Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should trans people be allowed to receive free reassignment surgery on the NHS? Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The medical procedures you've mentioned do not fall under the category of cosmetic surgery, but more so reconstructive plastic surgery..to enable someone to resemble a normal appearance. I'm fine with such surgeries.

    I was waiting for you to throw around the T word. According to your logic, boob jobs, nose jobs, botox and liposuction should all be free on the NHS.
    What about 'boob jobs' for people who have breasts of different sizes? These are not reconstructive; there's nothing technically wrong with the breasts, but it distresses the person. These are offered in cases I've seen. What's your opinion?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Define transphobia.
    I suppose the NHS is transphobic too
    Sorry, but why is the NHS transphobic?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    The medical procedures you've mentioned do not fall under the category of cosmetic surgery, but more so reconstructive plastic surgery..to enable someone to resemble a normal appearance. I'm fine with such surgeries.
    Still seems like a waste to me in a lot of cases and I've been offered reconstructive plastic surgery on the NHS.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ezme39)
    What about 'boob jobs' for people who have breasts of different sizes? These are not reconstructive; there's nothing technically wrong with the breasts, but it distresses the person. These are offered in cases I've seen. What's your opinion?
    I've addressed this but yes, I'm happy with it being on the NHS. It's done to have normal looking appearance, I wouldn't call that cosmetic. It's like someone being born with a wonky nose. They'd be offered free surgery to make their nose look like a normal human nose. Someone who already has a perfectly normal nose wouldn't be offered treatment simply because they are unhappy with the shape/size of it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    Still seems like a waste to me in a lot of cases and I've been offered reconstructive plastic surgery on the NHS.
    Fair enough, entirely your choice
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Id rather have someone have gender reassignment surgery on the NHS than a boob job or lipo or gastric bands (etc).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    I've addressed this but yes, I'm happy with it being on the NHS. It's done to have normal looking appearance, I wouldn't call that cosmetic. It's like someone being born with a wonky nose. They'd be offered free surgery to make their nose look like a normal human nose. Someone who already has a perfectly normal nose wouldn't be offered treatment simply because they are unhappy with the shape/size of it
    Hmm, I'm not sure there is a fundamental difference there. The difference seems to be in measure rather than in principle and where you draw the line is kind of a grey area.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Implication)
    Do you not find something deeply troubling about needing to change your body to fit society's expectations rather than working to deconstruct society's prejudices and expectations? Once we live in a society where there is no pressure, judgment or any other negativity associated with failing to uphold traditional gender norms - e.g. there is no expectation for someone who is biologically male to be of the male gender - don't you think those whose sex and gender are not 'aligned' will cease to experience dysphoria? If gender and sex are different things, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the concept of the two being 'aligned' or not.
    Ah... so is this why transgenderism and feminism are at odds, zippyRN ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Fair enough, entirely your choice
    Yeah, nice to have the choice i guess, i'd just much rather have had the choice not to wait 10+ years for a crohn's diagnosis or the choice to have children or the choice to not walk into a mental health inpatients ward to find a family member dying on the floor through being denied vital medication with no staff in sight with any more of an idea than myself what to do.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Hmm, I'm not sure there is a fundamental difference there. The difference seems to be in measure rather than in principle and where you draw the line is kind of a grey area.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Ah, I see. I think we're making a similar point then
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    TSR won't even allow you to mention *******ity. :rolleyes:

    .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    TSR won't even allow you to mention *******ity. :rolleyes:

    .
    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).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    TSR won't even allow you to mention *******ity. :rolleyes:

    .
    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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Aren't the rates of suicide high even after surgery?
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (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.
    (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.
    (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/pa...r-analysis-10/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.