It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Transgender Inmates Seek Sex Change Operations

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
This is where our tax dollars go to now!


BOSTON — Wearing lipstick, a scooped-neck sweater and nearly waist-length hair, the witness cried while describing what it feels like to be a woman trapped inside a man's body. "The greatest loss is the dying I do inside a little bit every day," said Michelle Kosilek, an inmate who is serving a life sentence for murder.
~~~~~~~
Kosilek was Robert Kosilek when he was convicted in the killing of his wife. In 1993, while in prison, he legally changed his name to Michelle.
Since then, Kosilek has been fighting for the state Department of Correction to pay for sex-change surgery, which can cost from $10,000 to $20,000. After two lawsuits and two trials, the decision now rests with a federal judge.
~~~~~~~
In Massachusetts, four of the 12 inmates diagnosed with gender-identity disorder are receiving hormone shots, including Kosilek. Prison officials also allowed Kosilek to receive laser hair removal, female undergarments and some makeup.www.foxnews.com...


Perhaps the most pressing question would be: If he gets the sex change operation, will they place him in a female facility?

I am not sure how to even address this issue. This is perhaps one of the most audacious and ridiculous things I have ever heard of. What makes it even more so, is that there are actual organizations out there, that exist simply to support actions like this.

Semper




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
We can keep this simple. No person who has committed a crime and is now incarcerated at our expense for the safety of society should have access to ANYTHING that hard working contributing members of society can't afford.

Cry me a river! Plenty of people on the outside don't even have access to ANY decent medical care they can afford. Of course they should be given medical care, but this is too much. On the outside this is considered "elective" surgery. This is a crock.

Now, as an afterthought..... I was watching a cold case file show last night and there was an instance of attempting to match a decade old blood sample found on the murder weapon to the victim. All they could get initially was the blood type and gender of the blood sample. This was a shock to me that gender is identifiable in a blood sample. So, what gender would the blood sample identify of these people suppossedly trapped in the wrong body?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Good question relentless.

I also wonder how many treatments they are getting, transgender or otherwise, that our HMO will deny!!!

How many horror stories are there out there of HMO's refusing treatment until it's too late?

Semper



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Quite frankly I can't even believe the access some inmates get to burden our legal system at our expense while they are incarcerated. These legal challenges aren't even related to their defense. It's a disgrace.

Not to mention this guy murdered someone, and I for one am sick and tired of murderers asking for things that they have denied for their victims by ending their lives. It's incomprehensible to me that these things even occur to be debated.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   
After reading this, and thinking about it, it could be argued that not
allowing this individual to obtain one is unconstitutional.

Now, I know you're probably thinking something along the lines of "How
the heck is that so?", well part of the Constitution says that cruel and
unusual punishment is not to be allowed, well it can be argued that not
allowing someone to undergo a sex change operation is psychologically
cruel and unusual punishment.


On a side note, so is solitary confinement for more than a day.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
well it can be argued that not allowing someone to undergo a sex change operation is psychologically cruel and unusual punishment.


Argued by who?

Not allowing a prisoner of the state to undergo a sex change operation, paid for by the taxpayers, is an act of cruelty?

I stand for criminals, and I've worked hard in my day to day life to keep young people out of prison. I've worked hard on keeping criminals out of prison and have them dealt with through extrajudicial measures. However, this one is completely absurd.

If he wants to undergo a sex change operation, start saving. We are not talking about physically abusing him, or removing any inherited right, we are talking about funding an operation that the state can not simply afford.

If this were an honest, hardworking, member of society, would the operation be paid for? That is a question, not a statement. I really doubt it would, but I do pose the question. If a contributing member of society would not have the operation covered, there is no chance in hell that this inmate deserves it.

IF a contributing member of society would have it covered, I think this individual has the right to at least have his case heard.

Criminals are people to, and they do have rights. But they shouldn't have any rights that contributing members of society do not inherit.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Even people out in the free world don't get free sex changes.

If the inmate wants to be a woman, perhaps he should have thought about that before he committed his crime, and saved his money instead.

It's utterly ridiculous, a travesty of the admonishment against cruel and unusual punishment.

I say to the transsexual: do your time, get out, get a job, and pay for your sex change yourself! And in the meantime, STFU.

