Chelsea Manning 'may sue' over gender dysphoria therapy - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;44861134]Or maybe because the whole concept is foreign and alien to people? That's how it is to me. And with everyone making it so black-and-white, with us or against us really only further divides people. To be very honest, all this hostility only pushes me away from ever touching this topic and would much rather see this topic ignored than discussed.[/QUOTE] That's entirely your own fault. If reading posts on a forum full of teenaged male gamers "pushes you away" from a deeply complex and important social issue then maybe you should read some medical journals or sociology papers on the topic.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;44863195]suicide watch costs money and it would eventually become more expensive, and her well being *is* the government's responsibility. people aren't in prison just for the hell of it.[/QUOTE] Being someone who often does suicide watches I can confirm that suicide watch costs no extra money and find it particularly offensive to Chelsea that you're insinuating they'll have to be monitored for the rest of their life so they don't off themselves.

[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44860363]Yes, you're an idiot for suggesting males are incapable of noticing different shades of colors. Just because you never paid attention prior to becoming a woman doesn't mean every other male is just as clueless. This is laughable you think you've proven that all men are worse than all women at distinguishing colors.[/QUOTE] I know this is late but its men DO often have different perception of colors which also means men are more likely to be color blind. [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=frozensoda;44860779]It's pretty clear by now, 8 pages in, that this issue is extremely personal to a lot of people, and most of you guys are arguing out of either personal hatred or because you identify with Chelsea. Some of you guys have made it extremely clear that you are intolerant of transgender people, while others (I'm looking at you milkandcooki and codemaster) have made it clear that you believe that this issue is a trans issue, which it isn't. You are arguing that she should get the treatment "because it's life saving" or for other reasons, but when you get right down to facts the other prisoners who have serious depression and other mental problems get no such care, based on that alone your bias is very clear. You don't care if a male prisoner hangs himself with a sheet after being jailed for 20 years, because he isn't transgender. You have flat out refused to answer any question relating to why Manning should get this care when other prisoners wouldn't and just keep alluding to some unspoken "fact" that trans issues are more important than other people's. ([I]You can't POSSIBLY be comparing X to transgender THAT'S SO OFFENSIVE. NOTHING could compare to transgender issues, they are THE most important kind of issue![/I]) I honestly hope she does get the treatment, and since she's famous and has a good lawyer we all know she will, that still doesn't make it right. It will be wrong for her to receive extra treatment [B]solely[/B] because she is transgender and the state will want to safe face. If she were literally any other prisoner petitioning for this kind of treatment it would be denied. That's why I think this is wrong, and both sides of this argument have said some pretty presumptuous and offensive things.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't understand why you are focusing on an absurdly broad picture instead of focusing on the relatively small part that is the focus of the thread. Yes I understand (better then most) that the mental health system is shit. Yes I understand (again better then most) that the poor get shit on by the health system. This thread, however, is not about the poor or the PUBLIC mental health institution. It focuses on a very specific case in specific circumstances. You going on a big tirade about the entirety of the mental health system mearly serves to devalue the specific issue stated in the article, which is the treatment of a prisoner in regards to her transgender status. [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44854907]Disagree. He's a dude who basically [I]asked[/I] people to refer to him as a woman. Nothing else has changed, legal or otherwise. I'm totally on board with it once that does change.[/QUOTE] ... Taking mones isnt what makes you a girl. The fact that you identify as a girl is what makes you one. [editline]20th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=frozensoda;44861125]I'll ask for the fourth time, maybe someone will actually respond, considering how hard it is for an inmate who isn't transgender to seek therapy for their mental issues, why is it so important that Chelsea be the exception in this one case? What is it about gender dysphoria that is more important than something like clinical unipolar depression? Both conditions have a high suicide rate, so that's not it, both conditions affect the prisoner while they are under state care, so that's not it/... I'm at a loss here. Why is this one issue such a big deal when people have been denied mental care for years for conditions that are just as serious, and in some cases the exact same condition.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you are getting this notion of what the mental health system in prisons is like. Would you like to provide citations? Perhaps another of your anecdotes?

