Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Lately, I have been reading about Government sponsored SRS in the Transgender news.
There is a woman in Great Britain complaining that she has been on a waiting list for Gov't sponsored or "Free" SRS since 2006. She is loosing her patience with the British Gov't and complaining that it is taking too long. She is only 35 years old. How many of us have to save and wait until we are well into our 40s, 50s, even 60s to attain the goal? She should either pay for herself, or be patient and be quiet, I think. There are only a few SRSs paid for there each year, because that is all that is budgeted for.
Then there is the Transwoman in an American prison asking for the  U.S. Gov't to pay for her SRS. As far as I'm concerned, she gave up her rights to that when she committed the crime that landed her in jail. She is lucky that taxpayers are willing to pay for her HRT. (Sorry, I have no use for Trans people that are criminals, they make all of us look bad)
Just my humble opinion and rant. What do you all think about this?

I cannot argue much with you, Nickie. I liked both your rant and your humble opinion!! :laugh: :laugh:

I don't know that they 'make us all look bad,' but they sure as heck allow the 'enemies' ammunition to try and make us all look bad.

Good post.

Nikki ;)

Well, I agree with you that if your gov't is screwing you around re: SRS that you should probably just try to go private.  But the NHS SRS scheme isn't really "free"; it's paid for by tax dollars, and if the promise is made that SRS is covered, it shouldn't be so hard for people to actually access.  From my point of view, it's a good thing, at least in terms of a safety net: if you really can't raise the money to get surgery privately, then the NHS is great since it's an extra chance (one that doesn't exist for transpeople in other countries).

For American prisoners, yeah, it's really not fair for the gov't to pay for SRS when law-abiding, non-incarcerated people don't have access to that right (if it were true, I might have to go out and wreak some havoc!).  When there's a national health plan in America, then I think it would be fine, but not until then.

Lia

Quote from: genovais on February 20, 2008, 10:51:39 PM
Well, I agree with you that if your gov't is screwing you around re: SRS that you should probably just try to go private.  But the NHS SRS scheme isn't really "free"; it's paid for by tax dollars, and if the promise is made that SRS is covered, it shouldn't be so hard for people to actually access.  From my point of view, it's a good thing, at least in terms of a safety net: if you really can't raise the money to get surgery privately, then the NHS is great since it's an extra chance (one that doesn't exist for transpeople in other countries).

For American prisoners, yeah, it's really not fair for the gov't to pay for SRS when law-abiding, non-incarcerated people don't have access to that right (if it were true, I might have to go out and wreak some havoc!).  When there's a national health plan in America, then I think it would be fine, but not until then.

Lia

Thanks Genovais......The NHS in the U.K is paid for by our own taxes which are very high. As far as NHS treatment for transsexuals go, it's extreamely difficult to access and so far it's eluded me for more than 10 years despite trying to access an NHS  referral for GRS for a number of years.. Any treatment I have had I have had to pay for privately.

It's also a post code lottery where some people may get treatment in one part of the country while others do not if they live in a different location..

Quote from: genovais on February 20, 2008, 10:51:39 PM
Well, I agree with you that if your gov't is screwing you around re: SRS that you should probably just try to go private.  But the NHS SRS scheme isn't really "free"; it's paid for by tax dollars, and if the promise is made that SRS is covered, it shouldn't be so hard for people to actually access.

Social programs like universal healthcare and education are for the people, BY the people. Call me a socialist, but I firmly believe that it raises the overall consciousness of society. People who are secure in the basic essentials of life are less likely to succumb to stress, violence, crime, etc. In my opinion that's worth paying for as a society.

As a point of interest:

UK: Population about 80 million, about 300 murders a year.

South Africa: Population about 50 million, about 18,000 murders a year. We've been on the fast track to privatisation and capitalism since our first democratic elections 14-odd years ago now. As the gap between rich and poor has increased, so have the number of violent crimes we have to deal with.

Don't complain about getting eaten if you prefer to live in a dog-eat-dog world.

Yeah, if you pay your health care for tax dollars and its not acceptable to
make someone wait for hip surgury for 2 years, why would it be acceptable
to make someone wait for SRS for 2 years. Not to mention that it takes
a long time to even be on the SRS wait list (which is not the case in the US).
So, she's got another reason to be frustrated.

Its because TS have little political clout that such abuse happens.

I think she's got a right to complain.

In the UK and many economies like that (like Canada), you pay higher taxes all your life
for all sort of things you may or may not be using, its shared risk and shared responsabilities.
So, you can save less that in a place where they tax you less.

The problem here is that SRS are not seen as normal procedures and get very little founding considering the current prevalence of TS. They're still funding it like there's 1/30000 that are TS when 1/3000 are!

Quote from: Keira on February 21, 2008, 12:13:00 PM
the current prevalence of TS. They're still funding it like there's 1/30000 that are TS when 1/3000 are!

I think even that is being conservative...

Quote from: nickie on February 20, 2008, 07:21:16 PM
...Just my humble opinion and rant. What do you all think about this?

That it is, and like each of us, entitled to it. Personally I'm baffled why the medicial community declares being normal (GID) a disorder but then won't support treatment and be covered by the insurance when almost everything else in the DSM-IVTR is treated and covered. Let me guess. A bunch of old white men thinking questions about one's gender and especially wanting to change the body to fit the mind, than the reverse as they think and say is the solution, isn't about helping people, but about morality.

They go so far as to require the patient to present the srs surgeon with two letters of agreement that the patient isn't mentally ill and the surgery is appropriate, one from a psychiatrist, but then in support of the insurance companies, call it cosmetic surgery. How many other cosmetic surgeries require this? None. And how many other treatments require this? None.

The call it a disorder but then deny appropriate treatment without going through their hoops, except they've never thoroughly researched their hoops to establish if they're appropriate and work. And in the face of research which disproves their view of treatment, they deny it and say it's about the profession. So, who's ass are the saving and who's morality are they protecting? Not mine.

And they wonder why 98% of the transpeople satisfied with the post-transistion life are so angry? What don't they understand about helping and healing the patient? What don't they understand the normal healthy adults can make the right decisions for themselves when they know who they are and what is necessary to help them? If we accept the responsibility for our own decisions and actions, why do they care? Or is it really all about their morality?

Just my thoughts and view. And I'll park my soapbox.

Quote from: Keira on February 21, 2008, 12:13:00 PM

Yeah, if you pay your health care for tax dollars and its not acceptable to
make someone wait for hip surgury for 2 years, why would it be acceptable
to make someone wait for SRS for 2 years. Not to mention that it takes
a long time to even be on the SRS wait list (which is not the case in the US).
So, she's got another reason to be frustrated.

Its because TS have little political clout that such abuse happens.

I think she's got a right to complain.

In the UK and many economies like that (like Canada), you pay higher taxes all your life
for all sort of things you may or may not be using, its shared risk and shared responsabilities.
So, you can save less that in a place where they tax you less.

The problem here is that SRS are not seen as normal procedures and get very little founding considering the current prevalence of TS. They're still funding it like there's 1/30000 that are TS when 1/3000 are!

..Or in my case waiting for SRS for 7 years..

Gah!  That sounds terrible.  I would hate to have to wait that long.  But I only recently got a taste of how expensive this whole mess is going to be when I found out my insurance doesn't cover the place I need to go to.  Meh...

Quote from: Maddie Suzumiya on February 27, 2008, 10:11:34 AM
Gah!  That sounds terrible.  I would hate to have to wait that long.  But I only recently got a taste of how expensive this whole mess is going to be when I found out my insurance doesn't cover the place I need to go to.  Meh...

and still waiting 7 years later and still trying get help from the U.K system.....I now have two MP's involved in my case..

I'm probably going to have to go overseas to access SRS..

Quote from: nickie on February 20, 2008, 07:21:16 PM
Lately, I have been reading about Government sponsored SRS in the Transgender news.
There is a woman in Great Britain complaining that she has been on a waiting list for Gov't sponsored or "Free" SRS since 2006. She is loosing her patience with the British Gov't and complaining that it is taking too long. She is only 35 years old. How many of us have to save and wait until we are well into our 40s, 50s, even 60s to attain the goal? She should either pay for herself, or be patient and be quiet, I think. There are only a few SRSs paid for there each year, because that is all that is budgeted for.
Then there is the Transwoman in an American prison asking for the  U.S. Gov't to pay for her SRS. As far as I'm concerned, she gave up her rights to that when she committed the crime that landed her in jail. She is lucky that taxpayers are willing to pay for her HRT. (Sorry, I have no use for Trans people that are criminals, they make all of us look bad)
Just my humble opinion and rant. What do you all think about this?

So people who break society's rules don't deserve human rights?

Have you ever heard of a a person named Ghandi?

QuoteSo people who break society's rules don't deserve human rights?

Have you ever heard of a a person named Ghandi?

People who break society's rules still deserve human rights.  However if the government won't fund SRS for law abiding citizens, why should it pay for someone who disregarded those laws? 

And yes, I have heard of Ghandi.  Quite the influential fellow, that Ghandi.

