Support NeoGAF

[PSqueak]

the idea of "if its not for us it shouldn't be for them" is really quite dumb tbh. not happy about it? maybe try making it so that people outside of prisons get the treatment easily too.

the "we're fucked, so they should be fucked more" mentality only leaves people fucked.

It's more like, the reverse, like "hey if even prisoners get it, everyone should have access to it easily and with government aid",don't ya think?

So, if the government is willing to use tax payer money for SRS for Prisoners, it should provide aid in this regard for tax payers too.

 

[rambis]

It is essentially the same as providing a prisoner medication for treating something like bipolar disorder.

It is not and never had been cosmetic surgery. It is medical treatment

I said closer to cosmetic and thats undeniably true. Looking at most insurance providers, they won't even pay for it without a long documented history of gender dysmorphia.

Either way, as I said, there are varying levels of importance for surgeries. This would be near the bottom of the scale.

 

[Beefy]

I said closer to cosmetic and thats undeniably true. Looking at most insurance providers, they won't even pay for it without a long documented history of gender dysmorphia.

Either way, as I said, there are varying levels of importance for surgeries. This would be near the bottom of the scale.

Glad you don't get to decide

 

[Got]

The ignorance in this thread is astounding. The fact that they revel in it too is sort of grotesque.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I said closer to cosmetic and thats undeniably true. Looking at most insurance providers, they won't even pay for it without a long documented history of gender dysmorphia.

Either way, as I said, there are varying levels of importance for surgeries. This would be near the bottom of the scale.

This prisoner has clearly gone through the psychotherapy.... You know nothing of her medical history. Whereas I know a lot about how trans health specfically the surgery approval works...

It is not cosmetic surgery. It is not close to it.

I'm glad you think trans health just isn't that important fortunately how medical treatment for individuals work isn't based on what you think is important.

 

[Platy]

I will try again :

People who are against giving SRS to inmates, are you in favor of women patients being transfered to women's prison while they still have a penis ?

 

[dave is ok]

I will try again :

People who are against giving SRS to inmates, are you in favor of women patients being transfered to women's prison while they still have a penis ?

That clearly could not happen. The female inmates and the trans inmate could both be at risk - they would not be able to be in gen pop and would have to suffer in some form of segregation unit.

 

[rambis]

This prisoner has clearly gone through the psychotherapy.... You know nothing of her medical history. Whereas I know a lot about how trans health specfically the surgery approval works...

It is not cosmetic surgery. It is not close to it.

I'm glad you think trans health just isn't that important fortunately how medical treatment for individuals work isn't based on what you think is important.

It isn't clear at all in this article. If you follow this kind of thing then good for you but I'm judging by what im being presented with. I have family that have been through the process, I know how huge of a hassle it is to get anybody to pay for this, hence me questioning how CA decided they I should pay for this one.


Also, I don't have to be a doctor to know that say, a heart transplant is 100x more important than SRS. This "there all medical operations" line of thinking is idiotic and nonsensical. Me getting my tonsils replaced and getting my spinal column repaired is the same thing too right?

 

[Mailbox]

It's more like, the reverse, like "hey if even prisoners get it, everyone should have access to it easily and with government aid",don't ya think?

So, if the government is willing to use tax payer money for SRS for Prisoners, it should provide aid in this regard for tax payers too.

yeah, that's exactly what i'm saying actually...
your prior posts, however, don't really convey that though, was what i was implyjng

 

[PSqueak]

yeah, that's exactly what i'm saying actually...
your prior posts, however, don't really convey that though, was what i was implyjng

My bad, but yeah, my reaction was "Government should give aid to all transpeople", it just feels unfair that the average transperson wouldn't receive this sort of aid, so "everybody should have access to it" sounds more fair than "nobody should get it".

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Taxpayer money was used. A taxpayer having an opinion on what taxes are spent on is normal.

So forget the question I asked because..fuck it, I guess? Shit..did I quote you? What?! California tax payers. Ok. Again, how the fuck would it affect my life? Or the large chunk of y'all that aren't from there? Also, thanks for answering for him..😕

 

[excelsiorlef]

It isn't clear at all in this article. If you follow this kind of thing then good for you but I'm judging by what im being presented with. I have family that have been through the process, I know how huge of a hassle it is to get anybody to pay for this, hence me questioning how CA decided they I should pay for this one.


