I've gotten a response similar to this before and need to bounce the question off of you all. On the one hand, I feel like even though it will be next to impossible for me to raise enough money for SRS, it is something I need for my health and well being - not something that would just be nice, like getting a brow lift. On the other hand, I think that if I ever did get enough money for SRS, I should use that money to help my family in Mexico where many struggle just for food and housing - plus, I might need money later on should I ever get sick.
Some people tell me that I am too old or its just too expensive, but then I asked my best friend how he would feel if he had a vagina instead of a penis and he said that would be awful because he "loves his penis." I don't know that I would say that I loved any part fo my body, but having SRS is an essential part of me making the outside match who I am on the inside, but I still struggle with thoughts of "wasting money."
It's a medical condition. It's not like you are going out to by a Jaguar to go to the grocery store. How can I spend thousands of dollars on hearing aids when people are dying? If medical coverage covered it, you wouldn't be.
Well, for a start you can throw the question back and find out how much of their earnings the questioner is giving to the starving - we're not the only ones who should feel required to justify our relative wealth, it goes for everyone who is earning rather than starving.
But that aside, as I saw an NHS SRS surgeon explaining on the telly recently, you can also weigh up the cost of SRS against the financial and emotional cost of decades of depression etc. if the transgender person doesn't get the SRS they need to be happy. SRS frees people in bondage to their gender dysphoria to get on with life and do more good. Nothing happens in isolation.
Personally, I think people who say these sort of things are out of line.
As Padma said, how much have they given?
But it's deeper than that. The economy doesn't work in simple monitory terms. Poverty isn't caused by lack of money.
There is very little point in responding to statements like these. They are stupid, ignorant and hypocritical. And if you want to be clever, you could point out that you will do more good for very poor people by spending your money than giving it to them. Hard I know, but that's the real nature of poverty.
Ugh. I got this question a week ago about FFS and it really irritated me. The idea that we are somehow obligated to sacrifice our own personal happiness for the good of others annoys me. I did that for the first 27 years of my life and it left me beyond miserable. If people want to give tons of money to causes, that is their choice and I absolutely applaud that but that doesn't mean I need to. One person's value system does not supersede my own. I'd ask them why they wouldn't feed a group of starving cannibals with their own body and see how they respond. That shows an obvious line they aren't willing to cross. Altruism pfft. I give, but I do so voluntarily and certainly not out of shame, guilt or force.
Well if i were to get SRS I wouldn't be too worried about the starving since I am pretty poor and kind of starving.
Not to the point of some african, but to where my weight fluctuates pretty bad
Anyways! I can't be bothered by other people's problems, I've got my first world problems to deal with.
Most people didn't pay me 10 minutes in attention when I was on the verge of suicide due to gender dysphoria, why should I give them 10 dollars in food?
I have a sister in law that calls me selfish because I decided to change into a female (just taking hormones is changing into a female to her apparently). I've done everything for her, her kids, and my brother, financially, physically, and emotionally but she has the nerve to call me selfish. I have a feeling the people telling you these things are in the same boat as this horrible excuse for a human being.
Its not a fair question to ask of people. How can we do/buy anything with others dying for any reason.
While we can try to give money to charity, we can not stop poverty by ourselves.
Ask them why don't millionares who spend millions of dollars on houses and gems and other luxuries help you with transitioning
You cannot help every starving person out there and if you did, then the next question would be "why won't you help sick people, poor, animals, etc"
That question is very unfair and I would ask well what are they doing to help the world?
I'm sure that you being here sharing your story has helped more people than that person has.
Quote from: Robertina on January 30, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
I've gotten a response similar to this before and need to bounce the question off of you all. On the one hand, I feel like even though it will be next to impossible for me to raise enough money for SRS, it is something I need for my health and well being - not something that would just be nice, like getting a brow lift. On the other hand, I think that if I ever did get enough money for SRS, I should use that money to help my family in Mexico where many struggle just for food and housing - plus, I might need money later on should I ever get sick.
Some people tell me that I am too old or its just too expensive, but then I asked my best friend how he would feel if he had a vagina instead of a penis and he said that would be awful because he "loves his penis." I don't know that I would say that I loved any part fo my body, but having SRS is an essential part of me making the outside match who I am on the inside, but I still struggle with thoughts of "wasting money."
The key word here is you're from Mexico/Central/South American Spanish.
I've lived in Mexico and Central America.
The people are all about "Family".
Well. That's great. - If you've got a nice family.
I don't.
Try to break from roots. - Get the money for 'yourself' first. - Then maybe you can be productive to send them money. - If you wanted to.
As far as donating to the poor ...that is for the rich rich rich ...or the duped.
I wouldn't donate to any of these "pull-the-heart-strings" people on TV. - They get to travel on your money, etc, etc, etc.....
Quote from: Robertina on January 30, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
I've gotten a response similar to this before and need to bounce the question off of you all. On the one hand, I feel like even though it will be next to impossible for me to raise enough money for SRS, it is something I need for my health and well being - not something that would just be nice, like getting a brow lift. On the other hand, I think that if I ever did get enough money for SRS, I should use that money to help my family in Mexico where many struggle just for food and housing - plus, I might need money later on should I ever get sick.
Some people tell me that I am too old or its just too expensive, but then I asked my best friend how he would feel if he had a vagina instead of a penis and he said that would be awful because he "loves his penis." I don't know that I would say that I loved any part fo my body, but having SRS is an essential part of me making the outside match who I am on the inside, but I still struggle with thoughts of "wasting money."
That's a good question.
It's wonderful that you even think about these things, truly, a lot of people wouldn't.
Ultimately only you can look into yourself and find the answer.
I give to charity, I don't give much, I'm poor too, but I could give more than I do.
I think there's such a thing as being too self-sacrificing. If you believe that you are a worthwhile person, then you need to look after yourself as well as others. Sometimes it's you that needs the money, sometimes you're the one that needs help. Some people don't understand that.
