• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Transgender senior can't be king


From your own study

Some scientists cautioned that the estrogen treatment the transsexuals took as part of their sex-change therapy might have affected the size of their hypothalamus;



In short, they don't know and can't prove it. Thanks for playing.
 
Again, that's only one definition. Gender isn't limited to just one's sex.

Love it when libs try to redefine a word.

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Thats the defition. Time to deal with the reality of it.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Remember to keep the discussion civil. Discuss the topic and not each other.
 
According to the link you posted above, the average gender reassignment surgery costs ~$20,000 all in. Would a person really go through more than $20,000 of medicine over their lifetime?

I'm not being critical because I don't have any idea how much and what kind of medicine treatment would require. It just strikes me as being rather expensive.

Considering some medication costs people a couple hundred bucks for a 30 day supply, yes. If the medication costs $100 a month it would take less than 20 years to reach that amount. Add along with that that these people would now most likely have to see a therapist at least once a year (probably more often, if we are considering it a mental disorder).

Plus, many transgendered people now do not go through with the surgery, and there are some that wish they could "cure" themselves. Those that would want to cure themselves would be more likely to take the medication than even consider the surgery. And there are some things that could still be covered without the surgery, including the therapy. It is also possible, that like many other mental disorders, there would be more than one medication required.

I don't actually believe that someone would ever really be able to come up with a medication that truly "cured" a transgendered person, but I don't think that it is fair to act like giving them the option of surgery covered by insurance would raise the cost of someone's insurance premiums. There are plenty of things out there that raise insurance premiums significantly more than this ever would.
 
Love it when libs try to redefine a word.

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Thats the defition. Time to deal with the reality of it.

The defintion says ONE sex, not ONE'S sex. That is the difference Boo Radley is referring to.
 
Love it when libs try to redefine a word.

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Thats the defition. Time to deal with the reality of it.

The reality is that if someone behaves as a woman, is culturally recognized as being a woman, or has psychological traits of a woman but they were born male, then their gender is female according to that definition.
 
If the government got out of healthcare the cost would go down. Healthcare is expensive because the government allows them to nickle and dime the populance as lobbyists pay off politicians.

A trued free market would allow competition to bring prices down.

A good example is laser eye surgery. Prices have gone down.

the price of laser surgery has gone down because more doctors perform it.
 
According to the link you posted above, the average gender reassignment surgery costs ~$20,000 all in. Would a person really go through more than $20,000 of medicine over their lifetime?

I'm not being critical because I don't have any idea how much and what kind of medicine treatment would require. It just strikes me as being rather expensive.

it's impossible to say until they actually find a cure and discover how much it cots to produce and distribute. Given that there might not even BE a "cure" this would all be purely speculative. But let's say it just costs you $5 for a months supply. Over the course of 50 years that's 600 at $5 per month coming to a grand total of $3000. That's is basically your best of the best case scenarios. More then likely you will see something closer (at least from what I've seen with psychoactive medicines) to $30 - $50 for a weeks supply. That comes to a grand total of $72,000 for $30 a week. Once again purely speculative. But it can get up to a higher cost then surgery depending on the pills, and depending on your insurance of course.
 
Considering some medication costs people a couple hundred bucks for a 30 day supply, yes. If the medication costs $100 a month it would take less than 20 years to reach that amount. Add along with that that these people would now most likely have to see a therapist at least once a year (probably more often, if we are considering it a mental disorder).

Plus, many transgendered people now do not go through with the surgery, and there are some that wish they could "cure" themselves. Those that would want to cure themselves would be more likely to take the medication than even consider the surgery. And there are some things that could still be covered without the surgery, including the therapy. It is also possible, that like many other mental disorders, there would be more than one medication required.

I don't actually believe that someone would ever really be able to come up with a medication that truly "cured" a transgendered person, but I don't think that it is fair to act like giving them the option of surgery covered by insurance would raise the cost of someone's insurance premiums. There are plenty of things out there that raise insurance premiums significantly more than this ever would.

I know bringing that up is a bit off topic but so many people have thought the same thing as you have, that adding a specific coverage won't raise the prices much.
When you do that for 100 procedures, it really starts to add up.

We cover pregnancy under insurance, that's insane.
It is a voluntary "illness."
 
I'm just concerned that we may be ignoring other avenues in treatment.

What if it is just a mental disorder, meaning that it could be treated successfully with medication.
I think more research is needed before we dive in to surgical correction.

i think that's why it takes so long to qualify for the surgery, they are not just diving into it......it takes a couple of years for evaluation.
 
It's up to the comnpany what they cover is it not?
 
Love it when libs try to redefine a word.

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Thats the defition. Time to deal with the reality of it.
You never did look up "term of art" in your little dictionary, did you?

Nah, that would require you to admit an error. Can't have that! :roll:
 
It is OK. The pursuit of happiness means Jenny can become John as long as Jenny doesn't interfer with Bob or Mary to do so. And if Jenny has to live with this condition, and the best we can do is help Jenny become more comfortable, who are we to deny Jenny this? Seriously, it is enough for us to take care of ourselfs and try to make the world a little better without worrying about Jenny becoming John.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Now it's the pursuit of happiness. It's not about that! It's about teaching kids that rules matter. Anyone wonder why a kid gets out of high school and can't hold down a job because he can't accept authority? Electing a girl for homecoming king does absolutely nothing to make the world a better place. I think your premise is beyond ridiculous.

I personally accept people who are like this but I do have some reservations about it. There is nothing conclusive about this not being a mental disorder that may be treatable with medication. (something to correct the mental gender imbalance towards the physical gender.)

Instead we insist catastrophic change to the body.
To me, that seems a bit extreme and I think we should approach this with great caution.

Even if it is a mental disorder, not reason to disrespect them, yes? (I know you aren't saying that.) I personally believe it IS a mental disorder. Kinda' God's little joke. "I know!!! I'll give him female body parts and a male mindset. Yeah, that'll do it." I sort of equate this disorder with the people who demand that surgeons remove a leg or arm. They just KNOW they'll be happier. Same tune. Different words. But who knows? Who'll EVER know? If someone's happier being made into the opposite sex, and it's legal, so be it. I don't care. I do care when schools make common sense rules and students insist on flying in their face. Allowing them to do that isn't serving them well at all.

Personally, I don't care if we did or not, because I really don't care that much about sports. I don't think it would ever happen just because of the physical advantage, which is an understandable exception. But even with gender reassignment, I don't think the rules allow for this scenario. However, in the case of a contest for homecoming king, there is no actual physical activity requirement. The only competition aspect is of popularity. The rest of the school obviously believed that he qualified, so this should be enough.

Rules? What rules? Why should we have rules? Gads. How can you talk about rules on the one hand and then trash school common sense rules on the other? As to your last statement, she is NOT qualified. Rules said: Boy for King; Girl for Queen.

PS--You're wrong about the rules scenerio, anyway. Rene' Richards - surgically and hormonally altered to a woman - played professional tennis in the women's field. Operative words: surgically and hormonally altered. Not, OH!!! I think I'm a girl today.
 
Last edited:
I know bringing that up is a bit off topic but so many people have thought the same thing as you have, that adding a specific coverage won't raise the prices much.
When you do that for 100 procedures, it really starts to add up.

We cover pregnancy under insurance, that's insane.
It is a voluntary "illness."

The difference is in how many people will actually need or even want reassignment therapy. Many transgendered people are completely okay in just living the life of the opposite sex without going through the surgery, like my brother. He even considered the surgery for a while, but decided against it. He still might get hormonal treatment and will be getting laser hair removal but he will pay for those on his own. And there are some who would decide to pay for it on their own.

The amount of people who would actually go all the way and get reassignment surgery is not going to significantly go up if it is required to be covered under insurance, because a) there just aren't that many of them to begin with and b) they would still have to qualify for the treatment through evaluations just like any other surgery. They would still need a doctor to sign off on them needing the surgery to treat them.
 
You never did look up "term of art" in your little dictionary, did you?

Nah, that would require you to admit an error. Can't have that! :roll:

How does that change the defintion of the word? Go ahead, explain yourself.
 
The difference is in how many people will actually need or even want reassignment therapy. Many transgendered people are completely okay in just living the life of the opposite sex without going through the surgery, like my brother. He even considered the surgery for a while, but decided against it. He still might get hormonal treatment and will be getting laser hair removal but he will pay for those on his own. And there are some who would decide to pay for it on their own.

The amount of people who would actually go all the way and get reassignment surgery is not going to significantly go up if it is required to be covered under insurance, because a) there just aren't that many of them to begin with and b) they would still have to qualify for the treatment through evaluations just like any other surgery. They would still need a doctor to sign off on them needing the surgery to treat them.

Sex change surgery is elective and not covered under most, if not all, health insurance policies.
 
The defintion says ONE sex, not ONE'S sex. That is the difference Boo Radley is referring to.

Incorrect. Your apostrophe does not change the noun in any way shape or form. Gender is defined as sex. There is no middle ground.
 
The school set the rules. Period. "Elect a boy for king. A girl for queen." No ducks involved.

except the actual policy of the school and the official records said she didn't qualify. people should just accept that.


