Harris seeks to block gender reassignment for trans inmate - 2015

[History505]

It's going to be a crazy primary season lol.

[Skunk]

Gender reassignment surgery isn't a right.

Access to medical care deemed to be medically necessary while incarcerated is. It is guaranteed by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Here, there was a substantial case to be made that this treatment was medically necessary, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of it, because doctors' and scientists' opinions matter more than lawyers' in questions of what is and is not medically necessary.

Harris is not a bigot by any means and she is obviously a strong ally of the LGBT+ community, in the same breath. That doesn't change that this was a concerning moment in her career that she's going to have to explain a little better than she has so far.

[Thatkat04]

And we're off. Not surprised its the Bernie supporters throwing the first punches though.

Citing somebody's record is "throwing punches" now. LOL

I'm not saying its wrong to call Kamala Harris out. But the Iowa caucus is over a year away and this forum is already turning into a mess. I'm honestly not sure I can handle a repeat of the 2016 primary, especially since there was absolutely no reason for it to get as vicious as it did.

Better buckle up, buddy. You’re in for the ride of your life.

Not really. I dont feel strongly about anyone in the primary.

TBH, The only candidate I refuse to vote for is Gabbard. If Sanders and his supporters end up bullying their way to the nomination, I'll gladly vote for him in the general. Just make sure not to drive too many center leftists to Schultz.

[Blue3]

Lots of liberals here revealing their true colors. A facade of tolerance, but underneath, a very reactionary, hateful current. Didn't expect much, but it's pretty sickening nonetheless.

I'm gay. I don't like Harris. I think this is stupid criticism. I didn't post anything reactionary or hateful.

[Sorenroy]

Gender reassignment surgery isn't a right.

Access to medical care deemed to be medically necessary while incarcerated is. It is guaranteed by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Here, there was a substantial case to be made that this treatment was medically necessary, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of it, because doctors' and scientists' opinions matter more than lawyers' in questions of what is and is not medically necessary.

Harris is not a bigot by any means and she is obviously a strong ally of the LGBT+ community, in the same breath. That doesn't change that this was a concerning moment in her career that she's going to have to explain a little better than she has so far.

Also, even disregarding the fact that doctor and scientist opinions are obviously more important, this specific case was something that had already been going through the courts, so it had backing from the legal side too.

And just to push this a little further, I'm tired of this whole thing where people in prison are treated worse than dirt. Your right to healthcare and fair treatment shouldn't end because you have committed a crime, there are already punishments in place for that. I don't think that the group pushing for healthcare as a right should simultaneously be saying that because this person was in prison, she lost her right to a medically and court backed surgery.

[Blue3]

Gender reassignment surgery isn't a right.

Access to medical care deemed to be medically necessary while incarcerated is. It is guaranteed by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Here, there was a substantial case to be made that this treatment was medically necessary, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of it, because doctors' and scientists' opinions matter more than lawyers' in questions of what is and is not medically necessary.

Harris is not a bigot by any means and she is obviously a strong ally of the LGBT+ community, in the same breath. That doesn't change that this was a concerning moment in her career that she's going to have to explain a little better than she has so far.

Also, even disregarding the fact that doctor and scientist opinions are obviously more important, this specific case was something that had already been going through the courts, so it had backing from the legal side too.

And just to push this a little further, I'm tired of this whole thing where people in prison are treated worse than dirt. Your right to healthcare and fair treatment shouldn't end because you have committed a crime, there are already punishments in place for that. I don't think that the group pushing for healthcare as a right should simultaneously be saying that because this person was in prison, she lost her right to a medically and court backed surgery.

I agree we need to strengthen and expand prisoner rights (and get more people out of prison), and that should include universal healthcare. But not for cosmetic purposes. If the person identifies as a different gender, ok. If they want to pay for reassignment surgery, ok. If they demand it's their right the government pay for it while they're in prison... I don't care, it's not a right, it's not medically necessary. There's a lot to criticize Harris on, and this isn't one of them. I'm gay, I support healthcare, but the government paying for gender reassignment surgery for convicted murderers in prison isn't a priority. Once everything else is solved, maybe I'll be able to care about this.

[JA]

Gender reassignment surgery isn't a right.

Access to medical care deemed to be medically necessary while incarcerated is. It is guaranteed by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Here, there was a substantial case to be made that this treatment was medically necessary, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of it, because doctors' and scientists' opinions matter more than lawyers' in questions of what is and is not medically necessary.

