• 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!

Is sex reassignment surgery (SRS) plastic surgery?

Is sex reassignment surgery (SRS) plastic surgery?

  • Total voters
    20
X Factor said:
CC, you flat told me in another thread, or maybe this one, that you would not find anything reasonable in opposing paying for SRS. After that, there doesn't seem too much else to say.
Click to expand...

You know, I am REALLY tired of you misrepresenting what people say and then becoming all indignant about the strawman you created. I DID NOT MAKE THAT ASSERTION AT ALL. YOU claimed that if transsexuality was an "investment" then lots of other things could be considered investments. I disagreed and said that investing in SRS was certainly a huge investment by the military, considering the gains that the investment makes to the transsexual. I don't believe that there is any reasonable argument that could refute that... at least I've never heard one. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be a reasonable argument to not support a transsexual getting SRS while in the military. GET THE ARGUMENT RIGHT.

As far as it being covered, I've already stated that if it is deemed medically necessary and is consistent with other procedures that are similarly medically necessary, then it should be covered as those are. No discrimination. But if you are going with the "investment" argument, you couldn't make a reasonable argument to demonstrate that it isn't an investment. You wanna try? Go.

Granted, I've responded with sarcasm when I probably shouldn't have, but not toward you. I'm really trying not to let that happen. Personally, I think reasonable minds can differ on what the military should be on the hook for paying for and that one side or the other is not automatically and completely wrong. Like what if there were safeguards in place, like independent doctors and/or clinicians that would review whether SRS is truly medically necessary (an SRS death panel if you will) and not just some doc whose medical opinion can be bought or has an agenda, or how about a length of service requirement rather than heading to the hospital immediately after boot camp?
Click to expand...

These would be reasonable discussions as long as other conditions like GDD are treated the same way. I have no issue with independent doctors FAMILIAR with transsexuality making an assessment. I also have no issue with a service requirement, as long as safeguards are in place where the military cannot discharge right at the point that the service date is approaching. And I would also want scheduling to be in line with someone's duty schedule.

See? Now let's not try to misrepresent THIS argument.

I admit to some frustration and I don't want to say something I'll regret later, because dang it, I still like and respect your irritating self.
Click to expand...

You need to drop the sarcasm. You are awful at it. You need to stop looking for people to disagree with you. If you look for it, you'll find it even when it doesn't exist. You need to be honest about your motivations, whatever they are. You need to respond to what people say, not what you wish they'd say so you can fight with them. Follow those 4 points and your level of frustration will go down. Perhaps even with me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You need to drop the sarcasm. You are awful at it. You need to stop looking for people to disagree with you. If you look for it, you'll find it even when it doesn't exist. You need to be honest about your motivations, whatever they are. You need to respond to what people say, not what you wish they'd say so you can fight with them. Follow those 4 points and your level of frustration will go down. Perhaps even with me.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake...the guy gives you a compliment and you give him a lecture. There was nothing wrong with his post that I could see...and you vommit all over it.

Grow the **** up you egomaniac.


And yes, I do read your posts to others...just not to me (unless I am REALLY bored).
 
DA60 said:
Oh for God's sake...the guy gives you a compliment and you give him a lecture. There was nothing wrong with his post that I could see...and you vommit all over it.

Grow the **** up you egomaniac.


And yes, I do read your posts to others...just not to me (unless I am REALLY bored).
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that before you post something you actually understand what you are responding to, but then, in essence, I'd be telling you to stop posting. My comments towards X were not insulting. You don't understand our interactions, which is why anything you say about them comes from a position of ignorance. But please, keep responding to me. Just gives me more reason to show how wrong you are... about pretty much everything.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You know, I am REALLY tired of you misrepresenting what people say and then becoming all indignant about the strawman you created. I DID NOT MAKE THAT ASSERTION AT ALL. YOU claimed that if transsexuality was an "investment" then lots of other things could be considered investments. I disagreed and said that investing in SRS was certainly a huge investment by the military, considering the gains that the investment makes to the transsexual. I don't believe that there is any reasonable argument that could refute that... at least I've never heard one. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be a reasonable argument to not support a transsexual getting SRS while in the military. GET THE ARGUMENT RIGHT.

As far as it being covered, I've already stated that if it is deemed medically necessary and is consistent with other procedures that are similarly medically necessary, then it should be covered as those are. No discrimination. But if you are going with the "investment" argument, you couldn't make a reasonable argument to demonstrate that it isn't an investment. You wanna try? Go.



These would be reasonable discussions as long as other conditions like GDD are treated the same way. I have no issue with independent doctors FAMILIAR with transsexuality making an assessment. I also have no issue with a service requirement, as long as safeguards are in place where the military cannot discharge right at the point that the service date is approaching. And I would also want scheduling to be in line with someone's duty schedule.

See? Now let's not try to misrepresent THIS argument.



You need to drop the sarcasm. You are awful at it. You need to stop looking for people to disagree with you. If you look for it, you'll find it even when it doesn't exist. You need to be honest about your motivations, whatever they are. You need to respond to what people say, not what you wish they'd say so you can fight with them. Follow those 4 points and your level of frustration will go down. Perhaps even with me.
Click to expand...

Eh, you've just wanted to call me out tonight (or...this morning - sh*t...I have to go to work soon) and probably deservedly so. I'll take a look at all this again when I haven't been stupidly up all night.
 
X Factor said:
Eh, you've just wanted to call me out tonight (or...this morning - sh*t...I have to go to work soon) and probably deservedly so. I'll take a look at all this again when I haven't been stupidly up all night.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't "want" to call you out. That suggests that my argument above is dishonest. Though I am glad that you at least can agree that you deserved to be called out. Let's me know that you are at least a little aware of how you have been presenting. How about getting some sleep and coming back to this discussion with a fresh set of eyes? And without they preconceived notions? Perhaps then, you will be able to be reasonable.

You are tiring to deal with, sometimes.
 
X Factor said:
I think we tend to view plastic surgery as away to change something so it looks more "perfect" but that's actually cosmetic surgery, as I just recently learned. Plastic surgery seeks to correct or improve the appearance of a physical defect. I think, if anyone takes offense to my question it's probably because they think I'm devaluing SRS as being the same as a nose job or chin implants (which frankly, I have no problem with either). I'm not. I see great value in surgically improving the appearance of something that someone has had difficulty living with. Think of a burn victim getting plastic surgery to appear more "normal". I doubt anyone would think it frivolous or vain or begrudge them something that could make them more acceptable especially to themselves. That's basically how I view SRS. There's nothing medically wrong with the human body that's born male or female. There is no life saving, urgent procedure that needs to be done to correct for being biologically male or female. SRS is about appearance, like a prosthetic eye or nose, but that's not to say that renders it unimportant or wrong. I accept that it can be very important to the person seeking it.


So, what do you think? Have I convinced you?


Poll on the way.
Click to expand...

Yes. Plastic surgery isn't a designation of whether something is cosmetic or reparative or whatever else, as you said; it's merely a description of the method. Utilizing "plasticity" of the body and sometimes foreign materials as well, to create something that wasn't there when you started, for whatever reason. SRS fits that description.

I can sort of understand how people might feel it's "trivializing" as though it were a purely whim-based or vain procedure that doesn't acknowledge its medical necessity. We're a society that tends to hiss the words "plastic surgery" with a certain degree of scorn (which we shouldn't; what others do with their bodies is none of our business to judge). But I would suggest those people don't understand the full breadth of plastic surgery as a medical treatment, not just a series of elective aesthetic procedures. Not only does plastic surgery encompass SRS, but also breast reconstruction on cancer survivors, restoration for wounded combat veterans, and repair of birth defects for children. It's an important branch of surgical medicine for all kinds of people.
 
For God sake everyone get it through your thick heads!

