Idaho to pay for inmate child molester's gender reassignment surgery (court order)

[SlowSpyder]

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/7537...er-confirmation-surgery-to-transgender-inmate

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/id...fender-gender-reassignment-surgery-adree-edmo


This guy is locked up for molesting a 15 year old, he was 22 at the time. Now serving 10 years. I can't say I agree with this, I see this very much as an elective surgery. It is his body, he can do what he wants and live how he pleases, more power to him, this is America and as long as you aren't harming the rights of others do as you please (though he is in prison for doing exactly that). But, the state shouldn't be on the hook to sate mental delusions. To low information liberals a strong hurricane proves climate change but x and y is junk science.

 

[Puffnstuff]

For once I have to agree with you slow. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for an elected surgery.

 

[TheVrolok]

Let's be clear with our terms here, it isn't because this is elective that you both have issues, it's because you both do not see it as medically necessary. Elective just pertains to scheduling time frame, which is not the concern you are expressing.

What you are communicating is that you don't believe in transgenderism, or, at least you don't believe they are entitled to treatment in the same way other medical issues would be addressed.

I'm not saying you're necessarily right or wrong in this case, and I'm not 100% sure how I feel about it in this exact context until I think about it some more.

Slow, as usual, is just demonstrating how his feels are so important. The inmates crimes have literally nothing to do with medical care, but he added it because it makes him feel a certain way and it allows him to put this person in a box ("less deserving"). Again, I'm not necessarily passing judgment on that last part, but let's at least be clear.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Hey I want a brand new car but I cannot afford one. Should the taxpayers have to pay for my old car to be renovated so it looks the way I would like for it to? A sex change operation is not medically necessary and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Sewing up a stab wound or fixing a broken bone would be medically necessary.

When the individual gets out of prison he can pay for all of the surgeries he wants if he so desires and make himself look anyway he pleases. People ruin themselves all the time through these procedures.

 

[Commodus]

Anyone notice how many conservatives are only "deeply concerned" about gender identity when there's an edge case that they think makes transgenderism look bad, and not, say, issues with anti-transgender violence or discrimination? It's almost as if their real concern is that transgenderism exists in the first place, and they'd sure love it if some conservative leader declared transgenderism illegal.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Statutory rape. When I was 19, I may have unknowingly come "just that close" to it. I was working the night shift at a truck-stop donut shop just after my freshman year in college, and this bubbly well-developed young woman was a regular customer. After a month or two, we made a date, and I was putting on some moves when I casually asked her age. She was 15. Willie began to wilt immediately.

In Edmo's case, it was a man-boy situation -- apparently. But the issue is whether or not the state should pay the bill for his sex-change operation.

It seems to me that the court recognized that Edmo's two attempts at castration made the surgery "necessary". And that seems reasonable. As the article states, the decision does not mean the state would now have to pay for any and all gender reassignment surgeries requested by prisoners.

So it really isn't an issue of unnecessary public expenditure in a continuous time-stream. It would also seem that the operation would probably lessen the expense of the inmate's incarceration, given the risk of self-mutilation and attendant medical costs, the risk of suicide and so forth.

Let's suppose instead that this case originated from a heterosexual contact between a young adult and a teenager -- the more common statutory-rape scenario. The crime is not in that case logically consistent with the request for surgery. But how would that affect your view of the state's responsibility to pay for gender reassignment?

 

[Viper1j]

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/7537...er-confirmation-surgery-to-transgender-inmate

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/id...fender-gender-reassignment-surgery-adree-edmo


This guy is locked up for molesting a 15 year old, he was 22 at the time. Now serving 10 years. I can't say I agree with this, I see this very much as an elective surgery. It is his body, he can do what he wants and live how he pleases, more power to him, this is America and as long as you aren't harming the rights of others do as you please (though he is in prison for doing exactly that). But, the state shouldn't be on the hook to sate mental delusions. To low information liberals a strong hurricane proves climate change but x and y is junk science.