Harris is not a bigot by any means and she is obviously a strong ally of the LGBT+ community, in the same breath. That doesn't change that this was a concerning moment in her career that she's going to have to explain a little better than she has so far.

Also, even disregarding the fact that doctor and scientist opinions are obviously more important, this specific case was something that had already been going through the courts, so it had backing from the legal side too.

And just to push this a little further, I'm tired of this whole thing where people in prison are treated worse than dirt. Your right to healthcare and fair treatment shouldn't end because you have committed a crime, there are already punishments in place for that. I don't think that the group pushing for healthcare as a right should simultaneously be saying that because this person was in prison, she lost her right to a medically and court backed surgery.

I agree we need to strengthen and expand prisoner rights (and get more people out of prison), and that should include universal healthcare. But not for cosmetic purposes. If the person identifies as a different gender, ok. If they want to pay for reassignment surgery, ok. If they demand it's their right the government pay for it while they're in prison... I don't care, it's not a right, it's not medically necessary. There's a lot to criticize Harris on, and this isn't one of them. I'm gay, I support healthcare, but the government paying for gender reassignment surgery for convicted murderers in prison isn't a priority. Once everything else is solved, maybe I'll be able to care about this.

Yeah, except it is widely considered, among the medical community, to be medically necessary - something becoming more accepted even among insurance industries.

But, you do you and keep discriminating against the transgender community, I suppose.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Gender reassignment surgery isn't a right.

Access to medical care deemed to be medically necessary while incarcerated is. It is guaranteed by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Here, there was a substantial case to be made that this treatment was medically necessary, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of it, because doctors' and scientists' opinions matter more than lawyers' in questions of what is and is not medically necessary.

Harris is not a bigot by any means and she is obviously a strong ally of the LGBT+ community, in the same breath. That doesn't change that this was a concerning moment in her career that she's going to have to explain a little better than she has so far.

Also, even disregarding the fact that doctor and scientist opinions are obviously more important, this specific case was something that had already been going through the courts, so it had backing from the legal side too.

And just to push this a little further, I'm tired of this whole thing where people in prison are treated worse than dirt. Your right to healthcare and fair treatment shouldn't end because you have committed a crime, there are already punishments in place for that. I don't think that the group pushing for healthcare as a right should simultaneously be saying that because this person was in prison, she lost her right to a medically and court backed surgery.

I agree we need to strengthen and expand prisoner rights (and get more people out of prison), and that should include universal healthcare. But not for cosmetic purposes. If the person identifies as a different gender, ok. If they want to pay for reassignment surgery, ok. If they demand it's their right the government pay for it while they're in prison... I don't care, it's not a right, it's not medically necessary. There's a lot to criticize Harris on, and this isn't one of them. I'm gay, I support healthcare, but the government paying for gender reassignment surgery for convicted murderers in prison isn't a priority. Once everything else is solved, maybe I'll be able to care about this.

Gender affirmation surgery is not "cosmetic." No one has ever "demanded" that it is "their right" that "the government pay for it" while they're in prison. You are simply ignorant of basic facts of both science and policy.

Being on the left is about caring -- whether you personally can "care about this" or not, the fact of the matter is that this is a legally nuanced case where the objective and verifiable facts happen to be in contradiction with your personal opinion.

[Blue3]

I think they're wrong. I have a brown spot on my two front teeth, they just came out that way. It was horrible to have, we eventually paid for me to have caps on it so it "looked" right by the time I was around 10, and it gave me confidence to smile again. It was a cosmetic difference, that had a significant impact on me and how I felt, even though it was simply cosmetic. But in no way was it medically necessary. This is the same way.

The medical and legal communities once said homosexuality was a disorder. It's ok to say you disagree, and you think they're wrong.

[Sorenroy]

Gender reassignment surgery isn't a right.

Access to medical care deemed to be medically necessary while incarcerated is. It is guaranteed by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Here, there was a substantial case to be made that this treatment was medically necessary, regardless of whether or not you personally approve of it, because doctors' and scientists' opinions matter more than lawyers' in questions of what is and is not medically necessary.

Harris is not a bigot by any means and she is obviously a strong ally of the LGBT+ community, in the same breath. That doesn't change that this was a concerning moment in her career that she's going to have to explain a little better than she has so far.

Also, even disregarding the fact that doctor and scientist opinions are obviously more important, this specific case was something that had already been going through the courts, so it had backing from the legal side too.

