• 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!

Should tax dollars be used for gender reassignment surgery?

Should tax dollars be used for gender reassignment surgeries

  • Yeah

    Votes: 11 20.0%
  • No

    Votes: 44 80.0%

  • Total voters
    55
The parts of the body that are being removed or mutilated were healthy before the operation. They aren't the cause of the problem, and removing or destroying them does nothing to mitigate the problem.

And what qualifies you to make that determination?
 
I was thinking initially due to it being an elective cosmetic surgery. However someone on here pointed out Gender dysphoria, actually a couple people have. I am reading up on the medical condition and I am reconsidering some. Now I am still leaning toward that I would not support tax money going to it, but I am closer to maybe as I am reading.

My concern would be people who want a sex change claiming dysphoria to get a free sex change. I don't believe that every person who is transgender is suffering from dysphoria, or people who are mild dysphoria dont really need a free sex change. Now those suffering from severe dysphoria, and who cannot, and who's family cannot, reasonably pay for the operation i am more open to supporting tax dollars helping than I was when i opened this thread.

I am still reading up on this condition today as I get time, so my opinion may continue to change, but right now thats my "why not".

I was in the exact same boat as you until someone pointed me to articles on dysphoria. I've changed my mind that it isn't elective surgery and is meant to deal with a legitimate medical condition - the fact that it shows up in the DSM-5 is what really cinched it for me.
 
What real medical condition does gender reassignment treat?

I think gender reassignment may alleviate major psychological issues for example things like depression. I dunno, this is a subject I don't know very much about but if someone is willing to go through that sort of procedure they are probably very dedicated.
 
I was thinking initially due to it being an elective cosmetic surgery. However someone on here pointed out Gender dysphoria, actually a couple people have. I am reading up on the medical condition and I am reconsidering some. Now I am still leaning toward that I would not support tax money going to it, but I am closer to maybe as I am reading.

My concern would be people who want a sex change claiming dysphoria to get a free sex change. I don't believe that every person who is transgender is suffering from dysphoria, or people who are mild dysphoria dont really need a free sex change. Now those suffering from severe dysphoria, and who cannot, and who's family cannot, reasonably pay for the operation i am more open to supporting tax dollars helping than I was when i opened this thread.

I am still reading up on this condition today as I get time, so my opinion may continue to change, but right now thats my "why not".

I really doubt that anyone would seek serious surgery to alter their bodies if they didn't need it. It's not really the sort of thing that anyone is going to abuse, any more than they would abuse getting an x-ray or any other medical procedure.
 
You have to be fairly committed to defrauding the government to willingly undergo sexual reassignment surgery just to "stick it to the man."
 
That's just obvious common sense.

You don't treat lung cancer by removing a healthy pancreas.

It's neither obvious nor common sense unless you overly simplify the workings of the human body. Despite what many believe the brain and body are inseparable and cannot be dealt with in isolation of each other. I have no problem at all in believing that it's possible to treat a psychological condition by dealing with the body. I'd further argue that given how much we know about the body and how little we know about the brain it would be easier to deal a person who's brain is one gender while their body is the other by altering their body as opposed to screwing with their head.
 
No. I'm a proponent of single-payer healthcare for the most part, but I don't think that the public should have to pay for voluntary cosmetic surgery, which is what gender reassignment is.

As far as it being a treatment for gender dysphoria, the available evidence points to people who have the surgery being just as unhappy as those who don't, so it doesn't seem to be much of a cure. If it actually worked, I might feel differently about the public paying for it.
 
Out of curiosity, if someone has Body Integrity Identity Syndrome do you think the "cure" should be amputating their limb?

Once again I'm not a doctor. I'll leave it to the those who are and who have training to make that determination. My point has been and remains that if it's classified by the medical community as a legitimate medical condition it should be subject to the same rules and restrictions, specifically how correcting it is paid for, as other medical conditions.

Or in other words I'm not going to treat it differently because you find it icky.
 
Voted No.

If a persons insurance wants to cover such, then fine.

imo, their are higher priorities for tax dollar uses.
 
How about research as to whether the proposed course of treatment is actually effective or not. That seems to be pretty important.

And in this case, sexual reassignment surgery doesn't seem to be a very effective treatment for gender dysphoria.

Sex changes are not effective, say researchers | Society | The Guardian

Efficacy is certainly a legitimate question. I wouldn't draw the conclusion that the operation is ineffective given what's in the article. It seems the jury is still out.
 
It's neither obvious nor common sense unless you overly simplify the workings of the human body. Despite what many believe the brain and body are inseparable and cannot be dealt with in isolation of each other. I have no problem at all in believing that it's possible to treat a psychological condition by dealing with the body. I'd further argue that given how much we know about the body and how little we know about the brain it would be easier to deal a person who's brain is one gender while their body is the other by altering their body as opposed to screwing with their head.

If someone has a form of body dysphoria that causes him to think he should; not have a left arm, would you consider it an appropriate treatment to amputate his left arm?
 
If someone has a form of body dysphoria that causes him to think he should; not have a left arm, would you consider it an appropriate treatment to amputate his left arm?

Already answered. I'm not qualified to make that determination and would leave it to the experts in the field to decide if that was a reasonable course of action.
 
The illness doesn't come from being different. It comes from having to repress that difference. It's the same way that parents sometimes force left-handed children to become right-handed. It makes them more "normal", but it actually does lasting damage to their minds. It isn't being "abnormal" that creates a problem, it's suppressing that difference.

If you're right, and the identity issue isn't part of a medical disorder, then there's no reason to provide medical care to normalize the identity issue.

If dealing with the (cold, cruel) outside world (and its treatment of you) is the problem then the only "necessary" medical care would be therapy to aid in acceptance and coping.

