Lucrece wrote:It's nice to see you dismissing people's identities as frail or insecure. I suppose when women suffering from cancer suffer from hair loss, you'd happily call them insecure as well. I didn't say surgery for trans people was a joke or even frivolous (unlike you, who feel the right to determine what people should and should not experience depression and anxiety over and how much importance we should assign it).
All I said is that full transition IS expensive, and in a system where they won't even pay for the psych costs of prisoners, it's not unreasonable to find that our system will not cover other procedures related to psychological health. I made the point specifically about dental issues often not finding coverage for that reason (people don't see the objective benefit, as they don't with therapy and other psychological treatments, so they don't want to foot the bill for it).
Yeah, bullshit's the right word.
You specifically the gender reassignment a cosmetic surgery, expressed incredulity at the system footing the bill for it, and compared it to the issue for bald men in general
. You even talked argued about it being "if
" it's for their psychological wellbeing, as if that wasn't settled science. Your tone was pretty clearly denigrating the gender reassignment surgery as "cosmetic", and your final line was "Who are you convincing to cough up some money?", which, excuse me, doesn't really sound like you saying "this is something that should
As for "dismissing people's identities as frail an insecure", you were the one talking about people having image problems due to common ailments:
And why don't we cover bald men, who no doubt suffer psychological and social effects just as well
(Notice you said "men", so drop the act about me going after "women suffering from cancer")
And I replied that, well, yeah, if a doctor deemed that the person was
dangerously insecure over their going bald ('cause that's what it's called when you feel so ashamed over something that you are suffering from it, "insecure"), they probably would
prescribe either therapy, medication, or surgery to help that, so whence all this false outrage. If "cosmetic" surgery, as you call it, is what's required for someone's psychological wellbeing, most doctors would recommend it unless it was an addiction or something.
So: that is absolutely not what you said, as you expressly called it cosmetic and expressed incredulity at the "system" paying for it.
And: I replied that, contrary to your slippery slope arguments, if someone was suffering no matter the condition, their doctor is likely to help even if society would consider it "frivolous", and added that gender dysmorphia is absolutely a real condition whose sufferers should not be treated as just getting "cosmetic surgery".
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.