Quality of life is something I think is important. Life without quality of life is not life worth living to me. If you need SRS to maintain or improve your quality of life, especially in something like this, were you're only improving your quality of life close to the point most people take for granted, then you are being charitable to yourself.
I hope this post helps.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/407328_3121295600902_1519937179_32875676_2138402767_n.jpg)
My answer is plain simple. First I need to be happy ME, only then I can make others happy.
You need to decide in your heart what the best use of your money is.
People can play the game all day of deciding X is a better use of money than Y. But for every use of money, there's *always* a better use in *someone's* eyes. "Starving family in Mexico? What about the real poor in (insert country here)?"
Plenty of people buy new automobiles for far more than 20K that are worthless in a few years. That's throwing money away. Taking care of your health is hardly even remotely comparable to throwing money away on a car (but I wouldn't criticize someone for that either - if they have the money for the car, and that's where they want to spend the money, fine).
I'd also say that you are making an investment in yourself. You'll be happier, more productive, etc, if you do what you need to do for you. Then you'll have more to give to others. That's not selfish. It may even be wise.
Ultimately, though, it's your money and your conscience. I just would say that nobody has your best interest in mind if they are telling you it would be selfish to keep yourself healthy and well.
Let's see. I work. I work hard for MY money, therefore I do what I want with MY money. First comes me, second comes me, and third comes me.
Spending thousands of dollars to have a decent mental health isn't bad. If it were, WHAT are people spending hundreds of thousands (or even being paid that money by the government) to survive the heart attack they brought onto themselves by eating at Mc Donald's everyday? WE didn't ask to need this surgery; they did. But I wouldn't for a second say they're selfish for that surgery...
Health is never something you are selfish on.
Apart from that, I don't think I can ever consider myself selfish for anything as long as my income doesn't get higher than 30-50 000 $ per year. People who don't help the poorest when they are rich are selfish, yeah. But people who are "poor but comfortable" have absolutely no moral need to help those who are poorer.
Plus, I've always thought it was a government's job to help the poor. Individuals' help makes their conscience lighter, but aren't anything all that useful. If the US and every country following their stupid lead stopped investing in military jets, machine guns, nuclear bombs and taliban torture and put that wasted money where they should, we wouldn't even have that problem.
This question is out of line, often asked by people that have more money than you, or just someone who would put you on a guilt trip nonetheless if you're transitioning or doing anything to improve yourself. There are many causes of starvation, mostly by war or greed. I stopped giving to the starving when I found out that most of my cash donation for food went to the insurgent soldiers and greedy warlords. I give some money to build things so these people can have a shelter and the means to feed themselves. The best I can do on a limited income. No SRS here, I can't afford it. I am okay with my situation anyway, however, I would opt for the SRS if I had the money. $20 is not chump change here.
This is your decision. Don't let these guilt trippers pull you down to their level!
Joelene
People use the "omg ppl are poor" garbage to discount anything that you're doing that they cannot handle. People who can accept you will never say that stuff.
There's a user on youtube that loooooves to post that question both in videos and in responses to other videos. It kinda wreaks of something, I'm not sure what it is. Self-righteousness or something. Don't listen to them. I'm sure if they had $20K for something, they wouldn't be out handing the money to starving people either. It's easy to tell people how they should spend their own money, lol.
As others have said above, once you are able to function fully as your true self, there is a chance you will be able to improve your financial situation and help others.
Also, did anyone offer to help you when you were down at the bottom of the GID pit?
It's a bit like the safety demonstration on your flight back to the States. Put on your oxygen mask first, then help anyone who needs it.
Karen.
It is one of those stupid illogical questions. Like; how can you live with two healthy kidneys and one could be transplanted into a person with renal failure? Fit in many other body parts and other people.
Donating money to the poor may not get the result that is desired. If you don't believe me look at many of the countries that 'we' mainly Western countries have given to Third world countries. Their Dictators walk away with billions and the people we want to help still starve. And NO that doesn't mean we stop giving. We have to give better.
People often give with emotion. We know cases all the time. But emotion is a terrible way to make a decision, as logic is removed. And that is what these sort of posts are about. They are contrived to say: If I make you feel really bad about what I show you send me money to stop me showing it too you. It doesn't mean I'm going to help the people.
And this is the cruelty of such posts, they are designed to make you feel bad and then to give your money to scam artists.
There is nothing wrong in helping you and yours. The world and life is not just. It has never been and it never will be. We should help when we can. But make sure we are helping people who get the help.
Cindy
Quote from: Padma on January 30, 2012, 03:56:25 PM
But that aside, as I saw an NHS SRS surgeon explaining on the telly recently, you can also weigh up the cost of SRS against the financial and emotional cost of decades of depression etc. if the transgender person doesn't get the SRS they need to be happy. SRS frees people in bondage to their gender dysphoria to get on with life and do more good. Nothing happens in isolation.
So what about those of us who the NHS GIC like to boycott? how do we feel? how is our well being? after being messed around for years? well I can tell you mine is not good.
Quote from: Robertina on January 30, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
I've gotten a response similar to this before and need to bounce the question off of you all. On the one hand, I feel like even though it will be next to impossible for me to raise enough money for SRS, it is something I need for my health and well being - not something that would just be nice, like getting a brow lift. On the other hand, I think that if I ever did get enough money for SRS, I should use that money to help my family in Mexico where many struggle just for food and housing - plus, I might need money later on should I ever get sick.
Some people tell me that I am too old or its just too expensive, but then I asked my best friend how he would feel if he had a vagina instead of a penis and he said that would be awful because he "loves his penis." I don't know that I would say that I loved any part fo my body, but having SRS is an essential part of me making the outside match who I am on the inside, but I still struggle with thoughts of "wasting money."
I had someone earlier this year do the very same thing to me. Basically, the argument was "how can you have SRS by working in the Church and not use that money to help towards soup kitchens and helping the poor" (paraphrased). This comment actually happened here at Susan's.
The simple answer is, it's my life and my journey. I believe in helping out the needy but I do not believe in completely destitute myself to do that. There's a balance. I work on my needs and I help others. If I helped others and do not help myself, then there is a problem.
