http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/chelsea-manning-gender-reassignment-surgery/
I have mixed reactions to this. First, if she wants to be a different gender, I say go for it, but second, it seems unfair that taxpayers should pay the tab just because she is an inmate in prison. Throw into the mix that I personally think her 35 year sentence is cruel and unusual and I actually feel a bit sorry for her plight, but does that mean taxpayers owe her elective surgery? How about breast implants for women in prison? Wouldn't breast implants for women prisoners enhance their feelings of self worth? Shouldn't they be entitled to those too?
I know this story is meant to appeal to controversy. I usually try to avoid getting sucked in by that type of journalism (if indeed, that's what this is), but it seems like an interesting issue that would be beneficial to explore a bit further.
I was on the County Planning Board where I lived in Montana, and one of the more interesting issues that came up was when the County Sherriff asked for supplemental funding. It seems like prisoners in jail had started complaining of things like chest pains or palpitations, and so on, requiring trips to the emergency room, where medical professionals could find nothing wrong with them. Someone asked the Sherriff what was going on, and he speculated that the prisoners seemed to be bored, and wanted to get some time out of jail, and this seems to be how they decided to deal with it.
Oddly, no one seemed upset. The county was responsible for prisoner health, and of course jailers were not qualified to triage the slackers. More oddly, no one knew what to do about it, so we just gave them more money, and that's how we dealt with it. But it seemed weird to me.
Quote from: SGOS on September 13, 2016, 10:35:58 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/chelsea-manning-gender-reassignment-surgery/
I have mixed reactions to this. First, if she wants to be a different gender
Just one correction. She doesn't want to be a different gender. Her gender already is female. What she wants is different sexual parts. Now, I consider Chelsea Manning to be a hero, but I think her prison sentence was the smart move by the government. You want to discourage these people from leaking information like this in the future. I'd call it smart, but at the same time I agree that it is cruel and unusual.
Breast implants for a cis woman are a much different thing than genitalia changing surgery and breast implants for a trans woman. The trans woman has the brain of a female, so they just want their body to match their brain. If they don't get the surgery, it can have dire consequences, cause them to try to kill themselves or constantly think about suicide. When it comes to trans people not in prison, the surgery should absolutely be covered, I'd say for anyone at least 18 years of age (although in some places, it's already the case that people several years younger than 18 can get the surgery). How often do girls attempt suicide because they weren't bought breast implants?
I'd say it probably should be covered for trans people in prison. It makes sense to me. You want to help these people to be rehabilitated, and to be in the best mental state possible when they are released back into society, so I say give them the surgery. Trans people are such a small percentage of the population that the money isn't really going to add up to much.
I personally think that transgenderism, gender dysphoria, is a mental illness and should be treated as such, especially with regards to reassignment surgery. This is cosmetic body modification and shouldn't be covered unless other cosmetic surgery is allow in prison, which it shouldn't be under normal circumstances. I don't agree with the military covering it either. I think allowing this is more of a political move rather than trying to help Manning or other transgender people.
I have a few scars that I'm not especially happy with, one on my face, and I have looked into getting cosmetic surgery for it while in the military and after retiring. I was told no, that it wasn't covered. I've learned to live with them.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 14, 2016, 10:59:54 AM
I personally think that transgenderism, gender dysphoria, is a mental illness and should be treated as such, especially with regards to reassignment surgery. This is cosmetic body modification and shouldn't be covered unless other cosmetic surgery is allow in prison, which it shouldn't be under normal circumstances. I don't agree with the military covering it either. I think allowing this is more of a political move rather than trying to help Manning or other transgender people.
I have a few scars that I'm not especially happy with, one on my face, and I have looked into getting cosmetic surgery for it while in the military and after retiring. I was told no, that it wasn't covered. I've learned to live with them.
I don't feel its a mental illness. Its more like a physical defect. Treating it like a mental illness and trying to cure it would be like trying to find a cure for homosexuality. You cant fix someones gender identity, and I'm not sure theres any merit in trying. The best that can be done for these people is to, as quickly as possible, find a way to alter their sex in a way that is as genuine as possible so that these people can actually match their sex and their gender.
Right now I feel that the techniques available are not even half measures, unconvincing, and carry a great deal of health risk associated with them. We need to get better at this. A lot better.
Materialists don't believe in the psychosomatic. Looking at it non-materialistically ... one could have the right spirit in the wrong body, or the wrong spirit in the right body. And the two have a profound interaction. Compare a man with gynocomastia ;-0
Monist POV would say you don't have either a body or a mind, that is dividing one thing in two that can't be separated. So both the patient and the critics are both wrong.
Quote from: SGOS on September 13, 2016, 10:35:58 PM
I usually try to avoid getting sucked in by that type of journalism (if indeed, that's what this is), but it seems like an interesting issue that would be beneficial to explore a bit further.
And you would be correct. But I don't see that happening with some of the people on this forum. In 3.... 2....
(https://www.xonitek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Train-off-the-rails.jpg)
Quote from: Jack89 on September 14, 2016, 10:59:54 AM
I personally think that transgenderism, gender dysphoria, is a mental illness and should be treated as such, especially with regards to reassignment surgery. This is cosmetic body modification and shouldn't be covered unless other cosmetic surgery is allow in prison, which it shouldn't be under normal circumstances. I don't agree with the military covering it either. I think allowing this is more of a political move rather than trying to help Manning or other transgender people.
I have a few scars that I'm not especially happy with, one on my face, and I have looked into getting cosmetic surgery for it while in the military and after retiring. I was told no, that it wasn't covered. I've learned to live with them.
First of all what you believe is bullshit.
Because you don't think but 'believe' that transgenderism and gender dysphoria is mental illness. Which doesn't really matter if it is or not which also safe to say it is not, because nature is not some perfect religious fairy tale ground producing gender identities or sexual tendencies to heterosexual people's liking. We can argue back and forth all day on the subject, but I doubt yours is about what actually transgenderism or mental illness is according to your chain of strawmen.
Secondly, if you define gender reassignment surgery as 'cosmetics' then you don't know anything about it, nor you are willing to. Go back the first.
Thirdly, comparing the correcting of your scars -doesn't matter how severe they are- with an irrversible complicated surgery someone willing to go under that is going to change their entire body from biological to social level; and their identity which would put them pertty much at risk in the society in many levels is again the following pointer you have no idea what you are talking about. Go back to the first.
:arrow: Fourthly and most importantly, if you think that anything can actually happen without carrying it to a politcial level, without some foundation or a group or an individual in power...etc. profitting-benefitting from it, then you don't know how human societies work. Go back to the first.
Yeah, all that we have left is the first one. It's a form of religious 'thinking' in nature: bullshit.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 15, 2016, 06:30:10 AM
First of all what you believe is bullshit.
Because you don't think but 'believe' that transgenderism and gender dysphoria is mental illness. Which doesn't really matter if it is or not which also safe to say it is not, because nature is not some perfect religious fairy tale ground producing gender identities or sexual tendencies to heterosexual people's liking. We can argue back and forth all day on the subject, but I doubt yours is about what actually transgenderism or mental illness is according to your chain of strawmen.
Secondly, if you define gender reassignment surgery as 'cosmetics' then you don't know anything about it, nor you are willing to. Go back the first.
Thirdly, comparing the correcting of your scars -doesn't matter how severe they are- with an irrversible complicated surgery someone willing to go under that is going to change their entire body from biological to social level; and their identity which would put them pertty much at risk in the society in many levels is again the following pointer you have no idea what you are talking about. Go back to the first.
:arrow: Fourthly and most importantly, if you think that anything can actually happen without carrying it to a politcial level, without some foundation or a group or an individual in power...etc. profitting-benefitting from it, then you don't know how human societies work. Go back to the first.
Yeah, all that we have left is the first one. It's a form of religious 'thinking' in nature: bullshit.
You might try a little more tact rather than emotionally driven outbursts if you want me to take you seriously. And interjecting incorrect suppositions about what I think is not very productive.
Quote from: SGOS on September 13, 2016, 10:35:58 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/chelsea-manning-gender-reassignment-surgery/
How about breast implants for women in prison? Wouldn't breast implants for women prisoners enhance their feelings of self worth? Shouldn't they be entitled to those too?
There is a pitch for a porn-flick if I ever heard one.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 15, 2016, 10:41:44 AM
You might try a little more tact rather than emotionally driven outbursts if you want me to take you seriously. And interjecting incorrect suppositions about what I think is not very productive.
My reaction has nothing to do with emotions, stop projecting. You are the one who is expressing belief and so emotions about this. Your statements are based on a belief and I am saying it is bullshit, because it is bullshit. I haven't supposed anything more than what you wrote up in your post, I also haven't written anything more than what's in your post. I just didn't write up a post 'but.. don't you think this is blah blah and blah blah, dear?'. It is frankly put.
We are in 2016. Definning any gender identity or sexual tendency that is out of traditional norms as 'mental illness' tells about a person's world view and his beliefs rather than his opinion about a specific issue related to the problem.
I am not going to write a long, politically correct post to you about why societies and individuals define certain groups with certain negative labels -as you are doing with the word 'mental illness' - and how they benefit from it. You can learn it if you want.
You also said this is political and nobody's purpose is actually help Manning or transgender people. Of course that's the way it is.
