Let people understand something about trans people

Post Reply New Topic

Let's use history as a guide, shall we? I'm looking at countries where SRS is covered, and I never see such a large number of people get SRS through their national health plans. The numbers are usually quite small, at most in the hundreds. So to say there would suddenly be tens of thousands of transsexuals all getting surgery in a small country doesn't seem to gel with history.

I'm also looking at health coverage in the U.S. When San Francisco's city government decided to cover SRS for its employees, there was talk of a flood of people coming to get surgery. Didn't happen. The same concern often gets raised in companies, that there would be a flood of people getting surgery, but in companies that have added coverage, that hasn't happened. Costs are overall very low, and in return they get happy, loyal employees.

I think that most transgender people, which is what you're talking about with your numbers, do not want or need surgery. The fear of a flood of takers is just that, fearmongering.

You should compare suicide rates before and after sex reassignment among transgendered people. You will find that they're much lower among post-ops. Depression and substance abuse are also much lower. That they're still higher than the general population is meaningless. It's like saying "people who take medication for depression are more likely to commit suicide than people who aren't depressed, therefore the medications aren't working". When actually they're far less likely to commit suicide than if they were untreated.

For perspective, transgendered people have an extremely high rate of attempted suicide. In the US for instance, 41% of them will attempt suicide in their lives. This is a population that suffers worse prejudice and violence than gays, while receiving less recognition and support, and having fewer legal protections for their minority status. The cost of transitioning is very high and extremely time-consuming and is another huge burden they have to face. While someone is in the process of transitioning, they cannot hide that they are trans. Even if they are convincing as their desired gender afterwards, and even if they can go under 'deep cover' and erase their past as their birth gender, there will always be a transitioning period that is physically dangerous for them, since they will be walking targets for homophobia and transphobia.

Hormone therapy and surgery are the most effective treatments available for people that have this condition. There isn't any known chemical cocktail to shut off 'dysphoria' any moreso than changing someone's internal sexual orientation. So what is there to debate here, by saying we should discontinue the practice of surgical transitioning? What alternative treatment is there? The alternative seems to be letting all the ones that want it commit suicide.

Once again, you demonstrate a lack of how health care actually works. Those eligible for SRS are a subset of those diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Everyone will not "get a free surgery". In Denmark, one out of 5 to one out of 6 who are assessed for possible SRS are referred to this treatment. And a lot of individuals with gender dysphoria never even seek this treatment, so the true ratio is even lower.


As I have already demonstrated, this is just ridiculous, and it is nothing more than a scare tactic. I already provided a scenario with extremely more lax diagnostic criteria in the US (an order of magnitude) than in Denmark - plus double the cost per procedure - and even then, the costs for SRS in the US would be ridiculously negligible compared to the total health care expenditure.


You are erroneously assuming that the costs for SRS are anywhere comparable the costs for cancer treatment. SRS is only relevant to a *very* small subset of the population, while cancer is widespread. In the UK, for instance, 1 out of 3 will get cancer.

Gender Dysphoria is frequently measured in the ratio of 1 out of 200 to 1 out of 2,000. Clearly, you do not comprehend the difference in the economic impact of the two.

In other words, you are *massively* overstating the impact of SRS on health care expenditure.

Gender is in your brain. MTF transsexuals are not "men who want to become women through surgery" (they are already women brain-wise), which is what the person I was responding to seemed to be saying.

Physical sex is complicated and the distinction is IMO mostly due IMO to an instinct that is hard-wired into people's (observers') brain's. They mistake that instinct "logic," but it isn't logical; the distinction isn't nearly as real or cut-and-dried as they realize. Even the old medical literature couldn't understand that point, i.e. "pseudohermaphoditism" -- meaning "looks like one sex but is 'really' the other." How is "really" determined? It isn't, it's unknowingly assumed, which makes the reasoning tautological, which happens a lot with gender/sex/intersex issues.

Those eligible for SRS are whoever the medical authorities say that are eligible for SRS. It would be a lot easier to just let everyone who wants gender reassignment surgery have it, if they could pay for it. This could actually reduce the suicide rate before surgery.