I think the person from the U.K mentioned in the post should realise that trying to access treatment within the NHS is 'like fighting with an octopus' and they should move on like I did and create their own treatment program and pay for it themselves just like I've got to do...

It's Gandhi. GanDHi for crying out loud! How come no one can ever spell it? </grump>

Free ?
Free is good :-)
That might make the decision easier

Right - I think a few basic facts are in need here, and I know this is an old thread but since it has been revived by gentle_patience...

In the UK the normal wait for NHS funded SRS is somewhere between 18 months and 2 years. Some people in the UK, like me, go privately and if you do it is possible to get things done a fair bit quicker, although back in the 1970's and early 80's when I was treated it was a very different process.

The point most of you seem to forget is that these days the the international standards of care require a two year RLE test anyway so the 18 months waiting time ISN'T 2 years and then another 18 months, unless your doctor is a complete incompetant... because you should get referred for surgery after about a year and then your 18 month wait for funding starts then, and runs concurrently with your real life test. That's how most of the people I know had done it anyway.

So they end up having to wait only about 2.5 years in total from the date they first transitioned which is like only 6 months longer than a private patient who is being treated in accordance with standards of care. Not a huge issue.

Having said that some folks are genuinely unlucky in the UK, because since the mid 1990's we have had a regional healthcare system of administration and different regions of the UK prioritise different areas of funding differently.

We call it the postcode lottery. So if you live in one place your SRS funding comes through automatically and in other places you will simply NEVER get it. The same thing is true for cancer drugs, and indeed any form of non trivial medicine. I even heard that one local PCT was thinking about denying HRT.

You do have to bear in mind that the NHS is supposed to provide a basic healthcare system so if you opt for NHS SRS you won't, for example, get the same range of choices of surgeon etc. But the fact remains that as long as you live in the right parts of the UK the system does work for most. But the shortcoming isn't in the principle of state funding. It lies in the regionalisation of the funding control which creates unfair anomilies like the ones we are talking about.

BUT - having said all that - overall the fact remains that in the UK many hundreds of people each year get SRS funded by the state without any problems. Which makes it all the more terrible when you hear of people who are having genuine problems, but also means that for most transpeople having a state funding system in place is a real lifeline.

Quote from: Maddie Secutura on February 28, 2008, 10:33:35 AM
People who break society's rules still deserve human rights.  However if the government won't fund SRS for law abiding citizens, why should it pay for someone who disregarded those laws? 

And yes, I have heard of Ghandi.  Quite the influential fellow, that Ghandi.

They aren't actually in a position where they can save money and get their surgery done. Just because you make a horrible mistake I don't think that you should forfeit the very person you are. This is one of the things that absolutely horrifies me. I am a law abiding citizen but what happens if one day I make a stupid mistake? If I went to prison today I would be incarcerated as a male and if I had to live my life as a male in that environment I can assure you I would commit suicide.

Quote from: rejennyrated on April 18, 2010, 02:53:58 AM


In the UK the normal wait for NHS funded SRS is somewhere between 18 months and 2 years. Some people in the UK, like me, go privately and if you do it is possible to get things done a fair bit quicker, although back in the 1970's and early 80's when I was treated it was a very different process.

In Ontario, Canada srs is covered by our provincial health care plan.  It was re-listed in 2008 after being de-listed by the Conservative party many years ago.  I was approved for surgery in 2003/2004 (can't recall, really), but at that time never dreamed I'd even come close to having surgery ever as I was living in another province and not making much money--so I just basically put it out of my mind.  I moved to Ontario in 2005 and decided on surgery in late 2009--it only took a little longer than 8 weeks before I received my funding.  Everything looks so much different now :)

Quote from: Dana Lane on April 18, 2010, 06:39:53 AM
They aren't actually in a position where they can save money and get their surgery done. Just because you make a horrible mistake I don't think that you should forfeit the very person you are. This is one of the things that absolutely horrifies me. I am a law abiding citizen but what happens if one day I make a stupid mistake? If I went to prison today I would be incarcerated as a male and if I had to live my life as a male in that environment I can assure you I would commit suicide.

Tripping on a shoelace is an accident, choosing to steal something or kill someone is deliberate. For me that changes the "mistake" aspect of paying for someones surgery. If the "mistake" is more minor, hopefully you learned from it and after a short time can continue to earn your way to surgery as well as pay for your other needs. When you live off of others due to your own controllable behavior, you take a risk and you live with the consequences of your behavior. Maybe we should all rob the guy on our right so we can have free health care, housing and food for the rest of our lives. (AS if!!!)