The military like any other organization offers its employees a benefits package. Part of that benefits package is health coverage. To say that someone joins the military to get their hormone treatments paid for is like saying that someone hired on with Google for the health coverage to pay for their health needs. Point being, so ****ing what if they do. That is the whole point of a benefits package. You have it to attract better employees. The military is no different.

At your work do you look at prospective employees and think: "That guy is pretty over weight, I bet he will need a knee replacement at some point and that will cost us a lot of money out of our company health insurance"? No, you don't because an overweight guy doesn't weird you out or disgust you like someone that is transgender obviously does. If the military was to start excluding anyone that would be expensive to provide health coverage for, then transgender individuals would be way down on the list. Think about what the military pays for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, joint replacements, and preventable cancers like lung cancer. If we want to cut the military's health cost, we could start by it never accepting anyone that has ever been overweight. It should never accept anyone that has ever smoked. It should never accept anyone that doesn't eat a strict whole foods diet. Those would all save exponentially more in health care costs than banning transgender individuals. Of course saving money isn't the real motivation here, after all, you could save more money simply be requiring Trump to take just one less trip to Mara Lago. Instead, the motivation is to feed the bigots with their latest culture war whipping post, the transgender. Heaven forbid that social conservatives and religious right don't have someone they can treat as a second class citizen.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
For God sake everyone get it through your thick heads!

The military like any other organization offers its employees a benefits package. Part of that benefits package is health coverage. To say that someone joins the military to get their hormone treatments paid for is like saying that someone hired on with Google for the health coverage to pay for their health needs. Point being, so ****ing what if they do. That is the whole point of a benefits package. You have it to attract better employees. The military is no different.

At your work do you look at prospective employees and think: "That guy is pretty over weight, I bet he will need a knee replacement at some point and that will cost us a lot of money out of our company health insurance"? No, you don't because an overweight guy doesn't weird you out or disgust you like someone that is transgender obviously does. If the military was to start excluding anyone that would be expensive to provide health coverage for, then transgender individuals would be way down on the list. Think about what the military pays for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, joint replacements, and preventable cancers like lung cancer. If we want to cut the military's health cost, we could start by it never accepting anyone that has ever been overweight. It should never accept anyone that has ever smoked. It should never accept anyone that doesn't eat a strict whole foods diet. Those would all save exponentially more in health care costs than banning transgender individuals. Of course saving money isn't the real motivation here, after all, you could save more money simply be requiring Trump to take just one less trip to Mara Lago. Instead, the motivation is to feed the bigots with their latest culture war whipping post, the transgender. Heaven forbid that social conservatives and religious right don't have someone they can treat as a second class citizen.
Click to expand...

The military also retains the right to refuse employment to those with mental or physical limitations they deem contrary to their goals. If being a transsexual doesn't fit the bill, I don't know what does.
 
WCH said:
The military also retains the right to refused employment to those with mental or physical limitations they deem contrary to their goals. If being a transsexual doesn't fit the bill, I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of transsexuals in the military right now, some serving in combat. So obviously you are wrong on that one.

Think about how much better the world would be if bigotry did not cloud so many people's thinking.
 
Your Star said:
It was to show that the money is trivial, the money is not the real issue here. The real issue is anti-trans bigotry.
Click to expand...

Not really, the medication picked was due entirely to optics and to minimalize resistance to a counter argument. In most cases where ED medication is proscribed it is due to PTSD suffered because of service, it should be treated.

The military should not pay for medication or surgery for gender reassignment or switching. It should be elective.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There are thousands of transsexuals in the military right now, some serving in combat. So obviously you are wrong on that one.

Think about how much better the world would be if bigotry did not cloud so many people's thinking.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean Uncle Sam has to become Sugar Daddy.
 
WCH said:
The military also retains the right to refuse employment to those with mental or physical limitations they deem contrary to their goals. If being a transsexual doesn't fit the bill, I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect to generalize like that.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
From the other thread, since I am still curious:

How about telling us all what motivated you to create such a poll. You've read plenty on this issue here at DP, and I believe you know better. My guess is that this is some sort of anti-liberal partisan thing, since that has seemed to be your mood as of late. But perhaps I'm wrong. Tell me your motivation and I'll explain to you the difference between SRS and, in your words, "the correction or improvement of the appearance of a physical defect."

