"She", not "he", guys

[DanaC]

I think the point made in that article though, is that prisoners with other medical or pyschological needs are assisted. At taxpayers expense. So why distinguish between them and this guy, unless one is making a judgement as to which condition/problem is recognisable to us and which is frivolous.

There is a broad tendency within society to see something like this as frivolous or unnecessary.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Last night I dreamt in Chinese.
Eating Yankee shredded wheat

Stop snacking on spicy foods right before bed. That'll stop the weird dreams!

[BrianR]

An article in the Boston Globe that I think sums up the Nay votes pretty well.

Well put and reasoned without a lot of hating. For once. Most of what I have read on this so far is a lot of hate and misinformation.

And this article, while not openly supporting the judge's decision, is more in the Yea camp.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think the point made in that article though, is that prisoners with other medical or pyschological needs are assisted. At taxpayers expense. So why distinguish between them and this guy, unless one is making a judgement as to which condition/problem is recognisable to us and which is frivolous.

I'm not against "needs" being addressed, but I'll bet presented with the treatment given all prisoners, I'd probably take the same position on many of them. Don't forget this is job security for the docs and shrinks that work for the prison system.

There is a broad tendency within society to see something like this as frivolous or unnecessary.

Yes, with good reason.

Pam said:

GRS/SRS is NOT cosmetic surgery in the case of a transsexual, it is corrective.

OK, so take a guy that is born with one leg two inches shorter than the other. That's going to cause a serious hitch in his git-along, and sure to twist his head from childhood teasing to stares and whispers as an adult. He could get it corrected but doesn't, most likely from lack of funds. Now he murders his wife and gets sent to prison, suddenly the taxpayer is on the hook for the procedure? NO, if it's not necessary before he goes to prison, it's not necessary while he's in. It's not an emergency like an appendicitis, that makes it elective as far as I'm concerned.

See, capital punishment would have solved this problem.

[henry quirk]

...with this -- "Fine, when he gets out he can do, and be, whatever he wants, I couldn't give a shit less." -- some one is liable to call you 'cunt' or 'bully'...

##

"did you just tell me to shut up?"

Pretty much, yeah.

[DanaC]

Nobody is going to call Bruce a bully, because he isn't one.

[henry quirk]

I agree....irrelevant...kinda misses the point of my post.

*shrug*

[DanaC]

Yep. Somewhat deliberately.

Simply using the words you point out doesn't attract the label 'bully'.

[henry quirk]

Still missing the point of my post (and: no, I won't be explaining it).

[DanaC]

He says, missing the point of my post.

[henry quirk]

Nope, your point was clear as crystal...just not worth acknowledging (by me, anyway).

'nuff said.

[DanaC]

@bruce: So, actually, for you it's the broader picture, rather than specifically this procedure that you object to?

That's a whole other argument I think. Whether much of what is done for prisoners is necessary and warrants taxpayer money. It's the separating off of this procedure as different from much of what is currently covered by taxpayers that I object to more, I think.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Nope, your point was clear as crystal...just not worth acknowledging (by me, anyway).

'nuff said.

There are many people in the world, no doubt, who give a fuck what you do or do not acknowledge, Henry. I am not one of them.

[henry quirk]

HA!

Mimicry suits you...

[DanaC]

Me, sir? A mimic, sir?


How dare you!

How very dare you!


(@ Sundae: *grins*)