I have transgender friends, so I'm not against the operation. I AM against paying for it for a criminal though.

Perhaps s/he can volunteer for some medical experiments to pay for the snip.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Argued by who?


A prisoners rights group I suppose, I don't know, I'm just saying that it can
be argued from a legal stand point.




Not allowing a prisoner of the state to undergo a sex change operation, paid for by the taxpayers, is an act of cruelty?


It could be, psychologically, there are cases where it causes immense
stress and hardship on the person, and if it is indeed the case, than yes it
would technically be cruel and unusual to deny them it, especially if they
were not given the opportunity to work while in prison to earn the money
to pay for it themselves.




If he wants to undergo a sex change operation, start saving. We are not talking about physically abusing him, or removing any inherited right, we are talking about funding an operation that the state can not simply afford.


Well not all prisons allow inmates to earn money though, so in certain
cases they may not be able to save up for it.

Punishment is not just physical, it's psychological as well.

And the state could afford it, not if everyone wanted one, but for the very
small amount who do want/require one, which I'm betting is something
like .5-2% of all inmates.




If this were an honest, hardworking, member of society, would the operation be paid for? That is a question, not a statement. I really doubt it would, but I do pose the question. If a contributing member of society would not have the operation covered, there is no chance in hell that this inmate deserves it.


If America did'nt follow such flawed neo-libertarian economic philosophies,
and we had Universal health-care it would mot likely be covered.

Prisoners technically have state funded health-care to, which is'nt fair, not
because there prisoners, but because everyone regardless should have it.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
It just steams me so much because inmates with HIV and cancer in this, the wealthiest state in the Union, can't get the care and medication they need to be healthy and live, and yet this "confused" person wants money to pay for what is essentially voluntary surgery.

I see your points, Iori, I do, but I have no sympathy for this person. A person with a huge nose for instance, could suffer psychological problems, etc., but should the state pay for his or her rhinoplasty? Or a breast enlargement? Or penile enhancement? This strikes me as a very slippery slope, where would we draw the line?



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
It just steams me so much because inmates with HIV and cancer in this, the wealthiest state in the Union, can't get the care and medication they need to be healthy and live, and yet this "confused" person wants money to pay for what is essentially voluntary surgery.


Well that is'nt right, if an inmate has a medical problem, they should be
getting the treatments required, I thought California was suppose to be
one of liberal states.



I see your points, Iori, I do, but I have no sympathy for this person. A person with a huge nose for instance, could suffer psychological problems, etc., but should the state pay for his or her rhinoplasty? Or a breast enlargement? Or penile enhancement? This strikes me as a very slippery slope, where would we draw the line?


Well a Transgendered person receiving sexual alignment surgery really
is'nt the same as a person getting a nose-job.

I say draw the line at cosmetic surgery, only surgeries that are necessary,
and I consider gender realignment to be a necessary surgery.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei



I say draw the line at cosmetic surgery, only surgeries that are necessary,
and I consider gender realignment to be a necessary surgery.


Fair enough then. I don't. But I can see why someone might.

There is a good article about the state of California's prison health care here.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
If America did'nt follow such flawed neo-libertarian economic philosophies,
and we had Universal health-care it would mot likely be covered.


Wrong.

I'm a Canadian citizen with a health-care system that provides me ample opportunity to go to a hospital and receive the care that I need. But, to my knowledge, I do not have sex change operations at my disposal.

I'm willing to bet that most health-care systems would not cover a sex change operation.

So with that in mind, "most" average citizens would not have this surgery paid for. Why should an inmate? Why should someone who held no regard for social norms, have such an operation available to him?

I'm not going to pretend to understand what it is like to be a man trapped in a woman's body, or a woman trapped in a man's body. But I am certain that it is an excruciating ordeal, and something that would make waking up in the morning quite difficult. So I fully understand that this individual may "require" this surgery. But not at the expense of taxpayers who are having their hard earned money taken from their wallet, which could of went towards putting food on the table, or clothing on their children's back.