Found the quote someone here said about my SRS:
QuoteHow many homeless people etc are going to sleep out on the street or go hungry because you are asking these churches to pay this -elective- procedure for you? You should be ashamed of yourself. Save and work for this yourself
So, basically, if I had medical insurance through a secular job it would have been ok. Because I have medical insurance through my church, it was alike me taking money from the homeless.
Quality of life is key. Self-preservation is NOT selfishness. If we lose hope and become suicidal then society as a whole has lost what we could have helped for the rest of our lives.
Your contribution to society and its welfare is much greater than 20k over the span of 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years. Even if you never give a dime directly to a charity, there are still indirect effects.
Isn't this very much like the airline safety speech? If you help someone before yourself and you are overcome then they die too because you lose your grip.
"If you are travelling with a child or someone who requires assistance, secure your mask on first, and then assist the other person"
The church provided insurance is especially a bad example, because a person's service to that church for an extra 30 years is worth WAY more than 20k. Even if she hadn't been suicide she may have walked away.
****EDIT*****
ooops sorry JustMeInOz I didn't see your post somehow and didn't meant to steal your line about airline safety.
A similar question was asked when we were going to the Moon...why go there, when there are sick/dying/hungry/uneducated people here?
Here's why:
Yes, there are underprivileged people everywhere. Always has been, always will be.
Yes, we should make an effort to help them--not by giving them handouts, but by giving them the means to help themselves. But, there just isn't enough money to help everyone.
Knowing that there isn't enough money to help everyone (but there are things that could be done), means that we are free to take care of our other needs...such as the need for research (including manned space flight) and personal needs, such as SRS.
Does a family need 3 BMW's and 2 Humvees? No...that would be excessive. (Unless there's at least 5 people who drive in the family).
Everything in moderation. Take care of your needs first, give to others as your means and conscience allows.
(And don't let other people "be" your conscience)
imho
Quote from: Naturally Blonde on January 31, 2012, 06:41:30 AM
So what about those of us who the NHS GIC like to boycott? how do we feel? how is our well being? after being messed around for years? well I can tell you mine is not good.
I obviously don't have privileged information on how doctors in different GICs around the UK assess individual cases, so I can't respond to your question. I don't know why people around the country have such enormously differing experiences of their GICs and the doctors who practise there. I'm sorry you've had such a bad experience with them.
As for what I wrote, I was just citing my source for a quote on one of the many reasons why there's value to performing SRS on people with gender dysphoria, and my source happened to be one of the UK SRS surgeons (on My Transsexual Summer, not quoted verbatim).
There's simple no contraddiction. If you make your money honestly, staying better is the prerequisites to help other people that surrounds you. Otherwise how cold you help someone with such a burden?
Everybody must have some degree of satisfaction, or depression would kill him or her, and I don't believe in santity, when people leaves all their problems behind to help someone, it is something noone can do, because real problems hit you from behind!
That question is 0% about their compassion for starving people and 100% about their discomfort with SRS. Doesn't even merit an answer, you could just laugh and call them a hypocrite.
I had SRS now I regret it because of guilt trips. I have been told Im selfish and self centered. I even live full time as a male. I would not want to see this happen to anyone. Do for yourself first.
Before you have the ability to help others you have to take care of yourself.
You can't help the suffering of others until you end your own suffering, then and only then can to reach out to help others effectively.
JP
Quote from: JoannaH on February 01, 2012, 03:40:23 AM
Before you have the ability to help others you have to take care of yourself.
You can't help the suffering of others until you end your own suffering, then and only then can to reach out to help others effectively.
JP
I think it's okay to do both at the same time. And I'm not talking about the grand gestures - doing simple acts of kindness make me just as much happier as whoever I'm doing them for. I don't think we need to wait until we're completely sorted out before we're capable of having a positive effect on the world around us.
Most of the replies here presuppose some duty to help the poor, the elderly, or the underprivileged. Keep in mind, if you are a tax paying citizen of the United States, you already are helping these individuals. Our government is taking your money by force and giving it to them.
I am not my brother's, or sister's, keeper. As I am able to perform the actions necessary to sustain my own life and happiness, so I recognize in every individual the ability to do the same. As I do not sacrifice myself for others, I do not ask any one to sacrifice their self for me. I do not see the world as a helpless, degenerate mass of people crying out for help, but as a benevolent, rational world in which I am free to trade with rational people, value for value. If you trade $20k for SRS, is it a fair trade? What if you trade $20k to a boozing alcoholic whose mind has rotted away years ago? What value, other than assuaging an unearned and underserved guilt, do you gain?
There is a difference between being generous or benevolent, and being self-sacrificial. Whether you earn $20k through honest work, inherit it, or win it in a lotto game, it is yours by right and you have a moral right to dispense with your money as you wish.
Quote from: Semiopathy on February 01, 2012, 04:40:53 AM
Most of the replies here presuppose some duty to help the poor, the elderly, or the underprivileged. Keep in mind, if you are a tax paying citizen of the United States, you already are helping these individuals. Our government is taking your money by force and giving it to them.
I am not my brother's, or sister's, keeper. As I am able to perform the actions necessary to sustain my own life and happiness, so I recognize in every individual the ability to do the same. As I do not sacrifice myself for others, I do not ask any one to sacrifice their self for me. I do not see the world as a helpless, degenerate mass of people crying out for help, but as a benevolent, rational world in which I am free to trade with rational people, value for value. If you trade $20k for SRS, is it a fair trade? What if you trade $20k to a boozing alcoholic whose mind has rotted away years ago? What value, other than assuaging an unearned and underserved guilt, do you gain?
There is a difference between being generous or benevolent, and being self-sacrificial. Whether you earn $20k through honest work, inherit it, or win it in a lotto game, it is yours by right and you have a moral right to dispense with your money as you wish.
I 100% agree. Well said. Guilt is a form of emotional violence and no matter how you dress it up it's still immoral. If a person has X dollars, I don't care how much X is, they can decide what to do with their money.
