Why should I pay for YOUR sex change?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by paulisdead, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. paulisdead Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Some believe that sex changes should be paid for by insurance companies and medicare, but isn't it nothing more than a cosmetic surgery, or is a psychological disorder that can only be cured with hormonal implants and surgery?
    -Dan
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,217
    Hmmm... interesting question... I think it really is more of cosmetic surgery because I tend to tie in the desire to become the opposite sex with the same fetish that women or men have to become more of their respective sexes (i.e., breast implants, "male enhancement")
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Imperfectionist Pope Humanzee the First Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    Because if you don't, the desire to change can be so strong, that people go to more risky places to have it done, and that can be bad for their health. It's so rare, that insurance companies should pay for it, it's not like it will bankrupt them. The angst from not being able to get it done is bad for the nation, it could force people to raise the money illegally.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    So why should the rest of us give a shit?? Are we all supposed to be "Thy Brother's Keeper" for every-fuckin'-one on the fuckin' planet?? Damn, that attitude pisses me off to no end!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Obviously basic human decency is ruled out with you Baron. So how about penny wise and pound foolish? An otherwise healthy, happy person who has a good paying job is so desperate to make their body match their mental image that they resort to illegal and unsafe surgery. The operation is botched, and they end up being treated at taxpayer expense in a public hospital. Perhaps they end up disabled from the complications, and now have to live on public assistance. Or, after running up many thousands of dollars in the intensive care ward, they die. Resulting in an untold amount of lost potential revenue to the state.

    Many transsexuals live on the streets (after being thrown out by narrow minded parents) and support themselves by prostitution. Some have even used prostitution to pay for gender reassignment surgery. Is this how a sane and just society treats people?

    Why should I pay for YOUR invasion of Iraq?
     
  9. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    well, apenidx removals should be covered by the government before sex changes. although some money does have to go towards mental health, rodney hide and don brash could suer use some of that before they go trying to cut taxes
     
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, ...but FORCED human decency is!! If you, with such a doo-gooder heightened sense of human decency, want to pay for someone's sex-change operation, please, please do so, but don't FORCE me to do it. And by using my tax dollars, that's precisely what ye're doing ...FORCING me to pay for it. I don't like that.

    Good for them! People should always work and save their money for the things that they want. Prostitution is a good, steady, profitable job.

    Baron Max
     
  11. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    Yeah, good one Baron.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Aside from the drugs, crime, violence, exploitation and disease, prostitution is a good job.<P>
     
  12. Imperfectionist Pope Humanzee the First Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    Why should anyone give a shit about you? Build your own damn bridges, highways, and stop signs then, generate your own electricity, and if you should ever get hit with a hurricane or a fire, well, that's just God's will, tough shit.
     
  13. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    It should be evaluated on a case by case basis, but uninsured by default.

    Fetishes aren't the only reason one might choose to have the operation (two-sexed,hormonal problem, etc)
     
  14. J.B Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,281
    Having a sex change is as natural as homosexuality.

    And because it it is just a natural part of life we should all be happy to pay for it.

    Don't the future look great?
     
  15. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, I don't think they should! I'm nothing to most of the people on Earth, there's virtually no reason for them to care for me.

    And that's just the point ...if everyone would just concern themselves with ONLY those that they know and love and want and need, then everyone on Earth would be well cared for. But, no, you, and people like you, want everyone to care for everyone else ....and that usually means that no one cares for anyone! (...except they SAY they care! ...which ain't the same thing, is it?)

    So you equate those issues with sex change operations??? ...LOL!

    Baron Max
     
  16. Imperfectionist Pope Humanzee the First Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    So, your recipe for a compassionate society is selfishness? Give me a break. I was trying to make a point, we all chip in to make life better for everyone (I'm talking about the US), and that includes infrastructure, and institutions like firefighters, but medical insurance isn't even a government guarantee. You could make the argument that solving a person's personal medical needs make society better for everyone, since we can't just stay in our gated communities all the time. I would support taxes to pay for people's sex change operations, but that's not even the issue. we assume these people have insurance already, so they are paying for this service, why shouldn't they get treatment for a condition that isn't just cosmetic for them? It's not vanity, but a deep psychological need, not unlike getting a wart removed, which I assume is paid for by insurance. What other services are paid for by insurance that aren't life threatening? Cancer? If it's benign, why take it out?