Here's the problem, the way I see it. The school failed to set definitive rules. If they had refused to let the student participate as a male in any other activities, I would probably stand by their decision to exclude the individual from running for Homecoming King.

However, they allowed the student to be male in every other aspect of school life. This set's a pretty poor precedent for the current decision, now doesn't it?

Other than a year book photo, what lasting difference will the elected King and queen have?
 
Rules? What rules? Why should we have rules? Gads. How can you talk about rules on the one hand and then trash school common sense rules on the other? As to your last statement, she is NOT qualified. Rules said: Boy for King; Girl for Queen.

PS--You're wrong about the rules scenerio, anyway. Rene' Richards - surgically and hormonally altered to a woman - played professional tennis in the women's field. Operative words: surgically and hormonally altered. Not, OH!!! I think I'm a girl today.

The policy of the school was also that girls wear a girl's uniform/graduation gown and boys wear a boy's uniform/graduation gown, and yet the school changed the policy for this person. So that shows that the school obviously accepted this person as a boy. The rules do not say that the person had to be born a boy, have a penis, or be registered as a boy in the school. The school accepted the student as a boy for band uniforms and graduation gowns, but not in a popularity contest, that he won. Doesn't make sense.

Different sports and sports divisions have different rules, which is why I said "I don't think". I know that it is against the rules in the Olympics. And in sporting events, there is a reason for such rules, in the name of fair play and not giving someone an unfair physical advantage, since we do separate sports by sex. Men are physically different than women, even if they have had surgery and hormone therapy.
 
How does that change the defintion of the word? Go ahead, explain yourself.
It means there are other definitions for words when used in a particular context that are correct in that context even though they aren't in Webster's.
 
Here's the problem, the way I see it. The school failed to set definitive rules. If they had refused to let the student participate as a male in any other activities, I would probably stand by their decision to exclude the individual from running for Homecoming King.

However, they allowed the student to be male in every other aspect of school life. This set's a pretty poor precedent for the current decision, now doesn't it?

The policy of the school was also that girls wear a girl's uniform/graduation gown and boys wear a boy's uniform/graduation gown, and yet the school changed the policy for this person. So that shows that the school obviously accepted this person as a boy. The rules do not say that the person had to be born a boy, have a penis, or be registered as a boy in the school. The school accepted the student as a boy for band uniforms and graduation gowns, but not in a popularity contest, that he won. Doesn't make sense.

These two arguments represent some modicum of logic to me. You're right. They invited the rule bending. Once they did that, well, like every other teenager in the UNIVERSE, kids are going to test the limits. Test they did. Yet, there ARE limits. In everything. So what's the lesson? There aren't limits? Life is a bunch of "Gotcha!!" games? Or is it a part of growing up to realize that there are limits that are non-negotiable? That if I give you an inch and you take a mile, I'll fire your ass.
 
These two arguments represent some modicum of logic to me. You're right. They invited the rule bending. Once they did that, well, like every other teenager in the UNIVERSE, kids are going to test the limits. Test they did. Yet, there ARE limits. In everything. So what's the lesson? There aren't limits? Life is a bunch of "Gotcha!!" games? Or is it a part of growing up to realize that there are limits that are non-negotiable? That if I give you an inch and you take a mile, I'll fire your ass.

The policies must be consistent, this can even hold up in court. And was this student informed that he had to be registered as a boy in order to participate in such a contest? I doubt it. Especially since it is obvious he was allowed to be considered a boy without being registered as one in other things. Some school rules are based on outdated traditions and should be challenged. If there was a school rule that girls had to wear dresses or skirts to school, I would expect this rule to be challenged whole heartedly. There is no harm at all in allowing a boy who was born a girl to be homecoming king. The contest is for the students in the first place, and obviously they wanted it.
 
It means there are other definitions for words when used in a particular context that are correct in that context even though they aren't in Webster's.

Does it change the definition provided? Yes or No?

Does any other definition of the word contradict the one provided? Yes or No?
 
There are some insurance policies that will cover it. And it was just recently suggested that it be required to be covered when medically necessary.

Sex reassignment surgery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transgender Health Benefits
Sex Change You Can Believe In | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

I don't usually call people out on links, but I will here. Your first source is Wiki. In this particular case, I discount the entire post because it IS Wiki. I can write a Wiki reference. It was obviously written by a special interest. And, further, the Wiki reference gives no examples of any insurance company that covers transformation. Your second one is a Transgender site advocating insurance coverage. Your third is a blog talking about the left wanting to add language in the HCB that will make it mandatory to be covered. All special interest groups speaking to "whether or not." Link me to an insurance company site. Then I'll buy it.
 
Back
Top Bottom