosis and treatment, sure. I don't think anyone is greedy to the point they'd rather keep their money and watch people who can't afford the treatment die. But the breast/testicle implants? They're just "feel good" items. Billions of people manage to live without.
Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
The argument is the same for breast or testicular cancer survivors. Pay for the diagnosis and treatment, sure. I don't think anyone is greedy to the point they'd rather keep their money and watch people who can't afford the treatment die. But the breast/testicle implants? They're just "feel good" items. Billions of people manage to live without.
Why pay for psychological counseling or medication for mental illness like Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or such?
Founder of The Order
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Br. John wrote:
The argument is the same for breast or testicular cancer survivors. Pay for the diagnosis and treatment, sure. I don't think anyone is greedy to the point they'd rather keep their money and watch people who can't afford the treatment die. But the breast/testicle implants? They're just "feel good" items. Billions of people manage to live without.
Why pay for psychological counseling or medication for mental illness like Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or such?
Why indeed. the more "advances" we make, the more sufferers we seem to get. My experience of mental health professionals so far tells me they are a waste of public funds (gracefully provided by china -- interest rates may apply).
Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Red Lila wrote: So if I was part of a large body of individuals that thought people with missing legs were freaks and they didn't deserve coverage because of said opinion then my insurance, national or otherwise shouldn't cover it because its our opinion that wheel chairs and prosthetic legs are cosmetic or unnecessary because they can live their lives just fine so long as they learn to walk on their hands?
You know what I'll be the devil's advocate and argue I can totally respect people who learn to work with what they've got. Besides, if I saw an amputee go about their business walking with their hands they'd automatically get free pints just because they're awesome.
Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ren wrote:
You know what I'll be the devil's advocate and argue I can totally respect people who learn to work with what they've got. Besides, if I saw an amputee go about their business walking with their hands they'd automatically get free pints just because they're awesome.
You might think they were awesome, but should they be denied wheelchairs or prosthetic limbs if they don't want to learn to walk on their hands?
Please Log in to join the conversation.
ren wrote: You know what I'll be the devil's advocate and argue I can totally respect people who learn to work with what they've got. Besides, if I saw an amputee go about their business walking with their hands they'd automatically get free pints just because they're awesome.
Be the devil's advocate all you want but you're not addressing my point. Just because you don't understand or agree with a medical diagnosis, psychiatric or otherwise does not mean your opinion of it should dictate the lives of others. We have many years of study with transsexuals now and whether you think its just window dressing or not, we know for a fact that there are demonstrable improvements to quality of life and dramatic decreases in stress related mental illness as a result of HRT and SRS.
The goal of medicine is to both improve quality of life and prevent the loss of life. The major delineation between necessary medical intervention and cosmetic surgery is often made based off a very basic analysis: Will the procedure improve quality of life in an ongoing basis after acclimation to changes? If the answer is no, its cosmetic. If the answer is yes then its not cosmetic. The AMA, APA, and WHO all say this is not cosmetic.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
And before anyone throws out "it's rude", like those pesky feminists do when you accidentally open the door for one of them: If when the machine does it, it isn't rude, it's still not rude when a human being does it as well.
Anyway, it can easily be argued that people require the means to move about at a regular speed to conduct regular business. Similarly, while I'm opposed to financing cosmetic stuff, it can be argued people have a right to a sexuality. I'm not opposed to paying for a girl's operation if for instance her vagina has no orifice ( I don't know if that's even possible, just giving an example).
I guess a good analogy would be that it's quite alright to help a friend with painting their house, but destroying their old house and building a new one is going too far.
To not accept one's own nature is inauthentic and as such, a form of dishonesty.
Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
Please Log in to join the conversation.