Also, I don't have to be a doctor to know that say, a heart transplant is 100x more important than SRS. This "there all medical operations" line of thinking is idiotic and nonsensical. Me getting my tonsils replaced and getting my spinal column repaired is the same thing too right?

Well you aren't relly paying for shit. Literally less then a penny comes from you...

The process wouldn't change with the person in jail. The process is basically the same for everyone the Harry Benjamin standards of practice are still used by virtually all trans health professionals.

Your comparison is nonsense. You called it cosmetic surgery I called it medical treatment. GRS is medical treatment it is not cosmetic surgery. It is equivalent to medication to treat something like bipolar disorder. Invoking a heart transplants and tonsillectomy comparison is absurd.
GRS is actually closer though to those procedures then it is to a nose job or some other actual cosmetic surgery process.

So forget the question I asked because..fuck it, I guess? Shit..did I quote you? What?! California tax payers. Ok. Again, how the fuck would it affect my life? Or the large chunk of y'all that aren't from there? Also, thanks for answering for him..😕

Their tax arguments are bullshit nonsense. We're talking less than a penny

 

[Jenov]

This thread still going. People know that in California the public medicaid also approves of SRS, right? So the fact that they're extending it to their prisoners isn't too far out there. Frankly, I have more a problem with the fact that state covered SRS includes things like breast implants and hair electrolysis, which even natural born women who have those issues (little to no breasts, extra hair) are not allowed coverage for.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This thread still going. People know that in California the public medicaid also approves of SRS, right? So the fact that they're extending it to their prisoners isn't too far out there. Frankly, I have more a problem with the fact that state covered SRS includes things like breast implants and hair electrolysis, which even natural born women who have those issues (little to no breasts, extra hair) are not allowed coverage for.

So then fight for expansion don't shit on the crumbs of government support trans folk get.

 

[PSqueak]

This thread still going. People know that in California the public medicaid also approves of SRS, right? So the fact that they're extending it to their prisoners isn't too far out there.

That's good to hear then, it's hard to keep track what places do allow aid for SRS and which don't.

 

[Ri'Orius]

It isn't clear at all in this article. If you follow this kind of thing then good for you but I'm judging by what im being presented with. I have family that have been through the process, I know how huge of a hassle it is to get anybody to pay for this, hence me questioning how CA decided they I should pay for this one.

It's completely clear from the article. The article states she's getting gender reassignment surgery. That only happens after years of psychotherapy, hormone treatments, etc. An article saying "a prisoner is getting HIV retrovirals" doesn't need to state that the prisoner is HIV+: it's already clear because nobody gets the retrovirals without the virus.

And if that's not clear to you, if you think people sometimes just get their junk swapped for funsies without having gone through the appropriate steps, then you're too ignorant on the topic to have an opinion.

And to be clear: being ignorant is fine! Everyone's ignorant about a lot of things. The problem comes when someone who doesn't know how computers works decides to weigh in on a subject by saying they could save money by using just ones, because what are those zeroes doing anyway?

So when you come in here asserting that the only known way of treating a severe mental condition "wasn't a life saving operation, alot[sic] closer to being cosmetic" and "[gender reassignment surgery] would be near the bottom of the scale [of how important various treatments are]" when you don't know the very basics of the treatment: that's a problem.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

So then fight for expansion don't shit on the crumbs of government support trans folk get.

End of the day, this is all there is to say. Call your congressman..their number is public. Vote these folks passing laws you disagree with and those they hire out of power. You don't think it's the game is fair? Get out there and let it be known.

But cut it out with the "it's just plastic surgery" shtick..

 

[Platy]

That clearly could NOT happen. The female inmates and the trans inmate could both be at risk - they would not be able to be in gen pop and would have to suffer in some form of segregation unit.

So are you in favor that the trans inmate remains in the male prison while receiving body changing medication that will develop breasts and the like which will in turn increase the already risk the trans woman is suffering not only in by being surrounded by men but by being considered one as well.

