Oregon Now Allowing 15 yr. olds to get a sex change without parental consent

Originally posted by Sancty
http://koin.com/2015/07/09/headline-irrational-on-oregon-transgender-coverage/

part of the requirements for getting the surgery
the transgender person would need to be on hormones for 12 months, live as the intended gender for 12 months, have 2 psychotherapists who deal with transgender issues approve the surgery.. it's not like a someone could just decide this on a whim.. obviously

also interesting:

http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-starts-insurance-for-transgender-medical-procedures/

that's the idea the article is going for imo. "15 year olds are fickle and impressionable! and now they can get a sex change without your knowledge!" ..except they would need to live as the other gender for a year first before this situation could even potentially occur. i wonder why the article didnt mention the requirements

Well I don't think anyone thought they could walk into a hospital a dude and come out a woman easy peasy. Requirements or not there is still the whole "15 year olds can get sex changes" and "don't need parents permission".

Which actually the requirements you just put? Just show how much of a clusterf*ck this whole idea is. How the hell is a 15 yr. old going to get on friggin hormones for a year, live as a different gender, and all that stuff..without his parents knowing?

You had the one woman in the article saying this is good because the parents might not be supportive and it might lead to suicide. Who the hell is this woman fooling with that nonsense? How the hell do you do all that without your parents knowing? So these reasons this chick is giving for why this is good..make no damn sense. Unless this is just targeting the niche group of super rich 15 yr. old kids who want a sex change.

So those requirements make all this actually a lot worse, because the friggin reason the woman used..is impossible. They are actually almost f*cking with teens now. You don't need mommy and daddy's permission...but you need to see a therapist, take hormones, and live as the other gender. You know, things you can easily keep from your parents.

Just wow, I kind of almost wish you hadn't posted that, because this takes the level of idiocy to nigh cosmic levels. Then again, people need to know this so they can avoid the state of Oregon. Hell I almost feel bad for the teens, because if you listen to that stupid woman they'd be thinking "oh awesome I can get this done without mom and dad knowing".

Originally posted by Surtur
Not to mention it should be paid for by the person getting the operation, not others. Even if they came out tomorrow and said "they now need parental consent" that just solves half the issue.

On the other hand..any parent who would consent to let a 15 yr. old get a sex change is to me..a bad parent. 15 yr. olds can be stupid as all hell and very few know what they truly want. I'd tell my child(if I had any) that straight up: wait until you are 18. You still want it then? Go for it.

Originally posted by Jesus McBurger
my moms friends daughter was born with a boys body but has always felt she was a girl. im talking all her life. and when she turned 16 she finlly got her operation. payed by her mom of course

Well at least for this one the parents paid for it. I mean if they are going to do sex changes for 15-16 yr. olds fine, I wouldn't agree but meh, but that needs to come out of their pocket.

Unless we do things like..when a woman wants to go get her some bigger boobies the people foot the bill. Which I don't think happens. I hope it doesn't happen. Breast reduction? Sure, breasts that are too large can cause problems, but otherwise..

Originally posted by Sancty
http://koin.com/2015/07/09/headline-irrational-on-oregon-transgender-coverage/

part of the requirements for getting the surgery
the transgender person would need to be on hormones for 12 months, live as the intended gender for 12 months, have 2 psychotherapists who deal with transgender issues approve the surgery.. it's not like a someone could just decide this on a whim.. obviously

If two psychotherapists need to approve the surgery then parents shouldn't matter. They know more about the issue than the kid's dipshit parent with probably an average education does, so their approval matters more. 👆

Why the hell is this on the tax payers dime?

Originally posted by Surtur
So yup, I'm hoping whoever wrote this has a gross misunderstanding of the issue because this can't be right.

15 yr. olds can get a sex change without parental consent...AND the state health plan will cover it.

This can't be real can it? Surely they don't expect tax payers to pay for a 15 yr. old kids sex change. Someone tell me this is just FOX news hysteria.

Fun fact: Gender identity doesn't change over time. If someone has a male mind at 12, even if they have externally girl organs, they'll have it at 18, 24, and 70. Attempts to prevent someone who identifies as trans at a young age from being trans have universally failed, often leading to depression and suicide.

And it's easier on the body to get the treatment sooner, there are significant health benefits to doing the process at that point.

Basically, postponing it several years means the body effectively has to go through two puberties, one undoing the effect of the prior, which puts a lot more strain on the body. It's much easier to simply not go through the changes caused by being in one sex to begin with, and do it once when the body is young and most resilient/will take the procedure best.

So medically, it's a sound call.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ah but liberals think children do not belong to their parents. Anything goes now.

People aren't property.

Parents are guardians, not owners.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Why the hell is this on the tax payers dime?

Because it's happening to a future tax payer, and tax payers take care of each other to their mutual benefit.

The tax revenue created by one person far exceeds the cost of this procedure, many times over. Keeping them healthy and happy is a financially good investment, regardless of what you may think of the procedure.