Easy fix.

Governor signs order for clemency, immediate release, then they have to pay for their own surgery.

Hey I want a brand new car but I cannot afford one. Should the taxpayers have to pay for my old car to be renovated so it looks the way I would like for it to? A sex change operation is not medically necessary and taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Sewing up a stab wound or fixing a broken bone would be medically necessary.

Is the government keeping you in a cage, preventing you from getting your new car? Is not having your new car causing you to set your old car on fire? Is denial of your new car, causing you to damage the cars of others?

Answer yes to two of any of those, the court can order them to buy you a new car.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Easy fix.

Governor signs order for clemency, immediate release, then they have to pay for their own surgery.



Is the government keeping you in a cage, preventing you from getting your new car? Is not having your new car causing you to set your old car on fire? Is denial of your new car, causing you to damage the cars of others?

Answer yes to two of any of those, the court can order them to buy you a new car.

What you have there is a totally inapplicable analogy or parallel. The inmate attempted to castrate himself twice. He was in a state of severe emotional distress and possibly prone to suicide. Whether or not you abhor his crime is superfluous, and as I already said, but for the genders of the criminal and victim, the crime was more consistent with statutory rape -- a gray area. That's why they call it "statutory" rape.

You can call it "elective" surgery, but it would not have been "cosmetic" surgery. He isn't buying a new car. To make a funny play on words -- the man requested a new tool-box.

This is hardly a matter for political debate. It's trivial. The court judgment does not make it a precedent for any and all potential prisoner requests for sexual reassignment.
Indeed, they could commute his sentence and his sexual reassignment could then be his own responsibility.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Is the government keeping you in a cage, preventing you from getting your new car? Is not having your new car causing you to set your old car on fire? Is denial of your new car, causing you to damage the cars of others?

Answer yes to two of any of those, the court can order them to buy you a new car.

The guy intentionally hurt himself and wants the taxpayers to be responsible for his own actions.

 

[Greenman]

Anyone notice how many conservatives are only "deeply concerned" about gender identity when there's an edge case that they think makes transgenderism look bad, and not, say, issues with anti-transgender violence or discrimination? It's almost as if their real concern is that transgenderism exists in the first place, and they'd sure love it if some conservative leader declared transgenderism illegal.

They're concerned about it when they have to pay for it through tax dollars. Some (like me) have a fundamental issue with addressing mental illness with surgery. These people need help, not mutilation.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

For once I have to agree with you slow. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for an elected surgery.

It's NOT A CHOICE!!! I WAS BORN THIS WAY!!1one!1

Science be damned. You used to think it was only right-wing nutjobs but the lefties have gone full retard in the name of social justice instead of science.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The guy intentionally hurt himself and wants the taxpayers to be responsible for his own actions.

You're saying that intentionally hurting oneself is a calculated act of a balanced mind. Nobody in a psychologically healthy state of mind hurts oneself by attempting to cut off their testicles -- or for that matter -- trying to hang themselves with a knotted bed-sheet.

As I said already, if he attempted to castrate himself as a consequence of his psychological distress, the risk remains that he would do it again. The risk is a potential cost of his incarceration to the state. Fixing his toolbox would be a one-time expense to mitigate that risk.

This dovetails with the issue of "mental illness" in the Charlottesville episode and subsequent active shooter incidents in El Paso and Dayton. Psychiatrists all agree that these people were not "mentally ill" in the legal sense of the word. The Charlottesville organizers are now being sued by offshoots of the SPLC because their e-mails and chat messages showed premeditation of violence. They may have been "disturbed" like Ted Kaczinski was disturbed, but they weren't insane. They were merely being evil.

The President is disturbed and evil, but he's not technically insane. He's severely disordered. Severely disordered may be sufficient for invoking the 25th amendment. We're currently in an obsessive frenzy about background checks for people who want AR-15s, but Trump's behavior has become so normalized that nobody seems to be in a panic about his access to the nuclear codes.

