Convict sues after being denied sex change - wants Nebraska tax money to pay for it

a reply to: stosh64

So I take it you would have a different opinion were he not a sex offender, then? Is that how I should take your comment?

Sorry, I guess my faith in ATS was misplaced according to you. I thought a group of big boys and girls could discuss the notion of prisons using taxes to pay for gender reassignment for inmates, rather than continually wailing "kill all the pedos!"

Silly me.

He is a woman in a mans body. Perhaps he is Lesbian? I don't get it though? The penis. It's a very useful thing ya know. You can pee without takin your pants off. You can right you name in the snow. Sometimes he likes to drive.... run the show and if ya let him? It'll cost ya...for years Not good. The penis shouldn't get the car keys, it leads to big trouble.

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
The penis shouldn't get the car keys, it leads to big trouble.

Fortunately, my BMW has 'push-button' ignition.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sorry, I guess my faith in ATS was misplaced according to you. I thought a group of big boys and girls could discuss the notion of prisons using taxes to pay for gender reassignment for inmates, rather than continually wailing "kill all the pedos!"

Maybe you just assumed that the social justice conditioning propaganda had had a greater affect on the members of ATS.

I have found that ATS members typically are less susceptible to the social justice meme and the propagandists that perpetuate it.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Abysha

Not the same at all. Gender reassignment is completely different. Diabetes and Asthma you can die from and are legitimate medical concerns. My thought is, if you commit a crime you forfeit your ability to ask for something like this.

I am a hardliner....

You are a "hardliner"? Oh, okay there, Tiger.

Anyway, it is not up to us to decide what is a "legitimate medical concern". That's what doctors are for. When you get your PHD, you can state an opinion contrary to medical science and I just may consider it. Until then, your opinion on medical matters that run counter to what is currently an understood consensus in medicine means about as much as your opinion on sports or video games.

Besides, given this prisoner's circumstances, it is very likely she is suffering from something very different than gender dysphoria or an intersex condition. Again, we don't know. That's what doctors are for.

What concerns me is that you would likely still have the same answer if the prisoner was incarcerated for tax evasion or any other non-violent or sexual crime.

(ps - I had deleted the post you responded to right after I posted to avoid the very predictable responses like yours. You just beat me to it, apparently.)

a reply to: stosh64

Clearly!

Hence all the "kill all the pedos!" comments and, by your own admission, an inability to discuss the actual issue identified in the OP.

Great, you want all pedophiles to die. Got it. Do you have any interest in discussing the issue identified in the OP, which is the prison using tax money for the surgery, and further comments, or are you that incapable because pedo?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Where will it end? Say he/she gets it paid for by the benevolent American taxpayer...Will she then demand her own showers be built at taxpayer expense? A bidet, perhaps?


What happens when another prisoner demands taxpayers pay for his penis enlargement surgery, because he felt low self-esteem made him a serial rapist?

a reply to: Shamrock6
It should be up to the court and state law there. Each state has guidelines on paying for this transition. And I think separate guidelines for those who are incarcerated. This person will be a drain on the system for 37 + years, it will be this medical expense or some other.

If the guidelines are met, it should be paid for. If the guidelines are not met, it should not be paid for.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Shamrock6

Where will it end? Say he/she gets it paid for by the benevolent American taxpayer...Will she then demand her own showers be built at taxpayer expense? A bidet, perhaps?


What happens when another prisoner demands taxpayers pay for his penis enlargement surgery, because he felt low self-esteem made him a serial rapist?

Not the bathroom argument, please. That takes away from the seriousness of the discussion.

a reply to: reldra

Why?
Post surgery, she'll be a woman imprisoned with men. That could be very traumatic for her.

DP

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: reldra

Why?
Post surgery, she'll be a woman imprisoned with men. That could be very traumatic for her.

She may be moved to segregation. I do not know what their guidelines are for that. Do you?

a reply to: reldra

Segregation? That sounds like discrimination to me. What if she decides to sue?

a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

We already know the prisoner is litigious.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: reldra

Segregation? That sounds like discrimination to me. What if she decides to sue?

Prisons normally have the power to choose where a prisoner is incarcerated within their facility to protect the safety of all.

What if she decides to sue? (For argument's sake) Why do you care? Is it Federal prison? Will her appointed attorney possibly cost 1/1000th of 1 penny of your taxes?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

We already know the prisoner is litigious.

Because the prisoner took this one case to court?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

True. This is not the first time for this.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

We already know the prisoner is litigious.

Because the prisoner took this one case to court?

By definition, Yes.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: reldra

Administrative segregation, sensitive needs unit, a new prison entirely. The offender wouldn't be the first one in history to have a sex change, so there is some groundbreaking already done on that regard. I don't think that angle would be much of a headache, unless the offender makes it one.

Which is entirely possible, of course.

We already know the prisoner is litigious.

Because the prisoner took this one case to court?

By definition, Yes.

No. The main definition points to 'unusually prone to sue'. Not that a person has sued 1 time.