If a person loses the ability to make money for SRS due to their own behavior, let em live with it. I would rather help someone who isn't getting a free ride and is paying taxes to pay for health care or other aid than someone who could have a job and a life helping pay their way through life and have instead chosen to commit a crime and make someone else pay their way.

Those are what I think are valid reasons for NOT covering SRS for inmates although I can understand covering hormones as those are more of maintenance to survive.

You see, this is why healthcare decisions for prisoners is so much easier to deal with in countries with a proper socialised healthcare system. Say there was a prisoner who desperately needed painkillers, would you deny them? I agree that it's grossly unfair for them to get help and ordinary law-abiding citizens don't, but if we treat them as worthless sub-humans, do we really have the moral high ground? :/

At first glance, I don't believe that convicts should get government-funded SRS when non-convicts can't, although convicts paying their own out-of-pocket or insurance monies to get SRS provided to them within the prison medical system would be reasonable; then again, I'll admit to not knowing diddly squat about the prison medical system. At second glance, however, it does complicate things that prisoners are essentially receiving government-funded living in the first place; that's the tradeoff that we make as taxpayers and citizens when we decide to fund a prison system in the first place. If we would provide other healthcare to prisoners - which I believe we do - then we should provide SRS as well.

I do strenuously object to the original post's unjust characterization of prisoners as vile people. Certainly some are, but crimes are committed by a wide variety of people for a wide variety of reasons, and a guilty convict's crimes may range from a cold-hearted, premeditated murder for financial gain to an emotional, spur-of-the-moment retaliatory murder of a violently abusive spouse, to financial crimes, committing thefts and break-ins out of desperate poverty and hopelessness, etc. Inevitably, some percentage of convicts are wrongfully convicted, as well; our justice system is not infallible by any means. It should also be acknowledged that the culture of prisons increases the likelihood of recidivism, and can make people into real, hardened criminals who may not have been before; prison life is very dangerous, and provides enormous short-term incentives in terms of safety in numbers for prisoners to become involved in gangs and other activity that leads to further violence and crime. Ultimately, a more reform- and societal reintegration-minded prison system, designed to fight back against this dangerous gang culture and provide alternative avenues towards education and gainful employment, would be the best thing for all prisoners, transgender and otherwise.

It doesn't seem wise to me to simply punish convicts when such a mentality simply makes it more likely that when they're released, they'll commit more crimes, hurt more innocent people, and end up in prison again. Let us not forget that it is extraordinarily expensive to keep people in prison, as well as being demeaning and tending to turn people towards a career criminal lifestyle; imprisonment is extraordinarily expensive in both financial and human cost, and should not be undertaken lightly.

This issue basically touches on the deeper need for prison reform; it's not as simple as it may appear at first glance.

Interesting enough, I think that there's a positive aspect to all of this -- namely, that transition and SRS are medically necessary and makes the case for that. It might be coming from a prison system, but it's breaking a barrier of the idea that transition and SRS are simply "elective" and not medically necessary.

I think that it cold be possible to use this case to perhaps use as leverage to show that it's medicinally necessary and hopefully it could impact health insurance move to wardsx seening transition and SRS as a medically necessary procedure.

On the surface, of course it's not fair that a criminal is getting the treatment for free, while others do not.

I also think that this case is being used by the nay-sayers to make transition and SRS an optional elective surgery.

It's a very complex situation, although there's a silver lining. Although the situation might enrage people, every time they're another statement that it is medically necessary it helps in a way to push insurance companies it move SRS from elective towards necessary treatment. 

I think it builds a case, as well, about the affects of non-transitioning or being told that you're not a "real girl" and transition and SRS seen as non-medically necessary. I think the stress of that, and feeling like a freak, and most especially as a non-human, non-conforming, and being mentally torment shows an example of what happens when someone needs to transition and feels that he or she can't. The stress, in some people, can cause irrational and even illegal acts. In other words, the emotional stress of not being able to be who you are can cause very self-destructive behavior.

So, yeah, I can see how it feels unfair, and it definitely is especially for people who can't access the means to transition -- but this case is also bringing forth the major distress of not transitioning, and how it's medically necessary... and not just a gag.

You know, if she would have had access to information and needs to transition before the horrible event that got her into this situation (and jail time), she might not have one anything criminal in the first place.

One needs to keep in mind in those countries that do pay for srs, ARE usually the most heavily taxed places TO LIVE.I live in the  the most heavily taxed country in the world. My srs is covered where i live. I have more then paid  for my srs because of the heavy taxes that i have paid and will continue to pay.  On other hand if you are low incomed , which i am not, or don't have a job. I guess you could call it a freebie.