It's a general fact and matter of common sense that people plagued by the cause of their transgender inclinations are not happy -- they're disturbed. If they are prone to self-mutilation or suicide, then they are a potential expected cost to the state if they're incarcerated.

So why is everyone upset that a panel of judges decided that the state should pay for a one-time operation for sex-change under these circumstances? Is it merely transgender bias? Is this similar to the thinking that homosexuals actually choose to be homosexual?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Statutory rape. When I was 19, I may have unknowingly come "just that close" to it. I was working the night shift at a truck-stop donut shop just after my freshman year in college, and this bubbly well-developed young woman was a regular customer. After a month or two, we made a date, and I was putting on some moves when I casually asked her age. She was 15. Willie began to wilt immediately.

In Edmo's case, it was a man-boy situation -- apparently. But the issue is whether or not the state should pay the bill for his sex-change operation.

It seems to me that the court recognized that Edmo's two attempts at castration made the surgery "necessary". And that seems reasonable. As the article states, the decision does not mean the state would now have to pay for any and all gender reassignment surgeries requested by prisoners.

So it really isn't an issue of unnecessary public expenditure in a continuous time-stream. It would also seem that the operation would probably lessen the expense of the inmate's incarceration, given the risk of self-mutilation and attendant medical costs, the risk of suicide and so forth.

Let's suppose instead that this case originated from a heterosexual contact between a young adult and a teenager -- the more common statutory-rape scenario. The crime is not in that case logically consistent with the request for surgery. But how would that affect your view of the state's responsibility to pay for gender reassignment?

The problem is that it has been shown statistically that the surgery is not a fix. IIRC the suicide rate for those that did have surgery and those that didn't was damn near equal. It doesn't fix the problem like people want to perceive. This is genetial surgery - not brain surgery. To put it simply: No. You're wrong. This doesn't fix mental impairness and it doesn't fix the person harming themselves. This is a fucking no-brainer, I don't understand why we are still having discussions this retarded.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

 

[theeedude]

I thought conservatives supported castrating child molesters.

 

[Commodus]

They're concerned about it when they have to pay for it through tax dollars. Some (like me) have a fundamental issue with addressing mental illness with surgery. These people need help, not mutilation.

Nah, it's not just tax dollars. I've been across a few forums and people like the OP are obsessed with creating fear about transgenderism. "OMG, they're teaching kids about transgender people! OMG, a transgender person is allowed to compete in pageant/race/event X!" They'll say it's really about some other factor, but conveniently the common ground always revolves around transgender people being the "problem."

Also, being transgender is not a disease that needs to be 'fixed' by eliminating it. This particular person has other issues that complicate matters, but wanting gender reassignment surgery by itself shouldn't be an issue.

 

[soulcougher73]

This does seem silly to have the people”state” pay for this guys surgery. He can do it when he gets out.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The problem is that it has been shown statistically that the surgery is not a fix. IIRC the suicide rate for those that did have surgery and those that didn't was damn near equal. It doesn't fix the problem like people want to perceive. This is genetial surgery - not brain surgery. To put it simply: No. You're wrong. This doesn't fix mental impairness and it doesn't fix the person harming themselves. This is a fucking no-brainer, I don't understand why we are still having discussions this retarded.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

Well, take a closer look at that study.

The authors suggest that people who identify as transgender -- Male to Female or FTM either way -- have a higher propensity to lifetime suicide anyway, so this may explain why there could be little difference between those with the surgery and those without.

Further -- " Collectively, these findings suggest that not being recognized by others as transgender or gender non-conforming may function as a protective factor for suicidal behavior. Conversely, one’s inability to not be recognized as transgender or gender non-conforming may create added risk."

Thus, more suicides for those who openly identify themselves as Trans, less suicides for those who don't.