 

[ShironRedshift]

[edit] If people are ignoring the 8th Amendment can we ignore their 1st amendment ? [/edit]

Speaking of the 1st Amendment, I couldn't help but have a thought regarding it reading through this thread...

I've been here on NeoGAF for quite a while now and something I've noticed during that time is that people really love the First Amendment here and naturally so, since it bestows some incredible freedoms to the people of the United States. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of religion; all great stuff.

But I've also noticed something else in regards to the Freedom of Speech clause in particular--the idea that in order for anyone to truly have Freedom of Speech, we must also defend the Freedom of Speech of the worst of us. That is to say, the only way that any given individual can truly have freedom of speech is if we also defend the freedom of speech of racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. As if we were to curtail their freedom of speech in any way, it would be an attack on the very concept of freedom of speech itself. They do not agree with what they have to say, but they will defend to the death their right to say it. Y'know, Voltaire--that seems to have become a pretty core American principle, as far as the 1st goes.

And people don't even flinch or hesitate to say that whatsoever. It's what they believe at their core. They know that those people are terrible, but they thoroughly believe that the true cost of freedom involves making sure that even the worst of us have those same freedoms, as they are human rights and know no such distinction and must be defended in all cases or not at all.

So, that being the case... why is it so hard to extend the same principle to cases like this? It's so easy for people to invoke Voltaire to defend the speech of the KKK and neo-nazi groups, so why is it so hard for people to extend the same principle to situations like this one? To similarly not agree in any way with the actions of criminals, their past behavior or misdeeds, but nonetheless similarly defend to the death their basic rights the same as anyone else? That just as with freedom of speech, rights are rights regardless of who holds them and to defend the best of us you must defend the worst of us as well?

Of course, yes, it's unfair that the general populace doesn't also have these rights. But that's no reason to take them away from those that already have them, as that doesn't fix that or change it any way, but rather to lobby to expand them to make sure that everyone indeed does have what should have been their's all along. To do otherwise is just lashing out, understandably so perhaps but nonetheless benefiting no one and in no way making the world a better place. The only sensible way forward is to expand and make sure others are able to get the same treatment, not to take it away from others who already have it.

But in any case, I'm just really stricken with the parallels to the 1st Amendment discussions. Because whenever those come up, the majority seems to have no real problems admitting that the 1st covers the free speech of racists, neo-nazis, etc, and accept that that's the price to pay for everyone to truly to be able to have those rights. So it just fascinates and kind of baffles me that people have difficulty applying the same concept to the 8th Amendment. If it's so easy to defend the rights of the KKK and white supremacist and neo-nazi groups and the like to say the most hateful stuff imaginable, it should similarly be simple to understand why the government, why the State has the duty to care for those in its care, regardless of how terrible of people they are in much the same way.

I can only assume that that's because that the State currently does not currently have a duty to extend that same care to anyone else, which is truly unfortunate and should not be the case at all, but nonetheless removing that care from those who are fortunate enough to have it does not change that in any way and the text of the 8th Amendment remains what it is, just as the 1st. That being the case, the disconnect between the two really does kinda fascinate me as to how far the principles people use to defend the 1st Amendment even including the rights of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups to say what they really really goes and how truly they really internalize the sentiment of defending the rights of even the lowest of low of society and doing the right thing simply because it's right and not because it's easy.

 

[HawksWinStanley]

Objectively it seems like the right thing to do but it's a tough pill to swallow. I feel terrible for the victim's daughter.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Objectively it seems like the right thing to do but it's a tough pill to swallow. I feel terrible for the victim's daughter.

Have to ask, specfically because it's GRS or because she's getting medical care period?

 

[HawksWinStanley]

Have to ask, specfically because it's GRS or because she's getting medical care period?

The latter.

 

[rambis]

It's completely clear from the article. The article states she's getting gender reassignment surgery. That only happens after years of psychotherapy, hormone treatments, etc. An article saying "a prisoner is getting HIV retrovirals" doesn't need to state that the prisoner is HIV+: it's already clear because nobody gets the retrovirals without the virus.

And if that's not clear to you, if you think people sometimes just get their junk swapped for funsies without having gone through the appropriate steps, then you're too ignorant on the topic to have an opinion.