It's the hypothetical original questioner who has limited this hypothetical question to finances. Being socially responsible need have nothing to do with money anyway. We look after ourselves, we look after each other, because ourselves and each other are worth looking after.
The original question is fundamentally questioning the value of someone who wants to transition, and that assumption is the inappropriate one. So it's the values of the questioner that should be under question.
[...and yes, re-reading that makes even my head spin.]
I'm concerned that if we get too caught up here in arguing whether we should or should not want to help others, we'll lose sight of the appallingness of the original question, which is essentially asking "why does a trans person deserve to be helped?"
I don't think there's an appropriate response in the end, because it would presuppose someone who was open to considering that people who need SRS need it as validly as someone needing any other kind of surgery (or care in general). And someone who's asking that question has already decided we don't deserve it.
Do those starving africans also care about your identity's safety? Many african LGBT people face intense discrimination (and no , I dont believe this is natural for Africa as many african's seem to believe, they probably had a flourishing LGBT tribal life pre-colonization) and some are even killed for it as if they were possesed or bewitched
It goes both ways
You're not spending the starving persons $20K, you're spending your $20K. Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Robertina on January 30, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
I've gotten a response similar to this before and need to bounce the question off of you all. On the one hand, I feel like even though it will be next to impossible for me to raise enough money for SRS, it is something I need for my health and well being - not something that would just be nice, like getting a brow lift. On the other hand, I think that if I ever did get enough money for SRS, I should use that money to help my family in Mexico where many struggle just for food and housing - plus, I might need money later on should I ever get sick...
An old fallacy.
"How can you spend money, when others are poor?"
"How can you be happy, when people are oppressed in China?"
"How can you eat, when people are starving in Africa?"
It is the standard leftist guilt trip. The fallacy is that they are trying to make
you responsible for
others' misery.
Some of the fundamental tenets of natural law are that you have a natural right to life; a right to defend yourself, your family, and your property; a right to fruit of your own labor; and a right to pursue happiness.
You are not responsible for the failings of others. On the contrary, you have a responsibility to strive for you own success and happiness.
Charity and altruism are admirable traits, but there is no such thing as involuntary charity or compulsory altruism.
Quote from: Kira1981 on January 31, 2012, 07:06:55 PM
I had SRS now I regret it because of guilt trips. I have been told Im selfish and self centered. I even live full time as a male. I would not want to see this happen to anyone. Do for yourself first.
You have no reason to feel guilty, especially since your were born with an intersex condition (AIS). You have done what you need to do to survive. You are to be congratulated.
Quote from: Beth Andrea on January 31, 2012, 10:51:46 AM
Does a family need 3 BMW's and 2 Humvees? No...that would be excessive. (Unless there's at least 5 people who drive in the family).
It is not your prerogative to decide what is, or is not, "excessive." If that family can afford to purchase those items, they help employ all those involved in manufacturing, transporting, marketing, selling, and servicing those vehicles.
Quote from: Robertina on January 30, 2012, 03:41:11 PM
I've gotten a response similar to this before and need to bounce the question off of you all. On the one hand, I feel like even though it will be next to impossible for me to raise enough money for SRS, it is something I need for my health and well being - not something that would just be nice, like getting a brow lift. On the other hand, I think that if I ever did get enough money for SRS, I should use that money to help my family in Mexico where many struggle just for food and housing - plus, I might need money later on should I ever get sick.
Some people tell me that I am too old or its just too expensive, but then I asked my best friend how he would feel if he had a vagina instead of a penis and he said that would be awful because he "loves his penis." I don't know that I would say that I loved any part fo my body, but having SRS is an essential part of me making the outside match who I am on the inside, but I still struggle with thoughts of "wasting money."
I'm not going to read the other responses right now because it hurts me to think about what people might say. I'll say that how to spend one's money can be a deeply personal and charged issue, and we fight and judge too much about it.
When I was a teenager and didn't have anywhere reliable to sleep or eat, I once spent money on wart removal acid. I had a bunch of warts on my left hand. They made me uncomfortable, and it was a solvable problem, and frankly my mind wasn't big enough to deal with issues of who needs this money more. I was a wreck. I just needed to get by. Getting that disgusting crap off my hand was pretty good, considering how powerless I was otherwise.
Now, I have a kid who needs braces. Like, her teeth are awful, to the point that people will treat her unkindly in the future even before they find out what real problems she has. If I had the money, I'm honestly not sure whether I'd get her braces or my top surgery. My top surgery might be what stands between me and suicide, but how do I know dental work isn't (or won't be) the same thing for my daughter? I'm not a monster and I can't assume.
I've been hungry and I've suffered. I have scars and other permanent damage from the times I couldn't afford medical treatment. I've slept outside in subzero weather. I've gone 20 years with no one to call if I really need help. I've shared tiny spaces with my child for 12 years. I've worked 2 and 3 jobs at times, just to maintain.
But if someone wants to drop 20k on a procedure that makes them whole again, that's okay. It makes me feel good to know that there are clear and permanent ways to alleviate some problems. You can feed me today and I'll still suffer tomorrow, but if you fixed my body I'd have a better existence and my presence in the world would be better for everyone else, too.
Quote from: Jamie D on February 02, 2012, 12:27:56 AM
An old fallacy.
"How can you spend money, when others are poor?"
"How can you be happy, when people are oppressed in China?"
"How can you eat, when people are starving in Africa?"
It is the standard leftist guilt trip. The fallacy is that they are trying to make you responsible for others' misery.
Some of the fundamental tenets of natural law are that you have a natural right to life; a right to defend yourself, your family, and your property; a right to fruit of your own labor; and a right to pursue happiness.
You are not responsible for the failings of others. On the contrary, you have a responsibility to strive for you own success and happiness.
Charity and altruism are admirable traits, but there is no such thing as involuntary charity or compulsory altruism.
Thats not fair, im about as far left as you can go without falling off the chart all together and i dont think you should blame yourself for spending money when people are poor. what people should blame themselves for is letting your govenment (and my own) prop up the system of inequity. You are not responsible for the failings of others however we are ALL responsible for the damage that our way of life causes to others.