The prison plan for Edmo would have him transferred to a Woman's facility after his surgery. How might they counsel him to avoid revealing his trans surgical history in the new facility? And if he considered revealing it even without such preparation, would he not see that the revelations would make him more vulnerable to the other females in the new gladiator academy?

I'm no activist or advocate in the matter of gay right, transgender rights or even abortion. But in this particular matter, it's much-ado-about-nothing without any abrogation of common-sense citizen thinking about the expenditure of public funds.

It's not continuous funding.

The risk to the prison-budget for ignoring the request would remain.

The inmate might likely be less disturbed and therefore easier to manage.

This all required a court decision because of one or both of two ideas in the minds of prison officials. On the one hand, they may be reasonably choosy about how their budgets are spent, and there may not likely be other precedents although I expect there must be some on the record in some state. On the other hand, they worry about scrutiny if they choose to authorize the expenditure.

So they may follow a rule-of-thumb based on words like "elective", and being corrections officials, they follow rules-of-thumb as behavior more common to general law enforcement, whether it's FBI or Podunk County Sheriff's Department.

Now it becomes a political issue, even as the corrections official made his decision partly to avoid political consequence to him and his own position.

The man's sentence simply required that he be incarcerated for a period of time, for sexually abusing someone in later adolescence -- akin to statutory rape. He wasn't sentenced or condemned to be more miserable because of a psychological or anatomical problem.

Is it that fact that this required a judicial finding in its determination the main reason someone objects to it? Those are the same conditions under which the prison official may operate.

Whatever certainty about the inmate's psychological state, the one-time expenditure for the so-called "elective" surgery makes more sense than merely denying it on budgetary grounds. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of his sentence, either. While denying the surgery doesn't reach the degree to which we associate "cruel and unusual punishment", it is a determination based on pre-defined or obsolete applications of the word "elective". Certainly, it is "elective" but a gripe about public funding for it in a prison as "necessary" seems almost cruel.

If a panel of doctors agrees that the inmate would be happier with the surgery and prison transfer, why would one refuse it because the man is a convict and an inmate of a prison? He would otherwise be able to arrange it on his own in free society; he has no income in prison; and we would be denying him at least some peace of mind that has nothing to do with his punishment.

How about cosmetic dental surgery? Who would agree that it is necessary? I wouldn't.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Some folks think that a simple surgery will correct his core principles and that is false. I would never want to deny a person of legitimate surgery but this instance is what I would consider OTT.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Some folks think that a simple surgery will correct his core principles and that is false. I would never want to deny a person of legitimate surgery but this instance is what I would consider OTT.

Surveys in a range of normal people indicate a prevailing theme that sex generally had been a source of unhappiness in their lives. But most people would not fully understand how the transgender's situation is a source of unhappiness.

The reason it's called "elective" derives from the simple fact that the transgender him/her/it-self must be the person to indicate it as a preferred situation. If a prison official finds an inmate bleeding and maimed -- no less for having attempted to self-castrate himself -- the official or the guards independently determine whether he requires medical attention.

Excluding the transgender's medical history of related self-injury which would obviously make medical treatment necessary, he/she/it must provide the first diagnosis. A doctor, psychiatrist or panel would be able to determine whether or not it is needed to relieve the psychological distress. But because the transgender must be the first to "elect" the surgery, it is called "elective".

If citizens or officials don't take psychiatry seriously, this is another case of it. You're basing your judgment about the "necessary" aspect because the man/woman/it isn't bleeding, doesn't have physical pain or correspond to what we traditionally call "necessary medical treatment".

Again -- why perpetrate the subject's misery out of budgetary parsimony and bias? There's no reason for it. What is the incidence of transgender misidentification in the general population? It would translate to the same percentage in prison. Some cohort would already have completed reassignment; others, at the age of the inmate in question, might arrive at their election after they're incarcerated.

Do you seriously think that this would have any impact on prison budgets? Or do you prefer that your tax money be spent with a special dose of cruelty?