I must have missed the part where she became a woman. this thread confused the fuck out of me for a sec :V:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44863093]There's male, female, and a small nontrivial mixed portion. What predictive validity does "gender" have? How are genders other than male and female distinct from mental or developmental disorders? Groups such as Hijiras or two spirits don't count because they are usually religious groups and cults hyped up by anthropologists. Also when people speak of a "third" or "fourth" gender, it's not really anything separate at all. At best it's a mix of the two existing ones. Try imagining what an actual third gender with sustained populations over the long term with a continual presence in history would be like. Nothing at all like female or male.[/QUOTE] Hmm, gender is more about the structure of a society than the sex of its individuals. Historically third and fourth genders have dealt with what position the person in that society takes when the society itself is strongly sex-segregated. In some cultures where sex-segregation isn't structural and integral to the economic system, there are no third or fourth genders because the structures are fluid and there's no need to create those groups. Males and Females are phenotypically different but gender is more about cultural adaptations to structures than sex.

[QUOTE=frozensoda;44861125]I'll ask for the fourth time, maybe someone will actually respond, considering how hard it is for an inmate who isn't transgender to seek therapy for their mental issues, why is it so important that Chelsea be the exception in this one case? What is it about gender dysphoria that is more important than something like clinical unipolar depression? Both conditions have a high suicide rate, so that's not it, both conditions affect the prisoner while they are under state care, so that's not it/... I'm at a loss here. Why is this one issue such a big deal when people have been denied mental care for years for conditions that are just as serious, and in some cases the exact same condition.[/QUOTE] The suicide rate hasn't been shown to decrease sufficiently in patients with gender dysphoria who attend therapy sessions alone. I don't know why it's different but it is, the numbers are there. Regardless of the condition, mental or physical, prisoners should be getting the best care available. If your government is willing to imprison you then it must assume all guardianship responsibilities as well, just as a parent must.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44865676]Hmm, gender is more about the structure of a society than the sex of its individuals.[/quote] How does anyone know this? How would I set about proving this statement wrong via observation and experiment, if it were possible? [quote]Historically third and fourth genders have dealt with what position the person in that society takes when the society itself is strongly sex-segregated.[/quote] So what distinguishes a third or fourth gender from a caste? Wouldn't the term "caste" be more accurate here? Why not use the term caste? I mean, there was an entire caste of eunuchs in pre-modern China, that doesn't make them a third gender though. [quote]In some cultures where sex-segregation isn't structural and integral to the economic system, there are no third or fourth genders because the structures are fluid and there's no need to create those groups.[/quote] But in patriarchal structured societies these groups don't exist either. What actual role does a "3rd gender" or "4th gender" serve in that society? [quote]Males and Females are phenotypically different but gender is more about cultural adaptations to structures than sex.[/QUOTE] Structures are from culture, but where does culture come from? "Culture" isn't really an explanation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44870623]How does anyone know this? How would I set about proving this statement wrong via observation and experiment, if it were possible?[/QUOTE] I know what falsifiable is. You could prove it wrong by observing gender in different societies and coming up with an alternative explanation to the current academic explanation, as you would in any soft science I suppose. We say that this is a valid observation purely based on what we've seen about genders in other societies, and sex is rarely what the gender structure centers around. It's more about roles in society, who marries whom, who is kin, who inherits the estate. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44870623]So what distinguishes a third or fourth gender from a caste? Wouldn't the term "caste" be more accurate here? Why not use the term caste?[/QUOTE] Caste is different from gender because caste doesn't differentiate between "men's work" and "women's work". A third gender could be a man who does "women's work" and thus becomes a part of that structure rather than the male one; per example: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_virgin[/url] There's an interesting cultural adaptation that I've read about whom's host culture's name escapes me at the moment but in the case of a husband's death in a patriarchal society with no eligible men to take the estate the woman can assume the role of a man and marry another woman in order to preserve the structure of the family. This is a specific gender-related solution. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44870623]But in patriarchal structured societies these groups don't exist either. What actual role does a "3rd gender" or "4th gender" serve in that society?[/QUOTE] Ehh, I don't know about "don't exist", that seems like a broad statement. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44870623]Structures are from culture, but where does culture come from? "Culture" isn't really an explanation.[/QUOTE] Broad question, does "adaptation to environmental and biological factors" work for now?

