This topic is literally littered with people who believe necessary healthcare for trans individuals isn't essential. It's the #1 response. It's extremely telling how often we have to correct them and they continue their transphobic shit. I already didn't have a high opinion of Gaf's view of trans individuals and this topic really doesn't help with that. It's very telling that many want to restrict healthcare for trans inmates but not for other people. It's also very telling the logic hoops people will jump through to defend denying a trans individual care but not others. It's also distressing how much people who post this transphobic shit think they know better than actual doctor's....and you know, all the trans people who have posted in this topic.
The rest of your post is just more of the same garbage that's been debunked time and again in this topic. You should save everyone the time and just admit you want to shitpost. Seriously this is such a pointless repetitive topic at this point, I don't even see why it's still open. No one seems to want to actually engage with the facts at hand here in regards to trans care.
I don't owe you a response to the entire first paragraph, speaking of shitposting. Take it up with the people who are trying to carve out an argument that specifically denies trans people treatment. That is not me.
The topic is probably still open because people like you are dismissing any contrary opinions on this outcome as transphobia, even when they, as I, have outlined that this is a far more complicated and expansive topic than you are pretending -- especially when you take in how we confer more medical privileges on prisoners than poor people based on an "agency" argument that makes no sense.
Pointing that out isn't shitposting. Ignoring people who point that out and calling that "garbage" is most definitely shitposting. Bye.
Sure, it's okay to find it awful that poor law-abiding people don't get healthcare and prisoners do, but what does this have to do with this specific treatment? It's like LionPride said:
Uh, because it's the OP of the thread and is emblematic of an unjust system that treats poor people badly and those injustices are roiling right under the surface of this story? Do you wanna pretend that trans people haven't posted in this thread about how it stings that they'll have to raise money for their own GRS while the state gives it to murderers for free, or are you about done?
As in intentionally commit a crime specifically to get free GRS.
Nobody said that was happening?
Do you honestly think that if they had denied GRS to this woman that that 20 000k was going to go pay off someone's mortgage? You try and tell me about the "real world" and then argue that this woman getting GRS is preventing the state from helping a random family keep their house? It is a total non sequitur to the topic at hand.
It'll be a non-sequitir the day states have infinite money to spend on health care and poor people are no longer denied their right to treatment. Until then, I don't really care how unlikely you find it that $20k wouldn't do some good elsewhere in California's budget, because I live here, and I can tell you it would, and I can tell you that money is the only thing preventing a lot of good things in this state and in this world from happening.
Again you call it real world and then argue some sort of made up scenario where the state of California's Prison health care budget is 100 000k to prove your point?
I notice you also went straight to cancer. I have constantly compared this to treating something like treating bipolar disorder, it is a much more down to earth comparison.
In 2011 (latest I could find) the State of California spent over 2 million on health care for inmates and that is spent not budget. This surgery was all of 1% of that total 2011 expenditure. She received roughly 6 k more than the yearly average per prisoner expenditure by California, and keep in mind that is average, which means she is likely not the only one who received more than the average.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/07/stateprisonhealthcarespendingreport.pdf
Those are interesting stats, and again I completely support inmate health care in principle, but in practice the hypocrisy of using "poor people have agency" as a societal value that results in their being denied is an unacceptable ordering of priorities.
I live in San Francisco and I see third-world living on the streets on a daily basis. To think that all one of these poor souls would need to do to get medical attention is to
murder somebody is a perversion of human values, but that's the system we offer the destitute. No statement you will ever make about the curative properties of GRS will make that make sense to me. I'm sorry.
Though I noticed you avoided answering my question as to why this is news when prisoners getting other treatments is not.
Because it's an obvious bait attempt to try to draw out a gotcha moment and this isn't even a trans issue to me. Though if you mean, generally "why is this in the news" (and not, "why are you posting here?") it is probably because a) she is the first prisoner in America to receive state-covered GRS, and b) people who aren't in touch with trans issues (not me) generally don't regard GRS as medically necessary.