And to be clear: being ignorant is fine! Everyone's ignorant about a lot of things. The problem comes when someone who doesn't know how computers works decides to weigh in on a subject by saying they could save money by using just ones, because what are those zeroes doing anyway?

So when you come in here asserting that the only known way of treating a severe mental condition "wasn't a life saving operation, alot[sic] closer to being cosmetic" and "[gender reassignment surgery] would be near the bottom of the scale [of how important various treatments are]" when you don't know the very basics of the treatment: that's a problem.

No, its not. People try everyday to get the surgery with no prior treatment, the problem is that no one will pay for it unless there was weeks and weeks of documented treatment which I already said in my prior post. I know this because I know quite a few trans individuals and even had a close family member go through the process.

So please spare me the ignorant bullshit.

I'm taking issue with this due to the problem nation wide of prisoners not being afforded medical treatment when needed.

Example from CA

MEDICAL NEGLECT
Medical care at Corcoran is grossly insufficient. Reports about medical deprivation and inadequate care are ongoing. Multiple people who are AD-classified report that they are currently denied necessary accommodations. It is widely believed that this is a form of retaliation by custody. Even those who have medical approval for medical devices or equipment are denied access by custody staff. For instance, Mr. B is an ADA-classified prisoner who has chronic back pain. The sleeping conditions at Corcoran, consisting of a single inch-thick mattress on a concrete slab, which causes Mr. B increased pain. He received medical approval by a physician for a second (inch-thick) mattress, but C/Os continue to withhold the needed equipment. Mr. B filed and won a 602 regarding this issue, but the ADA coordinator, Overley, still denies Mr. B the second mattress on the grounds that in the “civilian world” people do not need double mattresses. Title 15’s “Durable Medical Equipment Policy Procedure” states that approved medical devices should be allowed in cells, but it is not followed at Corcoran.

Additionally, doctors at Corcoran continually ignore and misdiagnose health complaints. Representative of several people we interviewed, Mr. D reported that he has been continually denied medical treatment for pain in his leg, to the point where he has now lost the use of his leg completely. A physician in Sacramento conducted a video “exam” of his leg and instructed that he get a biopsy. The medical staff affirmed that they would submit the request for him, but as of our interview, he had yet to be scheduled for one. He continues to be denied proper care.

Mr. R notes that his blood pressure condition has become exacerbated as a result of living in the SHU. He is now prescribed double the medication he was on previously, and is unable to adjust his diet or exercise.

Mr. V reported that he has had a terrible time gaining access to dental care. He had put in a request for an appointment months ago but still has not gotten an appointment.

Mr. F is a diabetic and should be on a special diet, but the food provided is high in simple sugars and is detrimental for his health. When he started refusing the food he was served in order not to be tempted, he was then forced to sign a non-compliance form so that the state cannot be held liable. This lack of adequate diet puts Mr. F and all diabetics at risk of medical distress and complications, which can have permanent effects on health outcomes.

There's levels to medical complications, point blank. It this state you have diabetics who can't even get an acceptable diet but there's 20-30k for SRS? Its not adding up...

 

[natsuyasumi]

Wow, this thread is still going. New posters, same old material. Exhausting.

Here, I gamified it. Play along at home between bouts of weeping into your drink.

NeoGAF Trans Healthcare Bingo! [Incarcerated Edition]

 

[Platy]

Speaking of the 1st Amendment, I couldn't help but have a thought regarding it reading through this thread...

I've been here on NeoGAF for quite a while now and something I've noticed during that time is that people really love the First Amendment here and naturally so, since it bestows some incredible freedoms to the people of the United States. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of religion; all great stuff.

But I've also noticed something else in regards to the Freedom of Speech clause in particular--the idea that in order for anyone to truly have Freedom of Speech, we must also defend the Freedom of Speech of the worst of us. That is to say, the only way that any given individual can truly have freedom of speech is if we also defend the freedom of speech of racists, neo-nazis, white supremacists, etc. As if we were to curtail their freedom of speech in any way, it would be an attack on the very concept of freedom of speech itself. They do not agree with what they have to say, but they will defend to the death their right to say it. Y'know, Voltaire--that seems to have become a pretty core American principle, as far as the 1st goes.