Great Britain has roughly 100 sex changes per year -- and at a 30,000 something price tag, it's not negligible, given that the totalt price in the UK alone could fund 10-15 MR scanners. If the price tag is so low, there would be no problem borrowing money for it; consumer loans typically allow 10-15 downpayment years.



SRS is relevant to anyone who wants the cosmetic procedure done. Cancer waiting lines could be shortened significantly by using a few million dollars, but given the current state of affairs, there's not enough money for that either.



If one 1 out of 200 got a 30.000-40.000 dollar cosmetic surgery, it would make a hellish economic impact.

Actually, in those countries where it is covered, that already happens. You ever heard of going to Thailand?

Anyway, what would you do for those that can't?



I've already tried this route. It doesn't work. Generally, for something like surgery, which is a service that can't be repo'd, you're going to have a hard time getting loans. As well, many trans people have a hard enough time as it is, and don't have much credit.

As for major organizations, insurance companies, governments, and others, it's quite affordable, considering the low number that get the procedure in the first place.

Kurgan, I think you're missing the point here. The people who most need hormones and surgery tend to function the poorest. No one's going to lend somebody who functions poorly money. A person who functions poorly cannot save up for surgery. As well, a person who functions poorly will act as a drain on society.

I think Mikhail Ramendik of Ireland is right on about this topic:

This is from a comment he made on this page:

http://sexnotgender.com/2013/10/16/long ... surements/

There's also this, which I thought was good:

http://ramendik.wordpress.com/2013/07/0 ... tatistics/

So you're nit-picking on the basis of context due to my originally not specifying which use of 'gender' I meant, despite it seeming obvious from context? Could you explain what this adds to the discussion?



Could you provide a link to the study which shows this? All I can find is a series of studies that suggest roughly a third of all individuals who identify as transgendered have attempted suicide at some point in their life.



In lieu of meaningful data among the transgender population that has not undergone gender reassignment or any form of treatment, the high incidence of post-op suicide deaths is incredibly important.



Treatment in this case includes counselling, psychological profiling, medication, hormone therapy, etc. Surgery is just one small part of that. The important thing is to discover whether or not surgery is itself an important step in the process, or whether it is a harmful and unnecessary risk to the patient.

Thailand has a lower suicide rate among pre op transsexuals because the government there doesn't decide what a person does with his/her body.



They're going to have to live with it, just like everyone else who do not have the money for cosmetic surgery.



The thing with consumer loans is that they do not require collateral--and that the credit institution doesn't care how the money is spent.



Actually, a lot of transgendered people I've met in real life are rather resourceful.

Please stop spreading misinformation about the nature of surgery for people with severe gender dysphoria. The evidence that has been proffered in this thread is quite clear: SRS for gender dysphoria is neither cosmetic nor elective, but necessary and therapeutic.

Did you read that thing from the APA I posted?

SRS is a process of cosmetic procedures--hence it's cosmetic surgery. While it undoubtedly has a therapeutic effect (as did the surgeries on Extreme Makeover), it's still cosmetic surgery.

Anecdotal. You would likely not have met the lower-functioning people.

Again, more misinformation. Cosmetic surgery is defined thus:



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... ic-surgery

Therefore, if it is therapeutic, then it is not cosmetic.

Here is from the resolution from the American Medical Association supporting coverage for transition services:



AMA says it's not cosmetic.

Again, please stop spreading misinformation about this important topic for people suffering from gender dysphoria.

Technically, surgery for a kid with a cleft lip is "cosmetic," but is taken much more seriously than, say, a face lift. (And well it should.)
In this thread some people seem to be intending "cosmetic" to mean "trivial," which isn't necessarily true. (It's just a dumb word game.)

I've checked more dictionaries, and there do seem to be some differences in meaning. Some define it as any surgery that has the effect of changing appearance, necessary or not. While some define it such that necessary surgeries are excluded. Nevertheless, considering the wording in the AMA resolution that I quoted, it seems that at least one medical organization takes cosmetic to mean not necessary.

Either way, it's clear what the intent of Kurgan is in this thread, that by using the word cosmetic, he implies that the surgery is not necessary. After all, if the surgery is necessary, then his arguments don't make sense. And indeed it is necessary, as shown in this thread. Therefore, my point still stands that Kurgan is spreading misinformation regarding the nature of sex reassignment surgery.