stellauk
Posts: 1360
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
I think pixie was the only trans poster that wasn't supporting the decision for the particular individual.
I also don't support the decision to give Kosilek SRS gender reassignment surgery if it is publicly funded.
However I refuse to support any view that she is 'unworthy' of such treatment, just as I'm not prepared to support any decision that any person, irrespective of what they have done or crimes committed, should be denied medical treatment necessary for their basic mental or physical well-being or ability to function.
Kosilek committed the crime of murder, for which she has been convicted and sentenced. On that matter alone she has been tried, convicted and punished equal to any other person. I just hold the view that to deny her any possibility of SRS gender reassignment surgery whatsoever would be to additionally punish her for her gender which on my understanding would make the Eighth Amendment a factor, simply because someone's gender isn't usually a factor when it comes to sentencing or punishment.
However I object to her receiving SRS gender reassignment surgery funded by the state on the grounds of her eligibility.
There is an international set of criteria established by the medical profession together with the Harry Benjamin standards of care which forms the basis for all gender recognition (and gender acquisition) legislation and state funded gender reassignment procedures.
This is generally a once only deal where the transgendered undertakes to live permanently in their acquired gender and show that they are able to function in their acquired gender to show that they are eligible for such treatment and surgery. In order to acquire such recognition in the eyes of the law the transgendered have to provide evidence that they have received treatment (and surgery) from a recognized practitioner and have gone through the process under medical supervision.
There are generally three instances where a transgendered person may become ineligible for such treatment and recognition, and that is through (a) self-medication (b) mental illness and (c) anti-social behaviour and the committing of a violent crime.
Therefore contrary to public opinion not only is a transgendered person unable to gain legal recognition of their acquired gender without medical support, but generally also in order to receive state funded treatment they also have to qualify according to the criteria.
While I am prepared to accept that Michelle Kosilek is a transgendered female who may need such treatment or gender reassignment therapy such as hormones I am not supportive of her receiving state funded SRS gender reassignment surgery because she has committed murder and that there are far better candidates for state funded gender reassignment surgery who have not committed any crimes.
This means that if Michelle Kosilek were to fund her own SRS gender reassignment surgery paying for the costs of the procedure herself then I would have no objection.
However the fact that she is serving a life without parole sentence in prison for murder is not in my opinion a strong enough reason to justify a state funded operation when there are more deserving cases outside the prison walls.
I still feel that effective legislation on gender recognition and gender acquisition at a federal level would have prevented such a ruling as we have seen here and is something which is necessary. Not only would it provide some degree of protection to the pre-operative transgendered and enable them to acquire such recognition prior to surgery, it would also provide a set of established criteria on which subsequent rulings could be based.
I base my opinion on the fact that, while the state can provide gender reassignment therapy, hormones, treatment and surgery, the responsibility for proving eligibility and that they are able to function adequately in their acquired gender in society rests with the transgendered person themselves.
_____________________________
Usually when you have all the answers for something nobody is interested in listening.
|
RE: Federal judge rules state must provide sex reassign... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread