Transgender operations insurable? Beyond Hilarious

[Black Dog]

No - I am saying that mental illnesses can/should be generally be managed mentally.

I am not sold on your assessment of transgenderism as a primarily mental illness. But even if we accept that, you should have some evidence that mental therapy is as effective as any other medical intervention. I'll wait.

You are asking that someone show that 1+1=2. It true because it defined to be.

Nonsense. "It works because it works" is a tautology. Be better.

More strawmen: one can be gay yet not be in gay relationships so at that level living as gay person IS a lifestyle choice.

If one is gay but not in a homosexual relationship, one is still gay. Being celibate is also a lifestyle choice, but it's not an identity (unless one is asexual).

What is unreasonable is expecting a person to change who they are sexually attracted to and people expecting prayer to change that are completely misguided. The argument that gays have is there is no rational reason for them to not choose to live as a gay person. This argument does not apply to a transgender seeking an invasive, irreversible surgery.

Actually it does since there's no rational argument against people choosing whatever means are necessary for fulfillment beyond the arbitrary line you've drawn against so-called "cosmetic" surgeries (a line, it's worth pointing out, you have no problem crossing in other cases).

People with mental illnesses can do serious damage to their body and they simply accept it.

No idea what this means.

The fact that a mentally ill person chooses to damage their body is not evidence that it is best way to manage the illness.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you're obsessed with the process. No consideration is given for the outcomes at all. You have some real issues around this, it's clear.

It should be obvious that radical, irreversible interventions are much less preferable than purely mental interventions.

It should also be obvious that this is the case only when the less radical interventions are equally effective. And yet...

Edited January 7, 2015 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

Preferable, if equally effective.

What are you talking about? It's preferable, god dammit, because TimG says so. TimG knows what's best for dem trannies and he's going to tell them.

[Bonam]

What are you talking about? It's preferable, god dammit, because TimG says so. TimG knows what's best for dem trannies and he's going to tell them.

Ah yes, the voice of reason. Thank you for your contribution.

[cybercoma]

Ah yes, the voice of reason. Thank you for your contribution.

Please. The only person using reason and logic is Black Dog and you seem to be struggling with that. So don't sit here and criticize my sarcasm as if you've been dropping pearls of wisdom here.

[Keepitsimple]

Please. The only person using reason and logic is Black Dog and you seem to be struggling with that. So don't sit here and criticize my sarcasm as if you've been dropping pearls of wisdom here.

I'd be careful about throwing your hat in the Black Dog ring. While there will always be varying opinions on these issues, Black Dog's position shows absolutely no empathy for those that are afflicted/conflicted. He treats the radical, one-way street of Transgender body modification as if it were a cure - and the first resort for anyone who has thoughts that they may be more female than male or vice-versa - when it should be the last resort. I'll restate from my previous post:

Like many mental conditions - it's not about "curing" - it's about coping. It's about acknowledging and accepting the condition and finding ways to adapt. Chronic depression/anxiety, alcoholism, anorexia - are all conditions that can and do have devastating effects on the lives of vast numbers of people. Most are never "cured" - but they effectively learn to cope and live relatively normal lives. As with other mental conditions, therapies are available (or should be) to help identify, quantify, evaluate and treat the condition and develop coping mechanisms. While it's true that the radical, extreme measure of body alteration is available - it should be the very, very last resort - one that the best advice should be obtained to ensure reasonable success that the underlying mental condition would be resolved - or quality of life greatly improved.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

It's pretty clear that he thinks people should be free to seek the treatment that they feel is the most appropriate themselves, as opposed to the treatment that others want to impose on others.

[TimG]

It should also be obvious that this is the case only when the less radical interventions are equally effective. And yet...

And you can't seem to stop contradicting yourself. A few posts back you were insisting that sex changes were only used after a long process of trying other things - an argument that presumes that other things are worth trying. You also rejected my anecdotal evidence that people are too quick to turn to these radical interventions. Now you are suggesting that surgeries intervention are a preferred solution because they "more effective" even though you have zero evidence to support that assertion. You can get whiplash from such reversals.

I think at the core of this disagreement is a fundamentally different view of how humans work. When I deal with recovering addicts they have one common thing: they all are people who are physiological different from normal people in the way they react to certain chemicals - differences that are in part genetic. They all spent years wallowing and complaining about how badly the world treated them (and some cases were victims of serious crimes/abuse). And lastly: they all made a CHOICE to leave that thinking behind and take responsibility for their own happiness. They accepted the principal that being happy is a choice - it is not something that depends on what others will do for you.

For this reason I simply do not accept the premise that someone with a physiological condition where their gender is different from their biological sex cannot learn to be happy with their body as is. If someone is not happy it is because they choose to be not happy just like a clean/sober addict chooses to pick up the next drink/drug that starts a relapse. As with addicts, this does not mean people should not be given support, assistance and sympathy since their current condition was triggered by factors which they had no control of. But there is a fine line between offering support and enabling the negative behaviors and enabling the negative behaviors can do more harm than good. I see putting sex changes forward as a "medical solution" to what is fundamentally a mental problem as an enabling behavior that discourages people from making the choice to live with the body they have. It should be self evident that invasive, irreversible medical interventions should be avoided because such interventions always come with risks and side effects (even if they are downplayed by activists).

Edited January 8, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

I'd be careful about throwing your hat in the Black Dog ring. While there will always be varying opinions on these issues, Black Dog's position shows absolutely no empathy for those that are afflicted/conflicted. He treats the radical, one-way street of Transgender body modification as if it were a cure - and the first resort for anyone who has thoughts that they may be more female than male or vice-versa - when it should be the last resort. I'll restate from my previous post:

Nice strawman. It has absolutely no basis in anything I've written on this subject. Run along now.

[Black Dog]

And you can't seem to stop contradicting yourself. A few posts back you were insisting that sex changes were only used after a long process of trying other things - an argument that presumes that other things are worth trying. You also rejected my anecdotal evidence that people are too quick to turn to these radical interventions. Now you are suggesting that surgeries intervention are a preferred solution because they "more effective" even though you have zero evidence to support that assertion. You can get whiplash from such reversals.

Uh, it's implicit in my argument that someone deciding on surgery would do so after finding other methods to be inadequate. No reversal there, and indeed, I have no idea how you'd come to that interpretation, except as a desperate attempt at a "gotcha".

As for the lack of evidence, that's rich coming from Mr. "therapy is best because I say it's the best."

I think at the core of this disagreement is a fundamentally different view of how humans work.

The core of this disagreement is you think your experiences in one area of mental health makes you an expert in all. The notion that there's a one sized fits all solution to all mental illnesses that boils down to "choose to be happy" is farcical. One would never suggest such a thing to a paranoid schizophrenic suffering from violent delusions, for example.

But there is a fine line between offering support and enabling the negative behaviors and enabling the negative behaviors can do more harm than good.

There's no evidence that medical interventions up to and including surgery do more harm than good. Quite the opposite:

Caroll (1999:128) reviewed "the empirical research on the psychosocialoutcomes of treatment for gender dysphoria" and concluded "the large body of research on the outcome of gender reassignment surgery indicates that, for the majority of those who undergo this process, the outcome is positive." Kuiper and Cohen-Kettenis (1988: 439) also concluded "that there is no reason to doubt the therapeutic effect of sex reassignment surgery." The incidence of postoperative regret is generally extremely low (Pfäfflin (1992) found less than 1% in Female-to-Males and 1–1.5% in Male-to-Females.

Back to you.

I see putting sex changes forward as a "medical solution" to what is fundamentally a mental problem as an enabling behavior that discourages people from making the choice to live with the body they have.

And why should people make such a choice if there are alternatives available? You've never answered that.

It should be self evident that invasive, irreversible medical interventions should be avoided because such interventions always come with risks and side effects (even if they are downplayed by activists).

I'm willing to bet that most doctors and most people seeking such surgeries are aware of the risks involved. More than you are. The idea you keep advancing that people are easily led into undertaking such expensive, time-consuming and invasive procedures by peer pressure or "activists" betrays a pretty dim view of the level of agency these individuals possess.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Black Dog

[Keepitsimple]

Nice strawman. It has absolutely no basis in anything I've written on this subject. Run along now.

It is pretty well the entire basis of what you have been writing. Here's a fairly concise example example of what you've said - in a reply to Tim's approach of various treatments/therapies first, surgury as a last resort - which I happen to agree with. Your statement implicity says that your preferred approach is surgury.

You've never once answered the question of why that should be the preferred approach. Indeed, I've asked many times across different threads and ...nothin'.

[Black Dog]

It is pretty well the entire basis of what you have been writing.

To a dim bulb, sure.

Here's a fairly concise example example of what you've said - in a reply to Tim's approach of various treatments/therapies first, surgury as a last resort - which I happen to agree with. Your statement implicity says that your preferred approach is surgury.

You've never once answered the question of why that should be the preferred approach. Indeed, I've asked many times across different threads and ...nothin'.

A creative interpretation, at best.

It's pretty clear my belief is that surgery is one option that should be on the table. This stuff about first choice or last resort is all beside the point: the important thing, as I continue to emphasize, is the outcome for the patient.

[Big Guy]

I believe that euthanasia, abortion, birth control, transgender surgery et al are between the person and their doctor.

[cybercoma]

I believe that euthanasia, abortion, birth control, transgender surgery et al are between the person and their doctor.

Are there any medical interventions that aren't between a doctor and their patient? The point here is about coverage.

[TimG]

I believe that euthanasia, abortion, birth control, transgender surgery et al are between the person and their doctor.

Ah no. Euthanasia must involve the family as part of the process to prevent abuse. If the person is a minor then any medical discussions must involve the parents/guardians.

[Guest]

I believe that euthanasia, abortion, birth control, transgender surgery et al are between the person and their doctor.

Agreed. If by euthanasia, you mean voluntary. As in assisted suicide.

[Big Guy]

Well, it appears that Russia somewhat agrees with TimG that transgender is a mental disorder. It has placed it into the "mental and behavioural disorder" category making transgender people unqualified to drive a car.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2015/01/russia-says-transsexuals-unfit-drive-20151922571992331.html

I am not sure if that reinforces his argument or takes away from it.