Should trans people be allowed to receive free reassignment surgery on the NHS?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by cherryred90s
What I am saying is in reference to someone who quoted me saying that surgery for a burns patients is cosmetic and comparable to gender reassignment surgery, well it's not. The reason is that the surgery they undergo often includes skin grafts to reconstruct the affected area in order to make it look as if they had never been burned in the first place. It is to resemble a normal appearance
A trans person may have a body that they are unhappy with. Their genitalia hasn't been damaged in any way, they can still have children etc, but they would just prefer that it could be altered into something that they would be much happier with. This is where I start comparing such surgeries to the likes of a boob job. Let's take a woman with 32b cup breasts. Her breasts are perfectly fine, no inverted nipples, no scarring, no lumps/tumours, no infections. She's just as capable as a woman with 36DD cups to effectively breastfeed her future children. Her issue is that she's unhappy with the size of her breasts, so much so that it depresses her and she would be happy with a bigger cup. should she have the surgery if she believes it would make her happier? Yes. Should she expect the tax payer to fund it? No. This is how I feel about gender reassignment surgery.
A trans person may have a body that they are unhappy with. Their genitalia hasn't been damaged in any way, they can still have children etc, but they would just prefer that it could be altered into something that they would be much happier with. This is where I start comparing such surgeries to the likes of a boob job. Let's take a woman with 32b cup breasts. Her breasts are perfectly fine, no inverted nipples, no scarring, no lumps/tumours, no infections. She's just as capable as a woman with 36DD cups to effectively breastfeed her future children. Her issue is that she's unhappy with the size of her breasts, so much so that it depresses her and she would be happy with a bigger cup. should she have the surgery if she believes it would make her happier? Yes. Should she expect the tax payer to fund it? No. This is how I feel about gender reassignment surgery.
Ah, I see. I think we're making a similar point then
Original post by CleverLilViper
The simple answer? No. There's so many necessary treatments that aren't
available on the NHS due to lack of funding, including a treatment for MS that
alleviates *******ity in its sufferers.
available on the NHS due to lack of funding, including a treatment for MS that
alleviates *******ity in its sufferers.
TSR won't even allow you to mention *******ity.
.
Original post by |Jacob| ye^
It sounds to me that being stuck in a body you don't feel is yours would be like hell, day in day out of not getting to be you. Your sex is one of the most basic things about life, it definitely should be changed for free if it's wrong
Why? Why is it of medical importance for the tax payers to fund this? Is the NHS
not stretched thin enough as it is without adding unnecessary cosmetic
procedures to the list of things on offer?
"Not getting to be you." This phrase struck me for some reason. What about
their genitalia is keeping them from being themselves? If you're in a body, that
you don't feel is yours (key word-feel) shouldn't the logical decision be to seek
mental help for this situation rather than seeking irreversible surgeries and
being pumped full of cancer-inducing drugs?
I can't count the number of older Trans people who have been so vocal AGAINST
transition, and their tales are tragic. They, too, thought that all they needed to
be cured was to transition to this "new" body, and voila, fixed! The reality was
much different. For one, he realised that after having the full surgery, and losing
his wife, what he actually had was a mental illness and that was what was
needed to be treated, not the physical symptoms of the illness.
For some, physical transition does help. That does not mean it should come free
on the NHS.
Original post by dingleberry jam
TSR won't even allow you to mention *******ity.
.
.
Unfortunately the censored bit of that word is rarely used to describe a medical symptom and is instead used as an insult (and given TSR doesn't allow insults it makes sense that it's in the filter).
Original post by dingleberry jam
TSR won't even allow you to mention *******ity.
.
.
Yep. Won't even let me say the correct medical term for a symptom that MS (and
sufferers of other diseases) suffer from.
Wouldn't want to impact their safe space, right?
Original post by biglad2k16
I know it already exists on the Nhs but is it appropriate or is it a waste of money?
It's worse than a waste of money. It's a moral and ethical catastrophe. There is no evidence that surgery reduces suicide rates - quite the opposite in fact. Surgery has no effect on mortality, which incidentally is extremely high. About 40% of people with Gender Identity Disorder try to top themselves, which is comparable only to Jews in Nazi Germany (if you don't count the mentally ill).