And just to push this a little further, I'm tired of this whole thing where people in prison are treated worse than dirt. Your right to healthcare and fair treatment shouldn't end because you have committed a crime, there are already punishments in place for that. I don't think that the group pushing for healthcare as a right should simultaneously be saying that because this person was in prison, she lost her right to a medically and court backed surgery.

I agree we need to strengthen and expand prisoner rights (and get more people out of prison), and that should include universal healthcare. But not for cosmetic purposes. If the person identifies as a different gender, ok. If they want to pay for reassignment surgery, ok. If they demand it's their right the government pay for it while they're in prison... I don't care, it's not a right, it's not medically necessary. There's a lot to criticize Harris on, and this isn't one of them. I'm gay, I support healthcare, but the government paying for gender reassignment surgery for convicted murderers in prison isn't a priority. Once everything else is solved, maybe I'll be able to care about this.

A couple of points:

First, as mentioned before, it's not like out of the blue this women asked for reassignment surgery. This was something that was and has been repeatedly backed in the medical and scientific field and, in this specific case, was working through the court system having already been ruled on by the relevant district court. It's not as if the system was going down the checklist and had finally arrived on asking MTF or FTM inmates if they wanted sex-change operations or not (which is besides the point anyway).

Second, there is a bit of a double whammy here with the rampant forced labor of prisons stacking on top of expensive, uncovered medical bills. If you are really sincere that it would be fine for an inmate to pay for such costs themselves, it follows that they should have some way of feasibly making the money to pay for them. Otherwise, the argument is insincere and is basically only saying that people who entered into the prison system with wealth should be allowed to undergo such operations.

Finally, the idea that a reassignment surgery is only cosmetic is laughable at best, bigoted at worst, and, at a base, ignorant. I am sure that is not what you are going for, but it is simply not fair to equate something like reassignment surgery to anything that would regularly be called cosmetic surgery. And again, this case was something backed up in court and, I'm sure, the medical community. I doubt the same would have happened if this was truly only argued based on cosmetic purposes.

Also, I'm not trying to go after Harris specifically, which is why I decided to quote Celes and their comment originally. I am more pointing to flaws in the system as a whole and saying that they are the problem that needs to be fixed.

[Kleine Scheiße]

I think they're wrong. I have a brown spot on my two front teeth, they just came out that way. It was horrible to have, we eventually paid for me to have caps on it so it "looked" right by the time I was around 10, and it gave me confidence to smile again. It was a cosmetic difference, that had a significant impact on me and how I felt, even though it was simply cosmetic. But in no way was it medically necessary. This is the same way.

The medical and legal communities once said homosexuality was a disorder. It's ok to say you disagree, and you think they're wrong.

My apologies, I wasn't aware that the irregular coloration of tooth enamel was now a universally accepted DSM-5 diagnosis with established, matter-of-fact treatment prescriptions reaching beyond self-esteem problems.

EDIT: Removed "typical;" the inclusion thereof made this post a little too harsh.

[Blue3]

Tell me the justification beyond "distress" at why it's medically necessary. Lots of things cause lots of people distress. Enlighten my ignorance. Why should this be a huge story, how was this a grave injustice? Don't use the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, I could be wrong now. But to convince me, I need explanations.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Tell me the justification beyond "distress" at why it's medically necessary. Lots of things cause lots of people distress. Enlighten my ignorance. Why should this be a huge story, how was this a grave injustice? Don't use the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html -- according to this document and case details, this surgery was "medically necessary."

https://www.wpath.org/newsroom/medical-necessity-statement -- cites peer-reviewed studies indicating the efficacy and necessity of gender affirmation surgery (Coleman, Bockting, Botzer, et al., 2012; Fraser, De Cuypere, 2016; Monstrey, De Cuypere, Ettner, 2007; Davidson v. Aetna, 1979; Keo-Meier, et al., 2014; Newfield, et al., 2006; Gijs, Brewaeys, 2007; Herman, 2013; Department of Defense Instruction 1300.28, 2016; Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum 16-005, 2016)

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/exclusion-medically-necessary-gender-affirming-surgery-americas-armed-services-veterans/2018-04 -- Peer-reviewed study, citeable as Kuzon, Sluiter, and Gast, 2018

The "appeal to authority" is a fallacy when one is dealing with debatable questions of things like ethics, yet-unproven science, and metaphysics. When accepted, verifiable, and peer-reviewed facts are presented, consistent with the scientific method, citing authoritative sources is not fallacious.