But I don't think you're right.

From what I've read (sources I mentioned above) the transexual identity component of the dysphoria is the mental disorder.

Believing that you're a gender that you are not is not "normal" (usual, average, or typical).

It isn't evil, it doesn't mean you're dirty, it isn't grounds for persecution, etc... but it isn't "normal".

Again, to go back to the examples I used of alcoholism and anorexia - not "normal", certainly "disorders", but absolutely not grounds for treating someone like an illegitimate piece of garbage (or for treating them any way other than you would want to be treated).

The disorder comes from truly believing that you were born in to the wrong body.

Feeling that way isn't normal, and it isn't healthy.

Since you can't take the mind out of the body and put it in one that is the appropriate gender it makes sense that the logical thing to do would be to alter the existing body to make it as close to the gender the mind perceives itself to belong in as possible - in order to treat the medical problem that exists (in the mind).

I can easily see how ostracism from others, one's own feelings about and arising from such a disorder, and efforts (failed, futile, or successful though they may be) to conform to "normality", can compound the problem that the disorder creates.

But that clearly isn't the problem.
 
Efficacy is certainly a legitimate question. I wouldn't draw the conclusion that the operation is ineffective given what's in the article. It seems the jury is still out.

From the article:

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

That's a pretty cut and dried statement.

Granted, I'm not a doctor, but at the very least I think considerably more research on the effectiveness of gender reassignment surgery would be called for before recommending it as a cure for gender dysphoria.
 
well the polls sucks cause its not public and theres only two answers so thats already a fail . . .

anyway what the surgery is doesnt really matter much to me, my wants would never be based on bigotry etc.
its the protocol for insurance to cover something that interests me. (if that already involves tax dollars)

If this surgery meets that protocol as established by the medical community and that already involves tax dollars then yes. If the protocol doesnt cover it but the medical community thinks its should then it should be fixed to cover it or go through im guess an establish review process.

So my answer would go off of whatever we basically already do cover procedures with the same classification and if that system needs improved , If so, then I suggest improving it for all procedures not just this one.
 
From the article:



That's a pretty cut and dried statement.

Granted, I'm not a doctor, but at the very least I think considerably more research on the effectiveness of gender reassignment surgery would be called for before recommending it as a cure for gender dysphoria.

Yes but it's caveated out the wazoo later in the article.


For example:

Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: "There is a huge uncertainty over whether changing someone's sex is a good or a bad thing. While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there's still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised - often to the point of committing suicide."

Which is a much less definitive statement.

I agree more research should be done. With any new medical procedure it's often years or decades before a complete picture emerges. And even then that picture is always subject to revision. One thing is certain though and that's we're not going get the data if people don't get the surgery.
 
If we are ever going to have any kind of universal healthcare then yes, such procedures should be covered assuming the patient and the psychiatrist agree that it is an appropriate treatment for the person's gender dysphoria.
 
If you're right, and the identity issue isn't part of a medical disorder, then there's no reason to provide medical care to normalize the identity issue.

If dealing with the (cold, cruel) outside world (and its treatment of you) is the problem then the only "necessary" medical care would be therapy to aid in acceptance and coping.

But I don't think you're right.

From what I've read (sources I mentioned above) the transexual identity component of the dysphoria is the mental disorder.

Believing that you're a gender that you are not is not "normal" (usual, average, or typical).

It isn't evil, it doesn't mean you're dirty, it isn't grounds for persecution, etc... but it isn't "normal".

Again, to go back to the examples I used of alcoholism and anorexia - not "normal", certainly "disorders", but absolutely not grounds for treating someone like an illegitimate piece of garbage (or for treating them any way other than you would want to be treated).

The disorder comes from truly believing that you were born in to the wrong body.

Feeling that way isn't normal, and it isn't healthy.

Since you can't take the mind out of the body and put it in one that is the appropriate gender it makes sense that the logical thing to do would be to alter the existing body to make it as close to the gender the mind perceives itself to belong in as possible - in order to treat the medical problem that exists (in the mind).

I can easily see how ostracism from others, one's own feelings about and arising from such a disorder, and efforts (failed, futile, or successful though they may be) to conform to "normality", can compound the problem that the disorder creates.

But that clearly isn't the problem.

I didn't say it was the treatment by others that was the problem. I said it was the problem of not being the same on the inside as you are on the outside. The inside you is the real you, and not being able to be that person is the problem. It's that parts of you don't match each other, and the treatment is to tweak some parts so that everything matches.
 
There better be some hardcore scientific proof before forcing people to have their tax money go into such a thing.

There is. But you never bothered to look, did you?
 
I say no and here is why

health care is costly. even when the taxpayers are forced to cover care for those who-through one reason or another-cannot buy their own health insurance. with publicly funded healthcare, there has to be a triage in terms of allocation of health care dollars.

Sexual reassignment surgery is at the end of the line when it comes to a triage assessment. If we had unlimited healthcare dollars it would be different. but when we have the indigent dying because they don't get routine colonoscopies or chest X-rays and then develop cancer that may have been caught early enough etc, I just don't think SRAS is something we can afford
 
Nope.

If private insurance wants to cover it? Fine.

Tax money going into it? A lot more research must be done. I could give a flying flipping mother****ing stupid ****ing **** if you want to "Feel comfortable in your skin." There better be some hardcore scientific proof before forcing people to have their tax money go into such a thing.

Do you think tax dollars should cover treatment for depression?
 
Self explanatory. Do you think the government should pay, or help pay, or subsidize insurance companies, or in any other way funnel money toward assisting people to undergo gender reassignment surgeries?

If so, to what extent?

Don't be silly. Even in the case of hemaphrodites it does not make sense for the commons to take the costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom