5 ms·

As a transwoman I haven't been able to afford any surgery. I'm hopeful that eventually society realizes luxury & cosmetic are just added terms to discriminate a

• jacquesm 9y ago
  There is a bit of a difference between being transsexual and having your limbs amputated as the result of an armed robbery.
  • thinkpad20 9y ago
    She never claimed that they were equivalent. The disparity in quality of health care for transgender people in this country is well-documented and stems from many of the same reasons as the situation described in this article.
• vinceguidry 9y ago
  The problem with that logic is where does it end? Should anyone who wants anything from anyone be able to claim it?
  • fzeroracer 9y ago
    The same could be said of any medical treatment. I've known people that believe drug addicts deserve zero treatment because it's all their fault. Same with people that did something stupid and got severely injured. 'Where does it end' isn't much of an argument. Instead we should be asking how should we determine where the line is and I believe the answer is simple: If it can be determined that it would result in a significant QoL increase then it should be covered in most cases. A transgender person receiving hormone therapy or reassignment therapy is an example. A victim who lost their nose in an accident and wants to mend their face is another.
    • vinceguidry 9y ago
      > If it can be determined that it would result in a significant QoL increase then it should be covered in most cases. I don't argue that there shouldn't be a line. It's just a very fine one with lots of edge cases.
  • frandroid 9y ago
    It should end at treating medical conditions. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition.
    • vinceguidry 9y ago
      So, if some company creates a really really expensive medical treatment, are they all of a sudden on the hook to providing it to the whole nation?
      • fzeroracer 9y ago
        Yes? In an ideal society the company would create the treatment and the government would foot the bill for the citizens, followed by costs lowering over time as new advancements are made. There are already a bunch of extremely expensive treatments for diseases and afflictions that affect a small portion of the population. Some of which are fatal if not treated. Should they be expected to just die because the treatment is as you said 'really really expensive'?
        • vinceguidry 9y ago
          The first country that does that, I'm going to move to and make a $1,000,000 treatment that doesn't work and wait for the first idiot to get the government to pay for it. People need to appreciate how hard fraud is to circumvent in anything where government largesse is involved.
          • fzeroracer 9y ago
            A large amount of countries already exist that do that. Cancer treatments can easily cost that amount depending on the cancer, never mind some of the more esoteric diseases. You argue that it's easy to 'fraud' the government in this case, ignoring the amount of regulation and steps that have to be taken in order for a treatment to actually be put into practice. And you conveniently ignored my point on how what you suggested is essentially advocating for people to die if a treatment is too expensive.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]