Gender dysphoria and gender identity disorder has repeatedly been shown to be an entirely different beast from "distress." Time and time again, it has been conclusively proven that this is not a question of emotion but psychology. Distress is an emotional condition based on external stimuli; gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria is a persistent, internal, and observable condition of existence itself, beyond momentary emotional state.

[John Dule]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

[RINO Tom]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

[JA]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

FF Move on her end.

[John Dule]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

It's just an idiotic thing to do while you're in prison. The risk of infection or some other complication is high, and prison medical resources would have to be used to care for him if that were to happen. Having purely cosmetic surgery in prison is stupid. I'm glad Harris didn't bow to the nutjob wing of her party on this one.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

It's just an idiotic thing to do while you're in prison. The risk of infection or some other complication is high, and prison medical resources would have to be used to care for him if that were to happen. Having purely cosmetic surgery in prison is stupid. I'm glad Harris didn't bow to the nutjob wing of her party on this one.

Yep, plus, it can be abused by men who want access to women's prisons. 

[ON Progressive]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

It's just an idiotic thing to do while you're in prison. The risk of infection or some other complication is high, and prison medical resources would have to be used to care for him if that were to happen. Having purely cosmetic surgery in prison is stupid. I'm glad Harris didn't bow to the nutjob wing of her party on this one.

Yep, plus, it can be abused by men who want access to women's prisons. 

Nobody would go through gender reassignment surgery for this.

[John Dule]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

It's just an idiotic thing to do while you're in prison. The risk of infection or some other complication is high, and prison medical resources would have to be used to care for him if that were to happen. Having purely cosmetic surgery in prison is stupid. I'm glad Harris didn't bow to the nutjob wing of her party on this one.

Yep, plus, it can be abused by men who want access to women's prisons. 

Who on Earth is going to have their genitals removed so they can ogle women? Seems kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

[JA]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

It's just an idiotic thing to do while you're in prison. The risk of infection or some other complication is high, and prison medical resources would have to be used to care for him if that were to happen. Having purely cosmetic surgery in prison is stupid. I'm glad Harris didn't bow to the nutjob wing of her party on this one.

It’s not “cosmetic surgery”. According to the medical community, it’s considered to be medically necessary. But, I have no doubt that you presume to know more than the licensed, trained, and educated professional medical community. So, you do you.

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

Who on Earth is going to have their genitals removed so they can ogle women? Seems kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

Transphobes don't think logically, you see.

[John Dule]

Dang, this is the first thing I've heard that makes me actually want to support Kamala Harris.

How Libertarian.

Using the state to oppress people you dislike. It’s the Libertarian way.

It's just an idiotic thing to do while you're in prison. The risk of infection or some other complication is high, and prison medical resources would have to be used to care for him if that were to happen. Having purely cosmetic surgery in prison is stupid. I'm glad Harris didn't bow to the nutjob wing of her party on this one.

It’s not “cosmetic surgery,” moron. According to the medical community, it’s considered to be medically necessary. But, I have no doubt that you presume to know more than the licensed, trained, and educated professional medical community. So, you do you.

Just wondering, are there any restrictions on this site's discourse (some sort of Be Nice; Be Respectful rule)? I'm not about to report anyone; I just want to know how much I can go off on this guy before a moderator gives me a week-long vacation or something.

Regardless, the link you've provided is just one scholarly article. You might as well cite AETNA's position, which requires that certain criteria be met before gender reassignment becomes a medical necessity. Please don't pretend that medical ethics are completely set in stone; homosexuals were being chemically castrated fairly recently in history, and as mentioned previously on this thread, homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder. Your comment is a condescending, intellectually lazy appeal to authority.

You also seem to assume that I personally have some animosity towards the transgender person. Quite the contrary, if you read my comment again carefully, you will see that part of my objection to this is out of concern for the patient's well-being. Granted, I'm more skeptical of the medical necessity of the operation and the use of prison funding for it, but you can stop assuming things about my personal beliefs based solely on your own questionable reading comprehension skills.

[John Dule]

Who on Earth is going to have their genitals removed so they can ogle women? Seems kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

Transphobes don't think logically, you see.

To be fair, it's silly when men who identify as women compete in women's sporting events. But this particular comment just struck me as uniquely contradictory.