And people don't even flinch or hesitate to say that whatsoever. It's what they believe at their core. They know that those people are terrible, but they thoroughly believe that the true cost of freedom involves making sure that even the worst of us have those same freedoms, as they are human rights and know no such distinction and must be defended in all cases or not at all.

Freedom of speech does not mean Freedom of hearing whatever shit you have to do. It is related, like in this case, of what THE GOVERMENT has to do.

It has nothing to do with Neogaf having to hear what nazis have to say

 

[ZackieChan]

SRS is anywhere between $25k and $50k depending on the surgeon. Chemotherapy literally runs in the tens of thousands.

So they both cost tens of thousands?

Fortunately for us, the law does. To quote the Supreme Court once again:

Which case are you quoting. Not denying it exists, just curious what the context of that case is and what further precedent is derived from it.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

Wow, this thread is still going. New posters, same old material. Exhausting.

Here, I gamified it. Play along at home between bouts of weeping into your drink.

"It's cosmetic."

In the wise words of Jim Sterling, "'It's just fucking cosmetic', I want that phrase etched onto my cocking tombstone."

Seriously, the amount of times I hear this being people's arguement against even having insurances covering SRS is enough to make me lose my mind.

 

[How About No]

Wow, this thread is still going. New posters, same old material. Exhausting.

Here, I gamified it. Play along at home between bouts of weeping into your drink.

Was gonna say I feel this thread has run i's course...multiple times. It's almost like an assembly line of the same statements and explanations over and over again.

I hope that card sees some usein later threads tho lol

And I hope that at least some of the posters in this very huge thread were able to think a bit and maybe change their minds...long shot, I know.

 

[collige]

So they both cost tens of thousands?



Which case are you quoting. Not denying it exists, just curious what the context of that case is and what further precedent is derived from it.

Helling v. McKinney

 

[LordKasual]

A father died, a mother lost a husband, 3 children are left fatherless, an entire family, likely devastated...

There is a surprising lack of grey in these arguments being put forth. It's honestly pretty damn disturbing.

 

[StrategyFan]

A father died, a mother lost a husband, 3 children are left fatherless, an entire family, likely devastated...

There is a surprising lack of grey in these arguments being put forth. It's honestly pretty damn disturbing.

it's not surprising, just idealistic

in the real world where there isn't infinite money, adopting utopian policies isn't the best strategy to make progress. but it's better than a lot of alternatives

 

[Ri'Orius]

No, its not. People try everyday to get the surgery with no prior treatment, the problem is that no one will pay for it unless there was weeks and weeks of documented treatment which I already said in my prior post. I know this because I know quite a few trans individuals and even had a close family member go through the process.

Fascinating. Source for these hundreds of people seeking gender reassignment surgery with no prior treatment? And more importantly, have any of these individuals received said surgery? And I don't mean "got the surgery covered by insurance," I mean "convinced a doctor to take a scalpel to their nethers without having set foot in a therapist's office"? Because it's my understanding that in the real world, that's not a thing that happens.

I'm taking issue with this due to the problem nation wide of prisoners not being afforded medical treatment when needed.

...

There's levels to medical complications, point blank. It this state you have diabetics who can't even get an acceptable diet but there's 20-30k for SRS? Its not adding up...

Yes, medical care for prisoners should be better. That doesn't mean that this woman's care should be worse. That's nonsense.

Different prisons are run by different people, some of whom are shittier than others. Don't bitch about a woman getting the help she deserves when others are denied it: bitch about the people being denied it.

It's not a zero sum game. Denying her surgery won't get whoever runs that Corcoran facility to stop being a shithead and give someone a diabetes-compatible diet.

 

[excelsiorlef]

A father died, a mother lost a husband, 3 children are left fatherless, an entire family, likely devastated...

There is a surprising lack of grey in these arguments being put forth. It's honestly pretty damn disturbing.

It's a medical treatment. We treat prisoners, we give prisoners medical treatment.

That's the end of it. It isn't really grey. Unless you think trans health isn't a medical issue.

 

[Matty77]

A father died, a mother lost a husband, 3 children are left fatherless, an entire family, likely devastated...

There is a surprising lack of grey in these arguments being put forth. It's honestly pretty damn disturbing.

What lack of grey? She murdered someone and the facts of the case led to life in prison. She is in prison, where she belongs.