That's a silly line of reasoning lol. How can you have a wide screen tv, game system, etc.. people spend money on luxuries we can at least put up some money for a medical condition. You should ask them why they're browsing youtube videos instead of volunteering to help out, or how they're paying X dollars a month for internet when people don't even have homes.
It's a matter of the divide between industrialized nations and the developing world (and by proxy, between classes in nations) in the sense of "we" don't really need the tv's, iJunk, internet access, cars, and bling bling clothing but have the privilege of having, or have access to the mentioned things.
It's great to talk about the blight of others but hard in theory to improve the situation of others when they have lived in those conditions all their life and think it's normal.
Think of it as an investment in the future that will allow you to grow and enable you to give more to others.
If you try to give before you are centered, then in the long run much less with be donated. You just have to get yourself centered first and then you can go forward and increase the positive energy in the world.
I tend to think that just being kind to people around us even when we're having a difficult time is more generous than many people manage. Most of the most important generosity is personal, and isn't financial. And it's often harder to be kind to the people who live next door than it is to worry about the people on the next continent, for some reason.
The kind of question the OP is referring to is almost invariably riding on a bow-wave of nastiness that's completely unjustified.
I do wonder what the people who ask that question spend their money on. I bet that while many of us are saving to get our surgeries, they're spending just as much, if not more on crap that's much more trivial. 'Why are you eating out? You could save thousands of dollars this year and donate it to something' 'Why are you buying a $200 pair of jeans?' 'Why a new laptop? The old one still works.'
As spacial said too, it's not a lack of money that causes poverty. There's so many other factors and to assume that throwing a few dollars at the issue will make it go away is laughable.
Quote from: El on February 02, 2012, 02:27:05 AM
[W]hat people should blame themselves for is letting your govenrment (and my own) prop up the system of inequity.
El, what is a "system of inequity." Does your government provide for "equal opportunity"? A system in which one can achieve and prosper according to their own skills, abilities, and sweat?
Beyond that, is it the role of government to ensure equal result and distribution of wealth? I think not.
I appreciate all the replies. I should also add that some of the comments that I've received before by friends were not just about helping others, but also about saving money to help myself in the future - for example, with food or housing. My friend said not to tell him I'm saving up for SRS, but rather saving to buy food, or housing, or to help family in Mexico because Mexicans that come here work so hard just to make a better life for family in Mexico (like getting off a dirt floor).
I think it might come down to the fact that to them, SRS is an elective option that is not as important as, for example, a heart operation or other life threatening medical condition. Some of these people asking me this are good folks, but they don't understand transexuality and have other personal priorities.
I was raised to help others, pounded into me by the church, so I suppose this question causes some guilt to creep in. Again, thanks for the replies :)
Quote from: Robertina on February 02, 2012, 03:13:48 PM
I appreciate all the replies. I should also add that some of the comments that I've received before by friends were not just about helping others, but also about saving money to help myself in the future - for example, with food or housing. My friend said not to tell him I'm saving up for SRS, but rather saving to buy food, or housing, or to help family in Mexico because Mexicans that come here work so hard just to make a better life for family in Mexico (like getting off a dirt floor).
I think it might come down to the fact that to them, SRS is an elective option that is not as important as, for example, a heart operation or other life threatening medical condition. Some of these people asking me this are good folks, but they don't understand transexuality and have other personal priorities.
I was raised to help others, pounded into me by the church, so I suppose this question causes some guilt to creep in. Again, thanks for the replies :)
Robertina, SRS/GCS may be "elective" for some transsexuals, after all, there is an entire forum here for "non-ops." For others, however, the incongruence between their emotional selves and their physical selves is as life-threatening as any disease.
Saving for a life-altering surgery should be as prudent and acceptable as saving for retirement.
Quote from: Caseyyy on February 02, 2012, 07:09:52 AM
I do wonder what the people who ask that question spend their money on. I bet that while many of us are saving to get our surgeries, they're spending just as much, if not more on crap that's much more trivial. 'Why are you eating out? You could save thousands of dollars this year and donate it to something' 'Why are you buying a $200 pair of jeans?' 'Why a new laptop? The old one still works.'
I don't know anyone who lives like this. I've never bought new jeans in my life, or a new computer (though I was given one on scholarship in college) and that's not just because I don't have a lot of money. I was raised with different priorities.
I do agree it can be a slippery slope argument. I drink coffee daily. Do I need that? Of course not. I buy pickles sometimes, which have next to no nutritional value. Anything I have, someone else doesn't have. It's hard to live with, and it goes all the way down.
Our gangster politicians rob the people of this country of Billions, so don't get a guilt trip.In New Orleans I saw a beautiful city deliberately flooded by the City Hall Gang so that they could feast on graft at the expense of the American Taxpayer. They used federal funds to repair the houses in a part of the city,and then turned around and destroyed the same houses to build a couple of huge, unnecessary hospital pork barrel projects.And if you gave that money to some charity, they would probably use it to give their executives a bonus. Most people who say these kind of things are probably in bed with the crooks. So don't deprive yourself of what you need to make your life a little less miserable.
Quote from: Robertina on February 02, 2012, 03:13:48 PM
I think it might come down to the fact that to them, SRS is an elective option that is not as important as, for example, a heart operation or other life threatening medical condition. Some of these people asking me this are good folks, but they don't understand transexuality and have other personal priorities.
I was raised to help others, pounded into me by the church, so I suppose this question causes some guilt to creep in. Again, thanks for the replies :)
I am on a fixed income. I still give to charities. Giving to charities is also an investment that it will improve people's lives and to help them to help themselves. This investment returns are the actual improvement in those people's lives with the only returns for yourself is the satisfaction that you did help these people. This year I am canceling a few charities because they have sent me too much mail over the past year begging for more money, in some cases, twice a month! This begging cost a lot of money in postage, the 'free' return address stickers, notepads, calendars and eats into the small investments I give to these charities. This money will go somewhere else. You have to be a smart investor! You got to know when to bail!