Because it's happening to a future tax payer, and tax payers take care of each other to their mutual benefit.

The tax revenue created by one person far exceeds the cost of this procedure, many times over. Keeping them healthy and happy is a financially good investment, regardless of what you may think of the procedure.

Originally posted by psmith81992
How is this a financially good investment? Basing your finances on how a person feels is fiscally irresponsible.

The mental and physical health of a person directly contributes to their economic potential, which is what societies need to thrive, therefore ensuring that health can be a sound investment from that POV.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The mental and physical health of a person directly contributes to their economic potential, which is what societies need to thrive, therefore ensuring that health can be a sound investment from that POV.

That's a good theory. But some risks are much bigger than others. I would argue that this is not a sound economic investment. Are we to just assume that there will be some benefit coming out of a "mentally and physically happy" person? It's a good story but I'd say for every 1 person that reaches his economic potential, 5 more are dipshits. So I disagree with this notion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's a good theory. But some risks are much bigger than others. I would argue that this is not a sound economic investment. Are we to just assume that there will be some benefit coming out of a "mentally and physically happy" person? It's a good story but I'd say for every 1 person that reaches his economic potential, 5 more are dipshits. So I disagree with this notion.

We should try to convince as many people as we can of our point of view and then have a vote on it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We should try to convince as many people as we can of our point of view and then have a vote on it.

Sounds good to me.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That's a good theory. But some risks are much bigger than others. I would argue that this is not a sound economic investment. Are we to just assume that there will be some benefit coming out of a "mentally and physically happy" person? It's a good story but I'd say for every 1 person that reaches his economic potential, 5 more are dipshits. So I disagree with this notion.

One, someone who needs a sex change, will be getting one sooner or later. So it's not a question of 'if' so much, as whether it'll be sooner or later, and it is medically easier and better for their health earlier.

Two, sex change operations have one of the highest satisfaction rating of any operation. Around 97-98%. And it's not that we're all that medically good at it, either, it's just desired that much.

Three, non-depressed people do, indeed, work better. They're more likely to hold down jobs, perform better at work, and so on. Or, in this case, school, even. A kid who isn't depressed is going to pay more attention to school, is going to learn better, and thus has a good chance of getting a better job.

Four, dead people don't pay taxes. I did mention the high rates of suicide, yes? Being in a body that doesn't fit you is an intense unpleasant experience by every report, as is being treated as a gender that you are, mentally, not. This drastically increases quality-of-life for them.

Heck, the last sentence there alone, quality of life. If an operation drastically increases someone's quality of life that much, then I don't care specifically what it is, it sounds like a good investment. Plastic surgery to remove burn or acid scars would be another perfectly reasonable procedure that I also think should be covered.

Two, sex change operations have one of the highest satisfaction rating of any operation. Around 97-98%. And it's not that we're all that medically good at it, either, it's just desired that much.

Four, dead people don't pay taxes. I did mention the high rates of suicide, yes? Being in a body that doesn't fit you is an intense unpleasant experience by every report, as is being treated as a gender that you are, mentally, not. This drastically increases quality-of-life for them.

Heck, the last sentence there alone, quality of life. If an operation drastically increases someone's quality of life that much, then I don't care specifically what it is, it sounds like a good investment. Plastic surgery to remove burn or acid scars would be another perfectly reasonable procedure that I also think should be covered.

People never needed sex changes 100 years ago. It's because all the chemicals and hormones that are jammed into our food, air and water that screws people up. No one thinks about that though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The mental and physical health of a person directly contributes to their economic potential, which is what societies need to thrive, therefore ensuring that health can be a sound investment from that POV.

The amount it's going to cost to do gender re assignment grossly outnumbers a persons economic potential. Those surgery a cost hundreds of thousands. And no they should not be on other peoples dime.

Unless you think breast enlargement and any other elective surgery should as well.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The amount it's going to cost to do gender re assignment grossly outnumbers a persons economic potential. Those surgery a cost hundreds of thousands. And no they should not be on other peoples dime.

Unless you think breast enlargement and any other elective surgery should as well.

Actually they cost more like 10-50k. Male to female reassignment surgery being considerably cheaper than female to male.

I think reconstructive surgery after breast amputation should be covered by the public, if that helps you at all...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually they cost more like 10-50k. Male to female reassignment surgery being considerably cheaper than female to male.

I think reconstructive surgery after breast amputation should be covered by the public, if that helps you at all...

Yes everything should be covered in your opinion. Why not just have staunch socialism/communism and let that run the world. How on earth can breast amputation be covered? Or did you mean augmentation?

I'm also wondering when does it end with this progressive movement, at what point will they say enough is enough, society is screwed up as it is, why keep piling the shit?

Progressives are self proclaimed enlightened. They think any change is progress.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Progressives are self proclaimed enlightened. They think any change is progress.

So it never ends?