On the other hand when someone goes to jail or prison regardless of for what or how long the state takes on the burden of their physical and mental well being. Doctors ruled according to medical understanding she needed the surgery so the state provided.


People have to get over their sense of personal justice. In America we punish with incarceration. Not with torture. She is incarcerated and will remain so by American law, any further punishment including denial of medical care is cruel and unusual.

Even prisoners sentenced to death get full amenities and medical care until death is actually applied.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

amazing post

Fantastic job with the comparison. You've done a great job contrasting and asking a very good question.

I'll refrain from speculation, because my suspicions for their divergent reactions are... uncharitable, to say the least.

 

[natsuyasumi]

I'll refrain from speculation, because my suspicions for their divergent reactions are... uncharitable, to say the least.

Please, feel free to unload. We're used to being slandered.

Anyway, it got a fine reply 3 posts before yours.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

A father died, a mother lost a husband, 3 children are left fatherless, an entire family, likely devastated...

There is a surprising lack of grey in these arguments being put forth. It's honestly pretty damn disturbing.

There is no grey. The crime she committed is not worthy of note in this situation, as cold as it may sound; justice has been served and given, the person who commit the crime was found guilty and sentence to life in prison. By doing so, we have given the control and care of the prisoner to the state and they are to follow the guidelines of care as given to the prisoner by the laws and the constitution, including the 8th amendment. To deny her of the only treatment that is proven effective against her medical issue is to deny her of her basic human rights and is completely unconstitutional as it falls to cruel and unusual treatment.

 

[ReAxion]

California's large budget surplus over the coming years makes the money not a problem in the least, concerns on that topic are unfounded.

 

[Filthy Casual]

I just don't understand this world sometimes. Why should anyone give a fuck about this murderer's gender preferences, let alone pay for them to have surgery. What an absolute joke.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I just don't understand this world sometimes. Why should anyone give a fuck about this murderer's gender preferences, let alone pay for them to have surgery. What an absolute joke.

Because it's a medical procedure and prisoners get health care.

It's also not a preference but a core identity.

I don't prefer being female I am female

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I just don't understand this world sometimes. Why should anyone give a fuck about this murderer's gender preferences, let alone pay for them to have surgery. What an absolute joke.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Denying a prisoner an effective medical treatment for their proven medical condition is considered cruel and unusual punishment.

People really have to understand why others are so upset here. That bingo card above displays many of the thoughts and feelings, and many are correct.

Prisoners should not be denied medical treatment that is necessary to live, but there are some that are questionable. Not that some people struggle with this and it impacts them mind you, as it is legit. But, given the circumstances, a different view should be established here. That poor family is going to be further mentally impacted again, even just seeing the name of the convict in the media, let alone the content.

Our systems and budgets need to be adjusted for both law abiding citizens and those who forfeit their rights. Get those who are productive/law abiding the help first.

As I said before, as cold as it is, what that poor family feels is irrelevant to the situation. The person who committed the crime was found guilty and is serving a life sentence. We cannot allow emotion to effect how we treat prisoners, they already got punished and have forfeit a lot of their freedoms as it is, but they are still to be taken care of by the state and have access to basic rights, this includes providing them medical care as not doing so is seen as cruel and unusual punishment.

And as many pointed out, Medicaid in California already covers transgender health. The prisoner is only getting the basic treatment provided by the government.

 

[J-Rzez]

People really have to understand why others are so upset here. That bingo card above displays many of the thoughts and feelings, and many are correct.

Prisoners should not be denied medical treatment that is necessary to live, but there are some that are questionable. Not that some people struggle with this and it impacts them mind you, as it is legit. But, given the circumstances, a different view should be established here. That poor family is going to be further mentally impacted again, even just seeing the name of the convict in the media, let alone the content.

Our systems and budgets need to be adjusted for both law abiding citizens and those who forfeit their rights. Get those who are productive/law abiding the help first.

 

[Enzom21]

Taxpayer money was used. A taxpayer having an opinion on what taxes are spent on is normal.

You live in California?

 

[Dr. Benton Quest]

Sometimes I want to have a discussion with you guys about trans people from a radical feminist perspective but I'm so scared it'll end in a perma for me and others that it's just not worth the risk.