I was under the impression that gender is an innate psychological thing but society shapes how it manifests and prescribes roles to those genders.

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;44871300]I was under the impression that gender is an innate thing but society shapes how it manifests and prescribes roles to those genders.[/QUOTE] Gender as a term specifically refers to that which isn't innate. Sex refers to biological determination of sex. In some cultures your gender isn't determined by your sex but by which roles you take on. Hence why a man in a Native American culture could take the role of a female shaman.

[QUOTE=niel12_5D;44871315]Gender as a term specifically refers to that which isn't innate. Sex refers to biological determination of sex. In some cultures your gender isn't determined by your sex but by which roles you take on. Hence why a man in a Native American culture could take the role of a female shaman.[/QUOTE] I edited my post to assure that I mean gender as a psychological thing. I think you are muddying up gender and gender roles - you do not necessarily have to conform to gender roles to be that gender. That is pretty gender essentialist and would have to deny the existence of non-traditional (in Western culture) expressions of gender, such as tomboys/effeminate dudes, and also nonbinary folks. Gender is not exclusively defined by society - I would say it is self-realized and personal (though, as with so many other things, society influences this sometimes), and it is not always rigid or going in one specific direction.

How many regular prisoners are allowed to have this done for them? Why should she be some special exception, because she's famous?

[QUOTE=flamehead5;44871985]How many regular prisoners are allowed to have this done for them? Why should she be some special exception, because she's famous?[/QUOTE] You raise a good point - I would like to see some reports on treatment of trans women in prison. However, the "why should she be some special exception" thing is kind of bad - I'm sure looking at the large scale she is actually an exception to the rule, but it's like you're implying you would rather she go without treatment because she is the exception. I hope she wins this fight and inspires better policy for treatment of trans inmates.

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;44872677]You raise a good point - I would like to see some reports on treatment of trans women in prison. However, the "why should she be some special exception" thing is kind of bad - I'm sure looking at the large scale she is actually an exception to the rule, but it's like you're implying you would rather she go without treatment because she is the exception. I hope she wins this fight and inspires better policy for treatment of trans inmates.[/QUOTE] Not at all, if she gets the treatment good for her, but the fact that she's been given consideration just because she's famous is not a good thing, equal rights and whatnot. I don't want to see people suffer but there is no reason that she should be the exception, if she can get consideration, any trans inmate should.

I don't see why your prisoners should get free healthcare if your citizens don't. Either make healthcare free for everyone, or make prisoners work for their treatment. [editline].[/editline] Dunno if anyone's posted it yet - but is there any studies that have been done on the reduction in suicide risk if the treatment went ahead? Here in the UK treatments are only free if they can be proven to provide tangible benefits proportional to the cost of the treatment. Once a treatment is approved, it doesn't need re-approved every time someone else wants it.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;44875605]I don't see why your prisoners should get free healthcare if your citizens don't. Either make healthcare free for everyone, or make prisoners work for their treatment. [editline].[/editline] Dunno if anyone's posted it yet - but is there any studies that have been done on the reduction in suicide risk if the treatment went ahead? Here in the UK treatments are only free if they can be proven to provide tangible benefits proportional to the cost of the treatment. Once a treatment is approved, it doesn't need re-approved every time someone else wants it.[/QUOTE] Prisoners get free healthcare because they are under the custody of the state, and do not have employment to support paying for health care coverage. It would be very inhumane to make prisoners pay for health care when they can't possibly have the means. Also these studies would be pretty garbage, since there's already a wealth of evidence supporting dialectical and cognitive behavior therapies. Mental Health care treatment is different from regular medical treatment because a huge component of success relies completely on the Patient, so "calculating the benefits" is a case by case basis.