I'm a libertarian, broadly speaking. I don't care what you do. If you really have to cut your genitals up, then crack on. But when you deal with people who are mentally ill, you have to take a different tack. They can't take full responsibility for their own health and so it's the responsibility of society at large to support them. Mutilating their bodies doesn't help people with GID - it makes self-styled "trans allies" feel good about themselves. They're convinced that they're on the frontier of a new civil rights battle, but they've got blood on their hands.
Future generations will wonder how we could ever have been so cruel as to treat the mentally unwell with such disregard for our own gratification.
Original post by Fizzel
They need treatment, as rates of depression and suicide are high. You've basically got one option of treating a mental illness for years, and with poor results. The other option is surgery which has far better results and can provide a satisfactory result for the patient in much shorter timescale.
Its expensive but the cost of alcohol and people eating themselves to a state of near immobilisation are far more with a patient's control and far more expensive. Any keyboard-accountants should be taking aim at those areas first.
When you consider annual population increase, and the fact trans people are 0.3% of that, as a cost saving
measure its pretty pathetic in a £120bn budget.
Its expensive but the cost of alcohol and people eating themselves to a state of near immobilisation are far more with a patient's control and far more expensive. Any keyboard-accountants should be taking aim at those areas first.
When you consider annual population increase, and the fact trans people are 0.3% of that, as a cost saving
measure its pretty pathetic in a £120bn budget.Aren't the rates of suicide high even after surgery?
Original post by CleverLilViper
The simple answer? No. There's so many necessary treatments that aren't
available on the NHS due to lack of funding, including a treatment for MS that
alleviates *******ity in its sufferers. MS sufferers can't get this very necessary
treatment on the NHS-so why should a medically unnecessary procedure be on
the NHS?
There's been multiple studies (including one conducted by the man that pioneered
the treatment at John Hopkins in America) that found that SRS does not actually
help trans people at all. The rates of suicide are in fact higher post-surgery.
Gender dysphoria is and should be treated as a mental health disorder. We're
moving towards a dangerous place right now. Feeding dangerous drugs (which
can cause various cancers and lead to infertility) to people, and encouraging
people to have life-changing and irreversible surgeries rather than actually treating
the underlying illness. Instead of treating the illness, we treat the symptom which will only alleviate the problem temporarily.
available on the NHS due to lack of funding, including a treatment for MS that
alleviates *******ity in its sufferers. MS sufferers can't get this very necessary
treatment on the NHS-so why should a medically unnecessary procedure be on
the NHS?
There's been multiple studies (including one conducted by the man that pioneered
the treatment at John Hopkins in America) that found that SRS does not actually
help trans people at all. The rates of suicide are in fact higher post-surgery.
Gender dysphoria is and should be treated as a mental health disorder. We're
moving towards a dangerous place right now. Feeding dangerous drugs (which
can cause various cancers and lead to infertility) to people, and encouraging
people to have life-changing and irreversible surgeries rather than actually treating
the underlying illness. Instead of treating the illness, we treat the symptom which will only alleviate the problem temporarily.
Original post by jape
It's worse than a waste of money. It's a moral and ethical catastrophe. There is no evidence that surgery reduces suicide rates - quite the opposite in fact. Surgery has no effect on mortality, which incidentally is extremely high. About 40% of people with Gender Identity Disorder try to top themselves, which is comparable only to Jews in Nazi Germany (if you don't count the mentally ill).
I'm a libertarian, broadly speaking. I don't care what you do. If you really have to cut your genitals up, then crack on. But when you deal with people who are mentally ill, you have to take a different tack. They can't take full responsibility for their own health and so it's the responsibility of society at large to support them. Mutilating their bodies doesn't help people with GID - it makes self-styled "trans allies" feel good about themselves. They're convinced that they're on the frontier of a new civil rights battle, but they've got blood on their hands.
Future generations will wonder how we could ever have been so cruel as to treat the mentally unwell with such disregard for our own gratification.
I'm a libertarian, broadly speaking. I don't care what you do. If you really have to cut your genitals up, then crack on. But when you deal with people who are mentally ill, you have to take a different tack. They can't take full responsibility for their own health and so it's the responsibility of society at large to support them. Mutilating their bodies doesn't help people with GID - it makes self-styled "trans allies" feel good about themselves. They're convinced that they're on the frontier of a new civil rights battle, but they've got blood on their hands.