A sex change operation for an inmate is not money well spent.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Ok folks; we have had transgender inmates and yeppers we the taxpayers had to pay for their treatments up to hormone shots to prepare the way however, they had to wait til they were released before receiving the actual surgery. We also pay for organ transplants that are deemed necessary as well as treatment for cancer and HIV as we are legally responsible for their health and welfare. This is includes all inmates regardless of their sentence; so an inmate on death row will receive the same treatments as on who will be released in a year. I'm sorry if I'm not making a whole lotta sense it was a day from hell at work.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Actually the above post from Seagull is actually from me. I forgot to make sure he had logged out. We share the same computer and well.....



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
Wrong.

I'm a Canadian citizen with a health-care system that provides me ample opportunity to go to a hospital and receive the care that I need. But, to my knowledge, I do not have sex change operations at my disposal.


So, I did'nt say like Canada's, it would most likely be covered in America,
it may start in the more liberal states at first, but it would eventually
become national.




I'm willing to bet that most health-care systems would not cover a sex change operation.


I don't know about all of them, but interestingly enough Iran does.
I think some of the European countries do as well.




So with that in mind, "most" average citizens would not have this surgery paid for. Why should an inmate? Why should someone who held no regard for social norms, have such an operation available to him?


All people should have it covered.

Why should someone follow social norms?




A sex change operation for an inmate is not money well spent.


Money is irrelevant, making sure that EVERYONE is healthy, so long as
they wish to be.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well, in all honesty insurance costs are high and I'm not overly thrilled about my costs going higher to help pay for some one else's surgery to change their body because they aren't happy with it. I've no problem with life-saving procedures those should be readily available to all.

A sex change operation for an inmate is not only expensive but opens doors to a whole bunch of security issues. For example, while they are undergoing the change where do we house them. They are still male so they can't go to a women's prison; they also become far more vulnerale to victimization inside the prison. There are issues far beyond just the actual surgery and the cost that would have to be addressed. The cost of these procedures go far beyond the surgical costs and I can assure you the taxpayers wouldn't be excited about paying.

iori_komei; cost is very relevant why should the taxpayers pay for this procedure? A procedure that any other person would have to pay for themselves and can't get because they chose to obey the law and not end up in prison. How is that fair?



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
For example, while they are undergoing the change where do we house them. They are still male so they can't go to a women's prison; they also become far more vulnerable to victimization inside the prison. There are issues far beyond just the actual surgery and the cost that would have to be addressed.


Most prisons have a place where they put prisoners who are considered
to be at risk in the general prison population, so they could be put there
for the in-between time.




iori_komei; cost is very relevant why should the taxpayers pay for this procedure? A procedure that any other person would have to pay for themselves and can't get because they chose to obey the law and not end up in prison. How is that fair?


No one should have to pay to be healthy, nor for a gender realignment
surgery if they really are transsexual.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
iori_komei; with all respect you really don't understand how prisons work. Prisons are either or; they typically aren't co-ed and even in protective custody that individual is still with and around other inmates usually in a 2 man house yes there are still predators even in protective custody. You can't possibly be suggesting we house them in the seg unit or max custody?
And no, I don't feel that as a taxpayer I should have to pay for this surgery; my taxes are high enough already and since this surgery isn't to save a life it is an unnecessary expense for the taxpayer. Government has an obligation to serve the taxpayers in a fiscally responsible fashion DOC has a limited budget that could be better used other places. If an individual wishes that surgery I suggest they get a job and earn the money the old fashioned way by working.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I would try to talk them out of it, with common sense and reason. They are still male, only appearing as a female.

I think that is enough to get it started.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
We can keep this simple. No person who has committed a crime and is now incarcerated at our expense for the safety of society should have access to ANYTHING that hard working contributing members of society can't afford.

Cry me a river! Plenty of people on the outside don't even have access to ANY decent medical care they can afford. Of course they should be given medical care, but this is too much. On the outside this is considered "elective" surgery. This is a crock.

Now, as an afterthought..... I was watching a cold case file show last night and there was an instance of attempting to match a decade old blood sample found on the murder weapon to the victim. All they could get initially was the blood type and gender of the blood sample. This was a shock to me that gender is identifiable in a blood sample. So, what gender would the blood sample identify of these people suppossedly trapped in the wrong body?


What an outstanding post ! I wish I could '5 Star' it.

Brilliant conclusions, which I'm sure has shaped many of the posts which followed and places this situation (regarding which many of us may have initially sympathised) in CLEAR perspective !


[edit on 29-5-2007 by Dock6]




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join