Why would anyone or any group try to help a transgender person unless -they are related to her in some way- OR there is some sort of a benefit or a profit in it? Are you that cut out from real world that you imagine that these things are done because of the goodness out of people's heart in competition of who love the transgender citizens the most in the whole wide world?
I consider Pvt. Manning to be a hero. If this is what Chelsea actually wants, she should get it.
There is a part of me wondering if this is actually what Pvt. Manning wants. The US government has long used "sexual deviancy" as a way to attack people. The news on Manning's condition is almost entirely from the government. I would want to make sure she actually wants it.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on September 24, 2016, 08:52:31 PM
I consider Pvt. Manning to be a hero. If this is what Chelsea actually wants, she should get it.
There is a part of me wondering if this is actually what Pvt. Manning wants. The US government has long used "sexual deviancy" as a way to attack people. The news on Manning's condition is almost entirely from the government. I would want to make sure she actually wants it.
Probably voluntary ... the US isn't yet like Iran, where gay men are given a choice of death, or the more effeminate gay partner gets a transgender operation, to make their union technically acceptable.
Quote from: SGOS on September 13, 2016, 10:35:58 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/chelsea-manning-gender-reassignment-surgery/
I have mixed reactions to this. First, if she wants to be a different gender, I say go for it, but second, it seems unfair that taxpayers should pay the tab just because she is an inmate in prison. Throw into the mix that I personally think her 35 year sentence is cruel and unusual and I actually feel a bit sorry for her plight, but does that mean taxpayers owe her elective surgery?
Manning has more issues than gender. Just reading over the wiki on him/her/whatever indicates there are much deeper problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
Examples from wiki article:
Manning apparently reacted badly when the son [step-brother] changed his surname to Manning too; she [Bradley] started taking running jumps at the walls, telling her mother: "I'm nobody now."
Manning got a job as a developer with a software company, Zoto, and was apparently happy for a time, but was let go after four months. Her [Bradley's] boss told The Washington Post that on a few occasions Manning had "just locked up" and would simply sit and stare, and in the end communication became too difficult.
In March 2006, Manning reportedly threatened her stepmother with a knife during an argument about Manning's failure to get another job; the stepmother called the police and Manning was asked to leave the house.
End quotes. But there is more that indicates this guy has issues beyond gender id. Plus throw in the 35 year sentence and sorry, but I don't think the guy is in a situation to make a rational decision as life altering as reassignment surgery is. So he gets out and is still unhappy and sues the government for allowing the operation???
With good time he could become eligible for parole in like 5 or 6 years now. I think its at least 1/2 an act, attempt to have control over the situation like so many of his other problems have been. He can wait and do it on his own time/dime.
I think the issue of "Should this person that became an inmate because she whisleblew something shitty about our country be given the surgery she wants/needs to be comfortable in her own body"kind of is overshadowing the issue of "this person is an inmate for whisleblowing about a shitty thing regarding our country"
Quote from: PickelledEggs on September 25, 2016, 01:37:40 AM
I think the issue of "Should this person that became an inmate because she whisleblew something shitty about our country be given the surgery she wants/needs to be comfortable in her own body"kind of is overshadowing the issue of "this person is an inmate for whisleblowing about a shitty thing regarding our country"
No. He became an inmate because he broke the law. There is (as far as I know) absolutely no attempt to whistle blow through proper channels. And that appears to be an ongoing issue his entire life. Narcissistic as demonstrated by his reaction to step-brother changing name.
example from wiki linked before:
On December 20, 2009, during a counseling session with two colleagues to discuss her poor time-keeping, Manning was told she would lose her one day off a week for persistent lateness. She responded by overturning a table, damaging a computer that was sitting on it. A sergeant moved Manning away from the weapons rack, and other soldiers pinned her arms behind her back and dragged her out of the room.
Manning said her first contact with WikiLeaks took place in January 2010, when she began to interact with them on IRC and Jabber. On January 5, 2010, Manning downloaded the 400,000 documents that became known as the Iraq War logs.
This one has more issues than gender.
Oh. I thought she was put in jail for while blowing... Never mind
Sent from your mom.
Snowden might not have as many problems, but I suspect he is narcissist too.
Laws have been enacted to protect whistle blowers. The easiest way to circumvent the laws would be to convict her of something else. I actually don't know what she was charged with. Nor do I know what harm she did. When I hear things like "threat to national security" or "treason", my first reaction defaults to "embarrassing government agencies and officials." Not to say she didn't or couldn't harm the country. She could. I just haven't seen the evidence. Nor am I inclined to sift through mountains of evidence and then formulating an opinion as to their validity.