Actually, if you read your words very carefully and compare them to what SRS actually entails and what the results are, you might be able to change your own mind.

Oh, and plastic surgery is a component to SRS, but it is not only about appearance.
Click to expand...

Id bet the farm you are 100% right. And the best part is that even that " anti-liberal partisan thing" and the calling it " "the correction or improvement of the appearance of a physical defect." would also include things like Coronary reconstructive heat surgery :shrug: so any hidden, false, dishonest, biased, uneducated and or illogical correlation that would be used to try to downgrade SRS surgery would still monumentally fail even under those inaccurate and simple categories.
 
X Factor said:
I think we tend to view plastic surgery as away to change something so it looks more "perfect" but that's actually cosmetic surgery, as I just recently learned. Plastic surgery seeks to correct or improve the appearance of a physical defect. I think, if anyone takes offense to my question it's probably because they think I'm devaluing SRS as being the same as a nose job or chin implants (which frankly, I have no problem with either). I'm not. I see great value in surgically improving the appearance of something that someone has had difficulty living with. Think of a burn victim getting plastic surgery to appear more "normal". I doubt anyone would think it frivolous or vain or begrudge them something that could make them more acceptable especially to themselves. That's basically how I view SRS. There's nothing medically wrong with the human body that's born male or female. There is no life saving, urgent procedure that needs to be done to correct for being biologically male or female. SRS is about appearance, like a prosthetic eye or nose, but that's not to say that renders it unimportant or wrong. I accept that it can be very important to the person seeking it.


So, what do you think? Have I convinced you?


Poll on the way.
Click to expand...

I will never know, and better yet, I will never care.
 
X Factor said:
I think we tend to view plastic surgery as away to change something so it looks more "perfect" but that's actually cosmetic surgery, as I just recently learned. Plastic surgery seeks to correct or improve the appearance of a physical defect. I think, if anyone takes offense to my question it's probably because they think I'm devaluing SRS as being the same as a nose job or chin implants (which frankly, I have no problem with either). I'm not. I see great value in surgically improving the appearance of something that someone has had difficulty living with. Think of a burn victim getting plastic surgery to appear more "normal". I doubt anyone would think it frivolous or vain or begrudge them something that could make them more acceptable especially to themselves. That's basically how I view SRS. There's nothing medically wrong with the human body that's born male or female. There is no life saving, urgent procedure that needs to be done to correct for being biologically male or female. SRS is about appearance, like a prosthetic eye or nose, but that's not to say that renders it unimportant or wrong. I accept that it can be very important to the person seeking it.


So, what do you think? Have I convinced you?


Poll on the way.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's a fair question. It's also mostly true that SRS is a sort of cosmetic surgery. But, it is a little more than that since it also requires modification to the patient's body chemistry. But, SRS itself, definitely plastic surgery.
 
WCH said:
Doesn't mean Uncle Sam has to become Sugar Daddy.
Click to expand...

No, once again the military is just like any other large organization in that it offers a benefits package. Part of that benefits package is health coverage.

Is your employer your "Sugar Daddy" because it pays for part or all of your health insurance? What kind of physical shape are you in? What is your BMI? How about your diet and lipid numbers? If you don't stay lean, strong, eat a strict whole foods diet, strength train and strenuously exercise regularly, then odds are you poor health choices will cost your employer far more than someone who is transgender.
 
Our heteropatriarchal society shames gender-nonconforming people - boys that are effeminate and girls that don't act lady-like. As a result, people get gender dysphoria and think they need the primary and secondary sex characteristics of one sex. I gravely fear the left is perpetuating toxic masculinity and a sexist version of feminine gender roles by telling anyone with gender dysphoria they need expensive and invasive surgery.