Robertina, saving for your SRS is an investment in your own health. Charity begins at home. You mentioned that you have Kleinfelter's. A man with Kleinfelters mostly cannot do the the things the other men can do because of certain issues with that syndrome. You are in the group that is more likely have GID tendencies than the others.
Joelene
Quote from: Jamie D on February 02, 2012, 12:31:30 PM
El, what is a "system of inequity." Does your government provide for "equal opportunity"? A system in which one can achieve and prosper according to their own skills, abilities, and sweat?
Beyond that, is it the role of government to ensure equal result and distribution of wealth? I think not.
You really wouldnt appreciate my theories regarding socio-economics. They are somewhat extreme.
Quote from: Felix on February 02, 2012, 03:55:31 PM
I buy pickles sometimes, which have next to no nutritional value.
Bread and butter pickles are an essential food group of their own.
Quote from: El on February 02, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
You really wouldnt appreciate my theories regarding socio-economics. They are somewhat extreme.
I am all ears, earthling.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F9300000%2FQuark-ferengi-9330452-571-711.jpg&hash=f94439eea97d5ceb2f689991b5f4971d0fcfc83e)
(With apologies to poster Slanan)
Quote from: Felix on February 02, 2012, 03:55:31 PM
I do agree it can be a slippery slope argument. I drink coffee daily. Do I need that? Of course not. I buy pickles sometimes, which have next to no nutritional value. Anything I have, someone else doesn't have. It's hard to live with, and it goes all the way down.
Au contraire! Pickled cucumbers have more than you think! Take this from a gardener who makes these things. It also depends on what is being pickled.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/3006/2 (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/3006/2)
Joelene
Quote from: Joelene9 on February 02, 2012, 08:27:35 PM
Au contraire! Pickled cucumbers have more than you think! Take this from a gardener who makes these things. It also depends on what is being pickled.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/3006/2 (http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/3006/2)
Joelene
Haha, thank you! I tend to treat pickles like candy or alcohol - good for raising quality of life, but often unjustifiable financially. I like anything pickled. We made cornbread with pickled cactus in it the other day (and omitted salt from the mix to compensate) and it was delicious. I like pickled jalapenos on blackeye peas. I really want to try making pickled watermelon rinds, but I'm a bit intimidated by the recipes. I need to start smaller. :)
To stay sorta on topic - when my daughter asks for an iphone and I say no we can't afford it, and she answers are we poor/why are we poor, I tell her we're filthy rich because we can eat whenever we want. That's a pretty royal way to live, considering most of the people on the planet and most of human history. :laugh:
Quote from: Jamie D on February 02, 2012, 07:42:50 PM
I am all ears, earthling.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F9300000%2FQuark-ferengi-9330452-571-711.jpg&hash=f94439eea97d5ceb2f689991b5f4971d0fcfc83e)
(With apologies to poster Slanan)
I believe the future lies in the direction of a world goverment and the abolition of money. Now dont get me wrong money and capitalism have done a great deal to advance the progress of mankind but they have run their usefull course. The myth of scarcity is what makes money "neccisary" but there is no scarcity, only things that are outside of our reach, if we pooled our resources and strove to improve our way of life we could take the next step towards the advancement of the species, which is harvesting the natural resources in space. If you do away with money (or more to the point the idea of "wealth") you do away with greed, with corruption, with beurocracy. The world debt crisis is proof enough that our system of wealth doesnt work, everyone owes money to everyone and it all just exists on computers and billboards. If profit and loss were no longer valid concepts then progress would be far easier to achieve, resources going where they are needed instead of where they can be afforded. I propose a resource based economy, heavily automated and based purely of supply and demand.
I dont think ive summed it up very well and my spelling/grammer are terrible. Feel free to ask me to clarify anything.
Some common objections people have to my idea and my answers to them:
What would be the motivation to work?Well I think saying that the pursuit of material gains is the reason people work doesnt do people enough credit. If we take away the need for what is essentially slave labour to perfom the less desirable jobs (through automation) then people would have time to pursue the arts and sciences instead of toiling in a factory or office 40 hours a week or more.
What about the jobs that couldnt be automated?Well most jobs on earth can be automated, we have robotic surgeons now, what does that tell you about robotics? You would only really need about 2% of the population to actually work maintenance of the system and i dont know about you but i would gladly be part of that 2% if it meant the other 98% could do something usefull like study science of creat works of art.
But surely there isnt enough to go around, i keep hearing about the fuel crisis etc etc etcActually theres plenty enough to go around, food production is limited by inefficency and energy consumption. Energy consuption is a problem because of our reliance on fossil fuels (although i would argue we arent actually really running out of them, they just pollute too much to be viable) if we switched to (for example) geothermal energy we could power the world as it is right now 10 times over with very little effort, the main obsticle in the way of this change is the fuel companies lobbying the goverments to keep their dirty fossil fuel profits rolling in (ooh look its the myth of scarcity again)
Computers running the economy? Sound like skynet to me!Well to be fair 99% of the world money only exists on a computer. The computers that would handle the supply and demand would need supervision yes but only by a very small amount of people.
Ok so thats all my brain can handle right now, so feel free to call me a crackpot :P
I dont think we will see these changes in my lifetime but I do believe it will be how things eventually end up (that or we kill ourselves before then)
I'm not going to call you a crackpot. Some of those ideas are not unlike the stuff of futuristic science fiction. It never hurts to dream.
I'll just note that utopian societies don't work, never have, and never will.
Lol I would argue that a Utopian society has never been tried, heck theres never even been a real communist nation. Also if you consider how well the Nordic model is performing I think that its the direction we are heading in, albiet not in my lifetime
Why should I try and help people who are starving when I saved up the money to get this myself.... vs people like Johnny Dep or an actor who does so little but makes SOOOOOOOOOOOO much money for nothing.... much better way of thinking about it. You earn your money by working off your butt VS someone who says a couple lines in a movie and makes bank...
You Earn= Your Right
Do nothing= You should help people
I personally think that that "why should I" attitude is a big part of why the world is so screwed up right now.
depends on who's resources you pool.
50% of the worlds population own less than 1% of this worlds wealth.
and of course 1% of pepole own 40% of the worlds wealth.
Inequality is to be expected but these days it's so exaggerated it's worse than any dystopian novel could imagine.
I agree with that, and that the 1% should bear the majority of the burden but its up to every one of us to try and make a difference
Quote from: El on February 05, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
Lol I would argue that a Utopian society has never been tried, heck theres never even been a real communist nation. Also if you consider how well the Nordic model is performing I think that its the direction we are heading in, albiet not in my lifetime
They have been tried many times on small scales in communes and hippy villages. Try have been tried on large scales in the USSR, China, and other places. They never work on a scale of more than a few people because they run counter to human nature. Some are lazy. Some are greedy. Some cheat. And some fulfill their roles. Moreover most complex systems need functional market forces to work. But I'm not even claiming a utopian society based purely on market forces as in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would work either.
Using the word communism does not make a regime communist.
I think a lack of money and the automation of menial tasks would fix the problems of lazyness corruption and greed.
Two anecdotes:
My sister was one of the first female paper carriers in my town in 1972. Of course, they give the newbe the harder route. This was down in the flat flood plain, lower middle class. Nearly all paid their monthly subscriptions when my sister went collecting, with tip around Christmas. Then she got the upper class route up on the hill and she had a harder time collecting from these folks (got change for a hundred?), little or no tips.
A survey from Pizza Hut's delivery people in the late 1990's when the economy was better showed that the tips were higher when the customer had a Ford Taurus in the driveway than if there was a Lexus there. The ones with all of the money with the high-end cars were more likely give a small or no tip.
Joelene
Quote from: El on February 05, 2012, 04:53:44 PM
Using the word communism does not make a regime communist.
I think a lack of money and the automation of menial tasks would fix the problems of lazyness corruption and greed.
If communism worked then there would be one working example by now. In contrast we have multiple functioning non communist models out there that almost always work better particularly in he developed world. There have been plenty of societies with lack of money. You could probably find one now to live in if you want. Virtually all major inventions and improvements come under market or quasi market models. The only way to get more automation is in a market model with technology improvement. And once you automate current tasks you will just have a new set of tasks that you want to automate.
No-one has ever tried to implement communism on a large scale. If something hasnt been attempted how can you say it doesnt work? I understand you believe in the systems we live by at the minute but Jiddu Krishnamurti (not sure i spelled his name right) once said "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" I would add that it is no meassure of health not to notice that our society doesnt work.
I'd probably ask them if they would feel better about it if any left over tissue was donated to the soup kitchen. :P
Eww XD That is probably gonna be grossest thing ill hear today
Quote from: El on February 06, 2012, 04:29:37 AM
No-one has ever tried to implement communism on a large scale. If something hasnt been attempted how can you say it doesnt work?
Stalin did it and Mao did it. This line of thought has been re-run since about the 1960s as it became clearer and clearer that the actual experiments were complete and total failures. It's an esoteric question of whether those experiments were legitimate. Capitalism seems to work in a variety of environments that are either full or partially capitalistic. It doesn't need a perfect experiment to prove its value. And you can't get a perfect experiement in communism because most people don't want it and would gladly cut the throats of anyone who wants to impose it on them. I believe it is a bogus ideology that emanated from the 19th century and I would fight to the death to keep it from being imposed on me or my family or my country. I believe it will always result in totalitarian dictatorship.
If commnism worked then some of the small scale experiments would work and begin expanding exponentially as more and more people joined in.
First I should point out is that capitalism is an economic system whereas communism is a politcal ideology and infact many of the earlier regimes that used the name communism were not actually opposed to many aspects of capitalism.
Stalinism was a counter revolutionary form of government that used vaguely marxist language to persuade the proleteriat into believing that Lenin's idea of a vanguard party acting in the best interests of the people was still being followed when in actual fact it was an underhanded way of bringing in totalitarianism and the implementation of a personality cult.
Even the earlier leninism was far from Marx's view of an egalitarian state where true power was held by the proletariat due to the emphasis on the establishment of a vanguard party again with a personality cult around its leader.
Dont forget that Lenin tried to convince the CPSU to remove Stalin from a position of responsibility although after Lenins death this attempt nearly dissapeared from history.
Maoism was even further from Marxism. It had the same differences as between stalinism and Marxism but also Mao had far less interest in the urban poor segment of society. Also Mao was never open about his views on teh relationship between the party and the people in the way that Lenin was. Maoism was a mishmash of social policies and ideologies, mixing elements of Leninism, Stalinism, Confucianism and Free Market Capitalism.
HOWEVER I am not a communist and i dont advocate communism, my political position is that of Libertarianism and Socialism combined (although i dont agree with the actual Libertarian Socialist party). But then most people cant even be bothered to see the inherent difference between Socialism and Communism. Marx believed that communism was a neccisary step to Socialism and truthfully im not sure where i stand on that point. Im also at odds with parts of Socialism but i suppose that is the problem with naming political ideologies, rigidly defined specifications are allways going to have elements that are odds with the views of the individual.
I could have put that in a more concise manner:
Dont spread the wealth, get rid of the myth that wealth is an idea that we need.
For what it is worth, if you read the constitution of the USSR you see, that even they didn't call themselves communist (as in a classless stateless society, which properly is what it is), but rather there was a sort of hair brained idea, that by attempting public ownership over everything, in an economy that even still had market elements, they would somehow bring about this mythical idea of communism.
Just because a Communist party runs something, doesn't make it communist. The communist party of China for example is one of the most pro capitalist groups I have heard of in some time. Likewise the Communist Party of the United States, has a very different outlook than them. Names are meaningless is what I am saying basically.
In any case as to the actual question at hand, I suppose I don't really care so much. I mean on the grand scheme the money I will spend on my well being is a tiny drop in the bucket of the waste of consumerism. I mean people buy Ipads, Lamborghinis, Fast food, and Cruise missles with their tax dollars. When you look at it like that, telling people they don't need medical treatment because people are starving is pretty asinine.
think of how much money we all spend on ourselves in a whole lifetime. that goes well over 20K. how could you spend thousands of dollars to buy that house, how could you spend thousands of dollars on that car, those cigarettes, that alcohol, those clothes, those piercings, those tattoos, those breast implants, those toys for your children, those vacations. the list goes on and on forever. people do tons of things for themselves everyday. we breathe our own oxygen all the time, but when it comes to being transgender in this society as a whole, you amazingly become an elusive being, a person who doesn't count or really need anything, but to be outcasted and taken advantage of when people get the chance.
Dystopian fatalism FTW! Represent! ;D
Quote from: El on February 06, 2012, 01:53:21 PM
Dont spread the wealth, get rid of the myth that wealth is an idea that we need.
How do you do that? As long anything is scarce (food, beach front property, classic art, or whatever) it seems like people will want it whether it is a necessity or not. How do you get around human nature? Certainly technology is helping in many ways. This web site is free to all who use it so transgender folks rich and poor can all use it. Many people even in socialist and/or communist countries strive for positions of power and prestige where they can get more benefits than the regular folks.
Quote from: El on February 05, 2012, 04:46:16 PM
I agree with that, and that the 1% should bear the majority of the burden but its up to every one of us to try and make a difference
They already do bear the burden.
In the United States, the top 1% pay 40% of all income tax revenue. The top 10% pay 67% of taxes. The bottom 40% pay nothing.
Lol but being at the top hardly means they put in a proportionate amount of effort to get there. Most of that 1% did sweet FA of any worth to get that money while you have carers and people who make a real difference scraping by just over the poverty line. Its a travesty that even one person should go hungry in a bloated rich country like the US of A
The whole premise of the question is just absurd. If you were to take that mentality then we should all by bicycles intead of cars and live in in mud huts instead of "wasting" our money to get the luxuries such as homes and vehicles to drive.
You know I want to be able to help other and be a blessing to them when I can as do most other people. You can call me selfish but I don't work hard for my money to just say to heck with my happiness all together.
Quote from: El on February 07, 2012, 12:09:11 PM
Lol but being at the top hardly means they put in a proportionate amount of effort to get there. Most of that 1% did sweet FA of any worth to get that money while you have carers and people who make a real difference scraping by just over the poverty line. Its a travesty that even one person should go hungry in a bloated rich country like the US of A
If all persons were manual laborers, you might have a point.
Ask Bill Gates, who arguably changed the world, whether his riches were somehow undeserved. One's ideas, realized, have value.
Quote from: Jamie D on February 07, 2012, 02:57:32 PM
If all persons were manual laborers, you might have a point.
Ask Bill Gates, who arguably changed the world, whether his riches were somehow undeserved. One's ideas, realized, have value.
Bill Gates was born wealthy. It's a lot easier to act on one's ideas in that kind of context. A lot of bright ideas get shoved to the side in favor of survival and simple coping.
Quote from: Felix on February 07, 2012, 10:13:31 PM
Bill Gates was born wealthy. It's a lot easier to act on one's ideas in that kind of context. A lot of bright ideas get shoved to the side in favor of survival and simple coping.
True, Gate had the advantages of a wealthy family, but his success was based on his talent and hard work.
How many examples of "rags to riches" do you want. I could have easily use Steve Jobs - born out of wedlock, adopted, grew up in the suburbs, dropped out of college, started Apple. Or Bill Hewett and Dave Packard, who started their company during the Great Depression, in a garage.
How about J K Rowling (author of Harry Potter series)? Or Richard Branson (Virgin Records)?
Sheldon Adelson - son of a cab driver who borrowed $200 to get started. Oprah Winfrey - whose under-educated teenage mother mis-spelled her first name.
Industrialists Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockerfeller, Henry Ford. Started with next to nothing.
Ingvar Kamprad (who?) - started out selling matches from his bicycle, moved on to ball point pens, and eventually started IKEA.
Walt Disney, who quit high school, joined the ambulance corps as a driver, and built on his cartooning interests. Started his first company and promptly went bankrupt. Came to California with $40 and proceeded to draw ... Oswald the Rabbit. (Micky Mouse came later).
Lots of examples of people who succeeded who weren't born with a silver spoon.
I didn't ask for rags to riches examples. I was one once. I went from homeless to acing the GRE and headed for a scholarshipped md/phd program. I had great ideas, and it took a lot of ingenuity and hard work to implement them.
Just saying Bill Gates is a bizarre example.
Quote from: Felix on February 08, 2012, 01:19:58 AM
I didn't ask for rags to riches examples. I was one once. I went from homeless to acing the GRE and headed for a scholarshipped md/phd program. I had great ideas, and it took a lot of ingenuity and hard work to implement them.
Just saying Bill Gates is a bizarre example.
You are to be commended!
One of the reasons I mention Bill Gates is that I once read he never took a day off while he was in his 20's. He certainly earned his wealth. And now he is giving much of it away. Poster El's complaint was that the very successful did not "earn" it. I disagree.
I agree that Bill Gates should be commended despite the occasional blue screens of death. The same for his competitor, the late Steve Jobs.
Joelene
I pretty much lucked into all my money, I'm still not entirely sure how I've ened up with such a good job! Doesn't mean I'm not gonna spend it on the things I want to spend it on though, sometimes that is charity, but I'm not under some moral obligation to do that. You have to look after yourself first and then do what you can for others.
Quote from: Jamie D on February 08, 2012, 01:15:41 PM
You are to be commended!
One of the reasons I mention Bill Gates is that I once read he never took a day off while he was in his 20's. He certainly earned his wealth. And now he is giving much of it away. Poster El's complaint was that the very successful did not "earn" it. I disagree.
I do adore Bill Gates and I'm glad he did the work he did. On top of helping along the digital revolution, he helped make nerds look cool. :)