I'm skeptical in the same way I'm skeptical about God. Without evidence, I just don't have a positive belief of her guilt, anymore than I have a belief that God exists. But unlike the god issue, I'm not willing to waste years of my life searching for the truth. And like what I understand about reality and natural laws, what I know about how our system works allows me to understand that a high probability exists that she's just one more victim of the system. She probably is a very difficult person to work with. She doesn't belong in the Military either. But she knows nothing about keeping a low profile, and I assume she is always going to have difficulties in life.
Quote from: chill98 on September 25, 2016, 01:15:00 AM
Manning has more issues than gender. Just reading over the wiki on him/her/whatever indicates there are much deeper problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
With good time he could become eligible for parole in like 5 or 6 years now. I think its at least 1/2 an act, attempt to have control over the situation like so many of his other problems have been. He can wait and do it on his own time/dime.
As far as I know, the government has never paid for this kind of surgery for any one else. Obamacare doesn't even cover dental work. All it does is force people to pay for their own insurance, and insurance never pays for any an all medical bills in the first place. Manning would be receiving extraordinary special treatment, even as an inmate.
Quote from: SGOS on September 25, 2016, 08:22:00 AM
As far as I know, the government has never paid for this kind of surgery for any one else. Obamacare doesn't even cover dental work. All it does is force people to pay for their own insurance, and insurance never pays for any an all medical bills in the first place. Manning would be receiving extraordinary special treatment, even as an inmate.
America is special, because everyone in America is special ... you non-Americans are soo ... jealous!
Quote from: SGOS on September 25, 2016, 08:07:05 AM
Laws have been enacted to protect whistle blowers. The easiest way to circumvent the laws would be to convict her of something else. I actually don't know what she was charged with. Nor do I know what harm she did. When I hear things like "threat to national security" or "treason", my first reaction defaults to "embarrassing government agencies and officials." Not to say she didn't or couldn't harm the country. She could. I just haven't seen the evidence. Nor am I inclined to sift through mountains of evidence and then formulating an opinion as to their validity.
Which is why the wiki post on manning is an interesting read, in part, because wiki tends to lean left on such issues.
From wiki on Manning:
On February 28, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges.[15] Reading for over an hour from a 35-page statement, she said she had leaked the cables "to show the true cost of war." Prosecutors pursued a court-martial on the remaining charges.
So there you have it. Pled guilty and admitted to leaking the cables.
from wiki:
she was acquitted of aiding the enemy.
Quote from: SGOS on September 25, 2016, 08:07:05 AM
But she knows nothing about keeping a low profile, and I assume she is always going to have difficulties in life.
True 'dat. And there are indications throughout the wiki article on why. For example:
Manning after the arrest, said Manning had narcissistic traits, and showed signs of both fetal alcohol syndrome and Asperger syndrome. He said that, in leaking the material, Manning had been "acting out [a] grandiose ideation."
There are plenty of reasons to question whether gender identity is a singular issue or a symptom of something else in Manning.
Quote from: SGOS on September 25, 2016, 08:22:00 AM
Manning would be receiving extraordinary special treatment, even as an inmate.
And then they can transfer him/her to a civilian institution and be rid of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_Cat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder
Edit:
I do not think the above disorders are far removed from gender ID issues.
Stalking cat? That's freaky. The amputee one, not so much.
Interesting topic
Quote from: Baruch on September 25, 2016, 08:05:21 AM
Snowden might not have as many problems, but I suspect he is narcissist too.
Which seems pretty common with transgender persons.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 30, 2016, 03:37:30 PM
Which seems pretty common with transgender persons.
It makes sense ... if your problem revolves around your self image ... that narcissist feelings might be a consequence. I am not claiming that being a narcissist leads you to act out as transgender.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 30, 2016, 03:37:30 PM
Which seems pretty common with transgender persons.
Oh yeah...They are so narcissistic, they risk to spend the rest of their lives with an identity at he bottom of the food chain, making it so difficult they can't even get a normal job or a place in the society, not to mention the risk of surgical operations that might fail, not get fully successful and so on.
That means they are fighters and unconformists. Not narcissists.
Compared to white catholic flock who back lashes out to everything different than them/theirs and see them as a threat to society; create victimisation of their identity at every opportunity with "ME ME ME, everybody is against ME", they are practically real life heroes.
Quote from: Jack89 on September 30, 2016, 03:37:30 PM
Which seems pretty common with transgender persons.
They live in a society that callously asserts that there's something deeply wrong with them. Is it any wonder they focus on themselves a lot? If you got constantly rejected and treated like a freak you would eventually start to wonder if there really was something wrong with you.
Im for a single payer healthcare system
And I view sexual reassignment surgery and some cosmetic ones for transgender people as extremely important for dealing with gender dysphoria.