This thread is a graveyard, some completely justified, some less so.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sometimes I want to have a discussion with you guys about trans people from a radical feminist perspective but I'm so scared it'll end in a perma for me and others that it's just not worth the risk.

This thread is a graveyard, some completely justified, some less so.

Would you also love to have conversation about say gay people from the social conservative evangelical Christian perspective?

 

[LordKasual]

There is no grey. The crime she committed is not worthy of note in this situation, as cold as it may sound; justice has been served and given, the person who commit the crime was found guilty and sentence to life in prison. By doing so, we have given the control and care of the prisoner to the state and they are to follow the guidelines of care as given to the prisoner by the laws and the constitution, including the 8th amendment.

What lack of grey? She murdered someone and the facts of the case led to life in prison. She is in prison, where she belongs.

On the other hand when someone goes to jail or prison regardless of for what or how long the state takes on the burden of their physical and mental well being. Doctors ruled according to medical understanding she needed the surgery so the state provided.


People have to get over their sense of personal justice. In America we punish with incarceration. Not with torture. She is incarcerated and will remain so by American law, any further punishment including denial of medical care is cruel and unusual.

Even prisoners sentenced to death get full amenities and medical care until death is actually applied.

My issue with the lack of "grey" here is in understanding the perspective of others. I don't know why people are throwing around the word "transphobic" or "nazi" so easily, like, seriously? Why are people being deliberately obtuse here? If empathy is the name of the game here, it sure is seeming easy to be selective about it. It's not hard to understand the position of people who are against this, no matter how adamant your views on the issue. Namely speaking:

People have to get over their sense of personal justice. In America we punish with incarceration. Not with torture. She is incarcerated and will remain so by American law, any further punishment including denial of medical care is cruel and unusual.

American incarceration may not be unusual at all, but it is cruel, and to some people, might as well be torture.

Straight, grown ass men with medical care get fucked by other men in prison every single day. Many of them on non-violent charges. Nobody in this thread cries for them. Sounds like it should be cruel and unusual to send fucking anyone to prison.

The idea that people may find it absurd that a murderer be given an expensive surgery to match their sex preference before going to prison isn't really all that farfetched. The last thing a family who just had their father murdered gives a dusty fuck about is hearing a "win" on the side of the murderer. They were going to prison anyway. Anything extra is absolutely positively a win. Im sure she knew the internal state of prison before she decided to commit that murder. I'm not going to presume that male prisons are worse than female prisons....but if i had a choice, i certainly wouldn't choose the male one.

There is no grey. The crime she committed is not worthy of note in this situation, as cold as it may sound; justice has been served and given, the person who commit the crime was found guilty and sentence to life in prison.

I agree with you. The law should aim to be objectively fair and reasonably just, and in this specific situation, change has to start somewhere. But you know why it sounds cold? Because suddenly, the american justice system is "working as intended", and murder is "of no note" because we're talking about a subject in which its acceptable to think that way.

Personally, I believe that SRS should be a mandatory thing for trans prisoners...within reason, and if the judge believes it's genuinely what needs to be done. American prisons are horrible places, and i would feel better about humanity as a whole if they didn't exist in the form that they do.

But also speaking personally, I really don't give a fuck about the well-being of my family member's murderer. Especially if it was first degree. They're alive. My family member is dead. I don't believe in hell so prison is the next best thing. Fuck em.

I'm sure the new widow her 3 fatherless children feel the same.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Being trans is not a sex preference.

 

[LordKasual]

Being trans is not a sex preference.

Apologies for the blunder.

But if that's all you took from that, then i see no reason to continue.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Apologies for the blunder.

But if that's all you took from that, then i see no reason to continue.

I've argued against the rest for what you said for 20 pages. You're not really saying anything new.

There's a reason this becomes news and an inmate getting treatment for something else doesn't and it isn't because of the crime she committed.

 

[QuantumSquid]

But also speaking personally, I really don't give a fuck about the well-being of my family member's murderer. Especially if it was first degree. They're alive. My family member is dead. I don't believe in hell so prison is the next best thing. Fuck em.

I'm sure the new widow her 3 fatherless children feel the same.

This is how I feel.