 

[HomerJS]

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/7537...er-confirmation-surgery-to-transgender-inmate

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/id...fender-gender-reassignment-surgery-adree-edmo


This guy is locked up for molesting a 15 year old, he was 22 at the time. Now serving 10 years. I can't say I agree with this, I see this very much as an elective surgery. It is his body, he can do what he wants and live how he pleases, more power to him, this is America and as long as you aren't harming the rights of others do as you please (though he is in prison for doing exactly that). But, the state shouldn't be on the hook to sate mental delusions. To low information liberals a strong hurricane proves climate change but x and y is junk science.

Funny I was told hurricans were caused by gay people. Maybe you righties can't keep your bullshit straight.

 

[soundforbjt]

Damn liberal blue state...oops.

 

[Dulanic]

What's this have to do with blaming liberals again? Sounds like guys an idiot who should pay for his own surgery when he gets out.

 

[Lanyap]

I thought conservatives supported castrating child molesters.

I’ve been waiting for someone to say it was ok for the state to castrate the guy but not pay for regendering.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What's this have to do with blaming liberals again? Sounds like guys an idiot who should pay for his own surgery when he gets out.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Consider what I've written here so far, and mark my words that I agree this suggests a possible solution as opposed to simply having the state pay for the surgery.

In California, if you had various medical care under Medi-Cal (Medicaid), your estate is liable for the expense when you die.

So assuming the subject transgender inmate eventually completes his sentence, the state could bill him for the procedure upon his release, or once he finds employment. They could offer a payment plan, just as Whitefish Hospital offered me a payment plan after my treatment for a national park accident when I was 25 years old carrying no health insurance since leaving school that year.

Should he be made to wait? Why not just assign a full-time guard to him for suicide watch in the interim?

 

[abj13]

The problem is that it has been shown statistically that the surgery is not a fix. IIRC the suicide rate for those that did have surgery and those that didn't was damn near equal. It doesn't fix the problem like people want to perceive. This is genetial surgery - not brain surgery. To put it simply: No. You're wrong. This doesn't fix mental impairness and it doesn't fix the person harming themselves. This is a fucking no-brainer, I don't understand why we are still having discussions this retarded.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

Wow, for someone berating people about science, why did you bother to make your post so intellectually dishonest and lazy? Did you even bother to read the PDF in your link? Unfortunately, it is clear that you didn't. If you did, you'd realize the PDF does not reflect the point of what you are trying to make. I suggest you take a moment to actually click, open, and read the document, you'd realize that every table, every data point is titled: "Lifetime suicide attempts."

At no point does that study quantify suicide attempts BEFORE or AFTER gender reassignment surgery. In fact, in their methods and limitations section, they outline the significant limitation of their analysis of the survey. The survey asked only a single question regarding suicide behavior: “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No."

For someone berating others about not practicing science, how can you be so ignorant on the subject? Maybe if you did some actual reading on the subject you'd realize that gender reassignment surgery results in:
-Greater post-operative satisfaction
-Equal quality of body image and sexual life compared to cis people
-Low incidences of regret (between 2.2% and 3.8%)
-Expectations met at an emotional and social level
-95% reporting a global favorable outcome
-Higher degrees of well-being and social integration

Futhermore, 2010, 2018, and 2019 meta-analyses found improvements in psychological symptoms, quality of life, and improvement in sexual function after gender reassignment. In addition, in one study, no attempts of suicide occurred after gender-reassignment surgery. Unfortunately, there is little data behind the suicide rate before and after other than a grossly misinterpreted study from PLoS that is floated around by intellectually dishonest blogs.

I suggest next time, before you lambaste others not knowing science, you actually take a moment and do some reading on the subject before posting. No wonder it seems so "retarded" to you, you don't have an ounce of intellectual honesty to take a moment and actually read the data before making a conclusion about the subject.