Dongs Macabre
aka Daedalos42
What do you consider optional?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
California Funds First Prisoner Sex-Reassignment Surgery and Move to Women's Prison
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
- Status
What do you consider optional?
You literally said it is viable and are now refusing to face what you argued.....this topic, I swear.
So is health care for trans people "optional and frivolous"?
This is what it always comes down to. Every time. Nobody would even raise an eyebrow if it was any other health care issue, but since it's a trans issues we have have to keep justifying our needs and keep convincing everyone of our legitimacy. I'm so tired of it.
What are you even talking about? I stand by what I said.
Sometimes people support us in word only. As soon as our health care needs come into play, you see the colors change fast. ....As soon as anything actually drastic/important happens period it would seem they drop all support possible.
You argued that it was viable and then when grilled on the actual viability you backed down. You can't have it both ways. You claim it's viable and then say you're not making the argument that others are responding to. This just feels two-faced.
excelsiorlef
Member
I am extrapolating your argument.... she should have gotten donations/family to pay for it... does that apply to all of her health care or just GRS? Does this viable alternative argument only apply to this specific situation or every prisoner.
When you replied to me I was arguing far beyond just this specific case but all cases like it.
You can't be an advocate for rehabilitative justice and disagree with this. It just goes hand in hand with the deep rooted biases people have against transgendered people.
There are SO many things inhumane, wasteful, and downright disgusting things wrong with our prison system. But this is where people throw their hands up and go "I don't know about this". So many things wrong with American prisons but you're upset about this. I wonder why.
Yall "other" convicted people as if they're not citizens and human beings
There are SO many things inhumane, wasteful, and downright disgusting things wrong with our prison system. But this is where people throw their hands up and go "I don't know about this". So many things wrong with American prisons but you're upset about this. I wonder why.
Yall "other" convicted people as if they're not citizens and human beings
This is... not at all what happened. I argued it was viable, I explained my thinking on why.
I didn't say she should have gotten donations/family to pay for it. Stop trying to twist my words.
natsuyasumi
Member
In cases like this we see that GAF is not as progressive as it likes to think it is.
And echoing other trans people in this thread, having to argue shit like this again and again is exhausting.
The opposition here doesn't even make sense. All the medical entities that matter agree that surgical intervention is necessary healthcare for trans people whom it would help. Further, the prison system, fucked though it is, is charged with providing full and proper healthcare for inmates. And don't get me started on how fucked and inhumane it is to place a female-identifying person in a male prison population, which they will unless she's had surgery (also fucked, but that's current reality).
Why is that not the end of it? Why do you still say "but, but, but..."? Somehow you know better?
And echoing other trans people in this thread, having to argue shit like this again and again is exhausting.
The opposition here doesn't even make sense. All the medical entities that matter agree that surgical intervention is necessary healthcare for trans people whom it would help. Further, the prison system, fucked though it is, is charged with providing full and proper healthcare for inmates. And don't get me started on how fucked and inhumane it is to place a female-identifying person in a male prison population, which they will unless she's had surgery (also fucked, but that's current reality).
Why is that not the end of it? Why do you still say "but, but, but..."? Somehow you know better?
excelsiorlef
Member
SO let me get this straight you aren't actually arguing she should have gotten donations/family. You just decided to pick a semantics/pedantic fight with me because, even though you don't actually think she should have gone the route of donations/family, I said government provided health care is the only option and you wanted to say well actually?
All of this has pretty much been my thoughts for a long while.
Thanks for saying this better than I could.
It is not semantic or pedantic. You said there were no other options. I said I don't think that is the case and explained why. That's it. I don't have some sinister motive to undermine trans-rights issues despite you trying to suggest I do.
I think it's pretty clear there's no consensus here.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think the people here are arguing against transgender people, and getting the support they need. What I'm arguing against is that when you kidnap, torture, murder, and are convicted then SRS should not be paid for by the state.
excelsiorlef
Member
Relying on donations/family is not a viable option, that's now how prison health care works.
If you paid attention to my arguments in this thread I am talking about prison healthcare and trans health care for prisoners in general.
excelsiorlef
Member
Why? It is the medical treatment for the issue at hand.
And like I said I disagree and have explained why.
Yes that is clear. But I don't know if we have people for and against. Or people against and others sarcastically supporting this.
Even the original post has me confused.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
IMO the line must be drawn when someone who commits such a heinous crime.
Monocle
Member
It's not a luxury treatment, it's basic health care. You don't take away someone's right to basic health care just because they're an awful criminal.
One of the cornerstones of modern society is the recognition of basic human rights no matter what. That applies to all people, not just the ones who behave. We hold to this because the alternative is rampant abuse and perverse indiscriminate injustice. All of us benefit from universal human rights, not just criminals.
natsuyasumi
Member
If the prisoner required a kidney transplant to live I guess you would deny it?
No, of course not, many here would reply, but the difference is, the kidney is medically necessary!
Google:
The experts say it's medically necessary. If you are trans yourself you likely understand and agree. If you are cis you're less likely to intrinsically "get it" and will require some empathy to understand.
That is lacking in this thread, despite trans people basically pleading for cis people here to take their medical needs seriously.
How About No
Member
There is less sarcasm in the thread than you think there is
excelsiorlef
Member
To which I now have to ask you (again) because you are in fact now arguing viability, how do you apply this alternative? Is it for all health care for prisoners or just trans health care.
For your proposed alternative to be actually viable it has to be applied across the board not just this one person.
Scrooge McDuck
Member
This sounds really messy to me. Do you have any suggestion how a system that deprives variations of basic human rights in depending of to the crime could work? Do they need to apply a tier system or something?
"Con-artists would have access to all human right tiers. Murderers would be denied Tier 4 human rights, including but not limited to medical care and hygiene". Something like that?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
And say they don't want to donate? What then?
How many homeless people need that prison food? How many homeless people need that prison shelter? This can literally go on forever.
excelsiorlef
Member
Well I mean we could help a lot of homeless people if we just lock up prisoners in tiny cells, never let them leave, deny them all healthcare and just feed them gruel every day... what's your point other than to argue somehow that I guess trans health just isn't as important as other health needs via emotional manipulation....
I'm sure there are many people here actually for imprisoning the homeless.
What does it matter unless you feel they should have to rely on donations and family?
Do you feel the same for prisoners with heart disease?
Diabetes?
Etc?
It's considered a medical necessity just as much as those other conditions so either you believe the government should take care of prisoner healthcare or they should not provide healthcare. You don't get to pick and choose.
And if your not arguing they shouldn't then why bring up donations and family in the first place?
Don't make an argument and then claim you were not or your just wasting everyone's time, say what you mean if you mean it, otherwise your just talking in circles and obfuscating because you don't want to get caught in the argument you seem to have been trying to make, which is it's viable to get the surgery in jail from private funds which you would only make if you feel the prisoner should have to, and while you claim it's not the next logical question is do you feel this way about all necessary medical procedures or just those concerning the trans population?
What other medical treatments should we withhold to prisoners? Please, tell me.
I do not believe that a convicted killer serving a life sentence should be provided a kidney transplant.
I believe they should be given long term care similar to what an elderly patient would receive. Which is basically just living out their last days and being kept comfortable or as comfortable as they can be.
FTFY
I think that sentiment comes from the feeling of need for medical surgery for your body to remain alive physically, and the mental portion not being held at the same level (which I agree for prisoners).
The people calling for this to not be covered are probably not lacking empathy with the people that need the operation to feel functional outside of prison walls, but instead focus on the individual who is benefiting from the procedure, which has already shown he is mentally unstable for more reasons than feeling he is the wrong gender. This given that he committed a crime bad enough to warrant a prison sentence with no parole.
natsuyasumi
Member
Truelize, that is not humane, but I'm glad you're being honest.
A transgender prisoner getting GRS would fall in line with being kept as comfortable as can be. Also denying a prisoner a kidney transplant would be pretty fucked up.
Monocle
Member
No, that's bullshit. The moment you deny someone basic rights is the moment you forfeit every single citizen's personal security.
Do you want to live in a fascist nightmare where you can be tortured as soon as somebody accuses you of a crime? Because that's where this road leads. Learn from history before you willingly give up the essential rights previous generations fought and suffered for.
I guess if there is any condition that the state is reluctant in treating for whatever reason, any prisoner should have the option of paying for some sort of private medical care. Is that what you want?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Well, I'm not saying anyone lacks empathy, you've quoted the wrong person.
But, even if you did lack empathy, you should see the inherent cruelty in not treating an inmate under your own responsibility. This person has no other recourse. She was mentally unstable, but not to the point of it being life-threatening to her own person, until now.
Personally, I also couldn't care less for this person, but I have my own personal principles and values (a basic level of healthcare is a right for all) that would make it contradictory for me to not support this.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Way to go to an extreme. Lol.
As a transgender women, I'm not opposed to her receiving the treatment she needs. Sex reassignment surgery is generally considered medically necessary. It is often the final step towards fully transitioning, and transferring her to a women's prison without completing it could be potentially dangerous.
But... being low income and disabled in other ways, I can't deny it stings that a murderer is going to get the treatment for free when I'll likely have to pay for most of it. : \
But... being low income and disabled in other ways, I can't deny it stings that a murderer is going to get the treatment for free when I'll likely have to pay for most of it. : \
natsuyasumi
Member
I'm trans and had my junk artfully rearranged and am not "mentally unstable" for being trans/wanting to/doing so. Just so ya know.
Btw, fixed your pronouns.
Yes, yes, yes. This is A+ stuff. Dead on.
I feel for you, truly. But that is a flaw in our healthcare system, not the prison system. You SHOULD be covered for this care you need, by all rights. I hope we will see that happen, but it should not come at the expense of humane treatment of trans people in custody.
Related, I recently learned that Kaiser HMO in northern CA (Bay Area) has started to cover GRS and even FFS. I would say that is a hopeful sign of progress, but it's blunted a little given Trump and such threatening the ACA. We will see what happens.
You do know we should treat every prisoner as potentially innocent because our system isn't perfect, right, in which case, we should treat them as human beings?
This runaway "let's slowly kill someone as petty revenge" means the floor drops out of society. A market of society is how it treats the people it could potentially get away with torturing or treating like shit but doesn't.
More_Badass
Member
How does that "being kept comfortable" not dovetail with a necessary medical operation?
And the two scenarios arent even comparable. One is "last days". The other is 40, 50, 60, etc. years of life.
I think choosing to murder eliminates your ability to receive care to the same level as citizens that have made better choices in their lives.
This man decided to take a life. Part of his choice was to forfeit the majority of the benefits that are enjoyed by members or our society.
I am not talking about eye for an eye here.
Monocle
Member
Says the dude who clearly has no clue about the nature of a fundamental right. If you can violate it for one person, it's no longer universal. You can no longer claim it applies to everyone. The whole socially constructed notion of inalienable human rights collapses. Not too hard to understand.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
I would agree that tax payers can find this surgery if it's life threatening.
But if it's so life threatening, why has she been doing okay for the last thirty seven years? Has she been trying to get this for that long?
But if it's so life threatening, why has she been doing okay for the last thirty seven years? Has she been trying to get this for that long?
are you misgendering on purpose
- Status