It's not much different than when the sexist ideal of the female body leads many women to put their health at risk to remain thin.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Our heteropatriarchal society shames gender-nonconforming people - boys that are effeminate and girls that don't act lady-like. As a result, people get gender dysphoria and think they need the primary and secondary sex characteristics of one sex. I gravely fear the left is perpetuating toxic masculinity and a sexist version of feminine gender roles by telling anyone with gender dysphoria they need expensive and invasive surgery.

It's not much different than when the sexist ideal of the female body leads many women to put their health at risk to remain thin.
Click to expand...

That is a very interesting pov.
 
Lovebug said:
That is a very interesting pov.
Click to expand...

I used to think along those lines. But, I have since learned that it's probably not quite telling the whole story. Like everything else n life, it's more complicated than meets the eye, so to speak.

The transgendered have a deep need to see themselves as less of their biological gender and more of their identity. And, from what I have read, it's not that they want to fit some magazine image either. They simply want to fit their image of who they really are. And, that could be anything.

Now, do stereotypes emerge? Do some MTF want high cheekbones, big boobs and bigger hair? Do some FTM want crew cuts, full beards and racks of muscle? Of course. But, that does not seem to be 100% the case. Some are perfectly happy with only modest levels of change.
 
DA60 said:
I disagree.

Then a transgender person who is broke could enlist (with no intention whatsoever of ever serving), have all the surgeries at massive cost to the taxpayer...and then simply refuse to serve on some new-found religious reason or whatever other excuse they makeup.

He gets out of the service and has tens of thousands of free surgery on the taxpayer's dime.

That is not right.

If he/she wants to change gender - it should be on their dime.


If they were drafted...I might re-consider (though I doubt it unless they had a medical reason for performing the surgeries).

But they were not...they all volunteered...no one put a gun to their heads to join.


Again, I strongly disagree with Trump's transgender ban.
Click to expand...

People join for the wrong reasons. All the time. We had a fire on the Inchon, in port, killed a guy. Go look it up. One kid refused to fight the fire, he STRAIGHT UP told their chief "I signed up for college money to die fighting some damn fire". He was court martialed for that.
 
Ahlevah said:
This (plastic surgery or not) is an important distinction. Assuming we allow transgender people in the military, should taxpayers be required to then pay the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to hire private surgeons to perform the surgery for those lacking it? Enlisting would be a great way for a transgender to get it, as well as a nice benefit, don't you think? (And let's not forget the rest of it, such as counseling. That would probably have to be farmed out also, since it requires specialized expertise.) In addition to the GI Bill, just sign up for a few years and get a new pecker (or vagina). And you can wear a new hat, too, when you get out. ("Proud American Veteran" or whatever.) :cheers:
Click to expand...

Nothing in the military is farmed out to private surgeons and councilors. Only a fool would have their SRS performed in a military hospital (but that doesn't pertain to this thread).

Why is it that they public moans at 50k for a surgery but doesn't blink at several billion for a failed aircraft design, or another huge carrier that we don't need.

Think of the surgical and counseling expenses for a soldier returning with one arm and no legs. The amputees far out number the transsexuals. "But the veterans need reconstruction surgery!"

Yes, they do.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, once again the military is just like any other large organization in that it offers a benefits package. Part of that benefits package is health coverage.

Is your employer your "Sugar Daddy" because it pays for part or all of your health insurance? What kind of physical shape are you in? What is your BMI? How about your diet and lipid numbers? If you don't stay lean, strong, eat a strict whole foods diet, strength train and strenuously exercise regularly, then odds are you poor health choices will cost your employer far more than someone who is transgender.
Click to expand...

No. the military is funded by the taxpayers ...wholly. I suspect many Trans have joined the military seeking their "transformation" just like the male prostitutes I've known in the past. Looking for that sugar daddy.
 
WCH said:
No. the military is funded by the taxpayers ...wholly. I suspect many Trans have joined the military seeking their "transformation" just like the male prostitutes I've known in the past. Looking for that sugar daddy.
Click to expand...

Oh OK, so transsexuals, some of whom are deployed in combat right now, are just like male prostitutes. Wow...

Also, how have you known all these male prostitutes in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom