Let people understand something about trans people

Post Reply New Topic

Kurgan, you are clearly completely clueless about US case law. The 5th Amendment reference in United States v. Windsor is about Equal Protection. The reason why the court invokes the 5th Amendment is because this amendment incorporates the Fourteenth amendment (and with it, the Equal Protection Clause) with regards to the federal government, as per Bolling v. Sharpe.

I even provided a quote from the SCOTUS opinion explicitly demonstrating this, but apparently this too went over your head.

Bolling v. Sharpe is one of the most important and controversial Supreme court opinions *ever* handed down in the US, vastly reducing the power of the federal government and vastly increasing the power of SCOTUS. The fact that you are unfamiliar with it makes your claim that I "can't apply knowledge here" the very definition of irony.

Law. Yet another subject too difficult for Kurgan to comprehend...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."





The reason why you keep using the same false equivalency over and over again is because you've painted yourself into a corner (i.e. you failed to apply knowledge, or you applied it the wrong way). I'm well aware of the fact that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional; can we please direct the thread back to gender reassignment surgery? Banning SRS altogether would be unconstitutional; not funding it would not be.

You keep bringing in United States v. Windsor because you think people are impressed by the fact that you know something any idiot can read about. There are many cases like that; the common denominator in most gay related landmark cases, is discrimination. Not paying for SRS is not discrimination.

Last edited by Kurgan on 31 Oct 2013, 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Have you read the APA Task Force report yet? It dives deep into that problem, looking at a huge chunk of the literature. If the bolded were true, I expect you would find that report quite interesting. A link to it can be found on the 3rd page (it's a tiny url).

Still harping on this again, huh? This sentence is like several pieces of misinformation bunched into one package.

You continue to divorce the decision to not fund SRS from its context.

*looks around... sees the entire medical establishment agreeing with me (and the government of Norway providing fully tax-payer funded SRS).* Big corner...

Don't flatter yourself, Kurgan. This isn't a debate on who is wrong or right. It is a debate on whether Kurgan will grow up or not.


Withholding individuals from benefits otherwise granted by federal law is unconstitutional, if that restriction cannot survive judicial scrutiny. As I have previously stated, I find it highly unlikely that such a arbitrary restriction on Federal health care coverage will stand up in court.

From United States v. Windsor:
"Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples from obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive."

Just because you deliberately ignore economists, psychologists, surgeons and doctors who disagree with you, does not mean that everyone supports you. Public funding of SRS is not something the people widely agree to here--and many reacted negatively to it, given that the medical institutions of Norway are on a very tight budget.



If I'm the immature one in this debate, I find it funny that I'm not the one who wants a nanny state.



They had their lives burdened because the ban on gay marriage promoted the idea that homosexual relationships are any different from heterosexual relationships--and that homosexuality was "wrong" and heterosexuality was "right". Transgendered people have exactly the same healthcare benefits as cisgendered people have, so your analogy still fails.

Tell me. Why are you so worried about eliminating funding for SRS when we should be helping the children dying in Darfur, a much more severe problem? It would just be so unfair to the children in Darfur if you had to elbow priority away from them and toward eliminating funding for SRS.

Because of political corruption, it would not be possible to help all the children of Darfur without military intervention, which is clearly the larger of two evils. The reason why so many people who apply for SRS today in Norway are turned down (90-95%), is partly because the budget.

Yes. A lot of people out of transphobia and ignorance I would expect to be opposed. If, however, you look at the people who have look at the evidence in detail, you will tend to find much more support. You would also tend to find court rulings supporting it.



No. They don't. Having the same level of healthcare benefits means their needs are all being met. Different needs mean different ways of meeting them, but it should not be judged based on a one-size-fits-all program; the program must meet each individual's needs. Having the same level of healthcare benefits is not occurring for people with gender dysphoria who need surgery. Their medical needs are being neglected.

Alas, we talk past each other. You think it's just cosmetic and unnecessary and that people with gender dysphoria can live just fine without it. The evidence is against you, but I don't think you care. You remind me of the definition of a crank, which is a man who cannot be turned.

You totally missed the logical fallacy that I was deliberately imitating, the logical fallacy that you used first. It went straight over your head.

Try reading this:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... s-why.html

I saw the false analogy, though.



Actually, the staw men she attacks have some valid points. If the religious people she's preaches her atheism to haven't tried to convert her, they're not obliged to justify their views to her.

The fallacy is this: Problem A must be held off until problem B is solved, because problem B is more severe.

Did I really need to spell that out for you?

Problem A should be held of if it prevents the solution of problem B, because problem B is more severe.

Coverage for SRS does not prevent coverage for other procedures. That is false.

Given that healthcare and many other public institutions are under a tight budget, it does.