Future generations will wonder how we could ever have been so cruel as to treat the mentally unwell with such disregard for our own gratification.
Original post by YaliaV
Aren't the rates of suicide high even after surgery?
Sorry but you're falling for poor reporting of the available studies
http://genderanalysis.net/2015/09/paul-mchugh-is-wrong-transitioning-is-effective-gender-analysis-10/
Original post by Mathemagicien
Ah... so is this why transgenderism and feminism are at odds, @zippyRN ?
the trans community and mainstream feminism are not at odds, it;s only the dried up old fossils of the 2nd wave and their acoylytes that are trying to cause problems , but the 2nd wave are about as relevant to feminism in contemporary culture as trotskyites are to government or even social democratic / socialist policy making ...
Original post by jape
It's worse than a waste of money. It's a moral and ethical catastrophe. There is no evidence that surgery reduces suicide rates - quite the opposite in fact. Surgery has no effect on mortality, which incidentally is extremely high. About 40% of people with Gender Identity Disorder try to top themselves, which is comparable only to Jews in Nazi Germany (if you don't count the mentally ill).
I'm a libertarian, broadly speaking. I don't care what you do. If you really have to cut your genitals up, then crack on. But when you deal with people who are mentally ill, you have to take a different tack. They can't take full responsibility for their own health and so it's the responsibility of society at large to support them. Mutilating their bodies doesn't help people with GID - it makes self-styled "trans allies" feel good about themselves. They're convinced that they're on the frontier of a new civil rights battle, but they've got blood on their hands.
Future generations will wonder how we could ever have been so cruel as to treat the mentally unwell with such disregard for our own gratification.
I'm a libertarian, broadly speaking. I don't care what you do. If you really have to cut your genitals up, then crack on. But when you deal with people who are mentally ill, you have to take a different tack. They can't take full responsibility for their own health and so it's the responsibility of society at large to support them. Mutilating their bodies doesn't help people with GID - it makes self-styled "trans allies" feel good about themselves. They're convinced that they're on the frontier of a new civil rights battle, but they've got blood on their hands.
Future generations will wonder how we could ever have been so cruel as to treat the mentally unwell with such disregard for our own gratification.
so what do you propose instead ? 'Conversion Therapy' and other forms of torture which are discredited and no scientific basis ?
Original post by PQ
Sorry but you're falling for poor reporting of the available studies
http://genderanalysis.net/2015/09/paul-mchugh-is-wrong-transitioning-is-effective-gender-analysis-10/
http://genderanalysis.net/2015/09/paul-mchugh-is-wrong-transitioning-is-effective-gender-analysis-10/
I'm really going to listen to a site that is clearly biased towards transition, aren't I?
Original post by zippyRN
so what do you propose instead ? 'Conversion Therapy' and other forms of torture which are discredited and no scientific basis ?
I don't know. The first thing would be to acknowledge the reality of this issue as being a mental health one, which would remove the stigma of bigotry associated with researching alternative treatments. One thing I do know is that just because we don't have a concrete alternative, that does not automatically mean that we should continue with the expensive, horrific campaign of bodily disfigurement we have already embarked upon.
Original post by CleverLilViper
I can't count the number of older Trans people who have been so vocal AGAINST
transition, and their tales are tragic. They, too, thought that all they needed to
be cured was to transition to this "new" body, and voila, fixed! The reality was
much different. For one, he realised that after having the full surgery, and losing
his wife, what he actually had was a mental illness and that was what was
needed to be treated, not the physical symptoms of the illness.
transition, and their tales are tragic. They, too, thought that all they needed to
be cured was to transition to this "new" body, and voila, fixed! The reality was
much different. For one, he realised that after having the full surgery, and losing
his wife, what he actually had was a mental illness and that was what was
needed to be treated, not the physical symptoms of the illness.
The numbers of trans people who are vocal against transition are vanishingly small - and often the "regret" expressed is misreported or misrepresented by a number of people with a clear agenda.
http://genderanalysis.net/2015/07/walt-heyer-and-sex-change-regret-gender-analysis-09/ tried to track down the actual cases reported and look in depth
Original post by jape
I don't know. The first thing would be to acknowledge the reality of this issue as being a mental health one, which would remove the stigma of bigotry associated with researching alternative treatments. One thing I do know is that just because we don't have a concrete alternative, that does not automatically mean that we should continue with the expensive, horrific campaign of bodily disfigurement we have already embarked upon.