    Why pay for a breast prosthesis after mastectomy if it's just cosmetic? Because women have a deep psychological need to feel whole. That's not very different than the few people that suffer from feeling they have been born the wrong sex.
     
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I don't think I was advocating being selfish at all! In fact quite the contrary ...if all people took good care of those that are close to them, we'd not have ANYONE who wasn't well cared for, would we? And in so doing, I'd not have to give any of my money to YOU or YOUR loved ones .....you'd be taking good care of them, right? If one of YOUR loved ones wanted a sex change operation, YOU pay for it ....why make me do that when I don't even know, let alone love them?! It makes no sense.

    There's a bit of the ol' "Mind your own damned business!" in that, but it's not such bad advice, is it? Why should you mind MY business? That part I ain't figured out yet!

    Baron Max
     
  18. weed_eater_guy It ain't broke, don't fix it! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    First of all, i agree, cosmetic surgery in any case shouldn't be insurance-covered when that money can go to a person with real problems ("I think i'm supposed to be a woman" compared to "I think my kidneys are going to fail and I'm only 10").

    Baron max, that same philosophy you mentioned is why you'll give your neighbor a car cause he wanted it real bad, but you don't give a damn about a starving child thousands of miles away in Africa, who could actually use the charity. That's probably not your opinion on THAT situation, who doesn't get a little weepy when they see a care.org commercial, but i'm throwing your idea of "take care of those close to you" back at you. It creates isolationism, leading to nasty things like poverty. Unfortunately, though this idea shouldn't be advocated, it is pretty much a solid part of human nature. That's life...

    While on the subject of global effects, some say overpopulation is becoming a problem (i don't subscribe, but that's just me). Perhaps our money going into homosexual cosmetic surgery would help advocate homosexuality, reducing the number of child-bearing peoples, lowering the birth rate! Wouldn't that make a great psy-fact: the natural human macro-social responce to global overpopulation is to start turning homosexual...
     
  19. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, I don't think so. For one thing, you're assuming that the "someone" that we care for and are willing to help is someone close in miles, that's not necessarily so. I.e., I care for a person in Russia who I met in the Army over 30 years ago ...I'd be perfectly willing to help him if he were in need. That surely isn't isolationism.

    A manufacturer in California, who uses raw material from a guy in Mexico, would, by necessity, be "close" to that man. And that would also lead to helping him in his hour of need. You might say that's selfish, but isn't all charity somewhat selfish? ...people throw money into the cups so they can say that cared, so they can feel good about themselves (even if they only gave a penny!).

    But I'll also say that isolationism doesn't LEAD to "nasty things like poverty". I am curious how you came to that conclusion?

    I think one of the issues that's difficult for people to grasp is that, while we, the United States, sent billions to the tsunami victims, millions of our own citizens were and are suffering from poverty and disease and lack of housing and lack of schools. If we EACH were to help those close to us, the world would be a better place. We have people right here who are so proud of sending money to the tsunami effort, but can't see and/or refuse to help those only a few miles away!! And we call that charity? We call that helping those in need? No, it's media frenzy and the selfish, feel good attitudes.

    You help your friend Joe, I'll help my friend Mike, ....and if everyone did it, the world would be a much better place and by far more friendly.

    Baron Max
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, not at all. I wouldn't have to worry about "giving a damn", because I would know that someone else in Africa would already be taking care of that starving child. See? You're assuming that I'm the only one capable of helping that kid, and that's patently false ...it's also a way of making people feel bad so they'll give money to someone thousands of miles away, yet won't help someone right in their own neighborhood!

    Baron Max
     
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Since this is something that is an individuals choice, but something that is not needed to live, then I would think that those who want it done pay for it themselves.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2005
  22. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    by that you are assuming that there are enough people who are capable of giving help,look at how wealth is distributed throughout the world and even in western society.it doesnt work like that.and what about orphans?people without friends?
     
  23. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    I do not believe society should pay for anything but essential surgery, and then only when the person in question is a contributing member of society.

    :m:
     

Share This Page