It is abundantly obvious that you have not read anything from WPATH or the NHS pathway .
Medical transition including surgical procedures works , and there is evidence base and consensus of clinicians to support this.
Many 'orthodox' medicine but alternative treatments have been suggested and tried with poor results and under assessment thry usually consist of religious undertones or a genuinely transphobic and/or homophobic establishment engaging in cis-sexist and heteronormative behaviour modification programmes.
Original post by PQ
The numbers of trans people who are vocal against transition are vanishingly small - and often the "regret" expressed is misreported or misrepresented by a number of people with a clear agenda.
http://genderanalysis.net/2015/07/walt-heyer-and-sex-change-regret-gender-analysis-09/ tried to track down the actual cases reported and look in depth
http://genderanalysis.net/2015/07/walt-heyer-and-sex-change-regret-gender-analysis-09/ tried to track down the actual cases reported and look in depth
Also some of the reported 'regret' ismore aobut people not being the centre of attention any more or the euphoria wears off and they realise that society places unrealistic expectations on females ( cis or trans ) with regard to appearance and grooming -
The question that is raised clinically in these cases is is the psychological evaluation sufficiently rigourous which tends to cause argument and false accusations of organisational transpohbia from a vocal minority of transpeople who beleive their narrative is the same for everyone.
Original post by CleverLilViper
I'm really going to listen to a site that is clearly biased towards transition, aren't I?
All the quotes and studies are referenced and linked to.
Have you read the Sweden study that is reported as inferring that post-transition trans people have "higher" rates of suicide? It clearly doesn't state that.
As for Paul McHugh - he didn't "pioneer" transition/GRS at John Hopkins - he was opposed before taking over the unit and took the post with the stated goal of shutting it down. He's also not exactly a particularly great spoke-person for the anti-trans lobby given his stance on abortion and child abuse.
Original post by sleepysnooze
no. that's starting to take the piss, isn't it
I identify as an attack helicopter - install me some propellers
I identify as a millionaire and I have financial disphoria - give me a million pounds.
I identify as an butthole - let me act like one
etc
be responsible for your own life - don't expect others to pick up the bill for your "uniqueness"
I identify as an attack helicopter - install me some propellers
I identify as a millionaire and I have financial disphoria - give me a million pounds.
I identify as an butthole - let me act like one
etc
be responsible for your own life - don't expect others to pick up the bill for your "uniqueness"
Original post by CleverLilViper
I'm really going to listen to a site that is clearly biased towards transition, aren't I?
'bias'? Just because the majority of people have one perspective, doesn't mean you need to automatically be critical. There are some very valid points
It is appropriate, the NHS is there to save lives and the LGBT community historically has a high depression and suicide rate as a direct consequence of discrimination but also being forced to live in a way that isn't 'you'. Transitioning to what you feel is the right gender for you can save a life.
I would assume though, there are limits on the treatment available and lines are drawn between what is necessary and what is cosmetic. That said it makes me angry that someone like Caitlyn Jenner can transition relatively easily with all the money she has, not to mention stylists and so on, and access to support which other, less high-profile people, cannot access.
Anyway, going back to the NHS - it is not for us to make moral judgements on people who seek treatment. This is why drunks still get treated, as do cancer sufferers who are smokers, as well as addicts, or anyone who has a preventable medical need. Or, in this case, a medical need which people are still wringing their hands over. Treatment is there for those who need it, not those who we think deserve it.
I would assume though, there are limits on the treatment available and lines are drawn between what is necessary and what is cosmetic. That said it makes me angry that someone like Caitlyn Jenner can transition relatively easily with all the money she has, not to mention stylists and so on, and access to support which other, less high-profile people, cannot access.
Anyway, going back to the NHS - it is not for us to make moral judgements on people who seek treatment. This is why drunks still get treated, as do cancer sufferers who are smokers, as well as addicts, or anyone who has a preventable medical need. Or, in this case, a medical need which people are still wringing their hands over. Treatment is there for those who need it, not those who we think deserve it.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
