Male criminals who become women behind bars

[Guest Nicole9]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/call-me-michelle-the-killers-who-become-women-behind-bars/story-e6frfkp9-1226615750377

Hi all,

ok so my local rag has a bit of a hang up with the trans issue and they seen to drag the issue to the top of the pile on a monthly basis. However this one struck me, as these individuals are unable to work (hence unable to earn money) should the state pay for their SRS over a non offending member of the state? Personally yes they should be tilted to health care but when it is better/not equal too than of any other citizen then there is a problem. What do you guys think?

[Cyndee]

"When a person feels trapped in a male body, they can be angry, nasty and aggressive and once they achieve their gender transformation, they experience relief with their new identity".

I find the comment above quite interesting, and having experienced gender dysphoria I can relate, I was a much angier person before treatment, I did not like parts of myself before coming to grips with the underlying condition. I was'nt violent myself, but I can see how some folks might be driven over the edge with this condition, it can really mess with your mind. Having GD and being born male, really sux at times.....

[Charlize]

I have to agree with Cynthia. I was often a nasty male. Even though i've had to stop E and my T has come back i am so much happier at least being myself. Somehow i'm just calmer and more accepting. It has been awful to loose the additional changes from the E but maybe i'll be able to go back on. In the mean time if people can be helped how does it matter whether they are in hell in jail or the outside world. We all need help sometimes regardless.

Hugs,

Charlie

[Guest Jenni_S]

(cough) Kosilek. (cough cough)

[Guest sophia.gentry58]

I think the problem lies in the misconception people have about MTF/FTM and the ultimate desire for SRS. The public's ignorance of the gender dysphoria and even the mounting evidence for the genetic predisposition for the dysphoria, causes the public to believe that a person simply chooses to receive a sex reassignment for some nafarious reason for which they (John Q Public) have no desire to have paid for from the the public coffers. The answer resides in educatioin, education, and more education.

Sophia

[VickySGV]

Medical costs for SRS, based only on time in actual hospital and surgical care areas are close if not less than time spent in care for self inflicted harm, and from harm caused by other violent trauma. It can possibly be said they are higher for a ward of the state, but the higher costs are there just because the person is in custody.

I know what I paid for my SRS, I have also seen the bills I might have had to pay, but for insurance, for a family member in a year where they had 5 hospitalizations for self harm / suicide attempts. (Their attempts were not related to GD.) My costs were 60% of one single hospitalization for their care.

[Guest Cloudygirl27]

I would have to disagree with this. Criminals should not be getting these things done for basicly free at the tax payers expensive while the non-criminals have to scrimp and save to get SRS.

-
Alyssa

[Guest MissErika]

This is a touchy issue, while I believe that imprisoned people should be able to get ther medical needs met, I feel that the stateshould not pay fo srs.

The VA won't even do that, and their helping veterans of our military.

[Guest cynthash]

HRT? Yes. SRS? No. I have a lot of BS to go through in life, and no way is someone that didn't meet the requirements for being a 'clean' member of this(admittedly self-destructive) society going to get what I have no access to. It's called 'fair'.

On the other hand, pre or nonop inmates should be kept away from their non-trans counterparts. Too often, prison is a terrible hell for a trans person, above and beyond any pretense of 'justice'. Hurt others, get incarcerated; but not at the expense of your humanity.

Like others have said: education, education, education.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

I would have to disagree with this. Criminals should not be getting these things done for basicly free at the tax payers expensive while the non-criminals have to scrimp and save to get SRS.

-

Alyssa

Completely agree here.

Why should someone who has committed a crime, broken the rules of polite society as it were, be given chances that others who play by the rules must sacrifice for?

If it were my tax dollars, there is no way in he!! that I would want my money paying for someone in prison to get anything other than punishment. You are there for a reason - you broke the law. Why should you get benefits that law abiding citizens have little or no access to?

[Ravin]

Sigh. I think it depends. Is the person in for life or a limited term of years? Are they stable without it, or dangerously suicidal? How do the long term costs play out? If the person is in for a long time, and severely depressed with suicidal episodes over the dyphoria, it may well be more cost effective (as well as more humane) for the state to pay for the SRS, as the inmate after recovery will be a lower-maintenance inmate as far as need for monitoring, acute treatment after suicide attempts, etc.

Cost can't be the major deciding factor, though, and neither can "they're a criminal so they deserve it."Our criminal justice system is structured in a way that can land people in prison very easily for very little wrongdoing--there are far more drug addicts than murderers behiind bars, kwim?

Having done something wrong and being found guilty in a court of law do not necessarily have anything to do with each other (though, granted, they usually do).

Basic humane treatment for people who have no choices beyond what their given may occasionally mean they get a surgery they couldn't have gotten on the outside without insurance/money. At least if you're not incarcerated you have a theoretical chance of finding a way to save up and get it. An inmate simply doesn't.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

If the person is in for a long time, and severely depressed with suicidal episodes over the dyphoria, it may well be more cost effective (as well as more humane) for the state to pay for the SRS

While I respect your point of view, there are many people on the outside who didn't commit a crime that would better benefit from this assistance AND become productive, taxpaying members of society once freed of the burden of dysphoria.

[Guest Megan_Lynn]

No offense to any one from Canada but your country already pays for SRS/GRS for its citizens.

With it being so hard for the average trans person to stay employed after coming out and getting a job just for being trans. Many will do what it takes just to survive. This does not mean they are criminals at all but just very desperate and were never given the chances needed to make it. Many are kids that had been tossed out of there homes by there parents and had to live on the streets. Now I do not feel anyone that is a murder should be given SRS/GRS at all as they took a anoughter persons live and get what they deserve. But there are many people in jail for very simple things that should not even be there. Now yes I do feel the people who are able to stay clean and are unable to afford SRS/GRS should be helped first before anyone in jail. But this still does not mean anyone in jail should never be able to get that same help. This is not a black and white thing at all there are many variables to conceder.

Someone on SSI/SSD ( social security) will never ever be able to get SRS/GRS unless someone else pays for it for them. As they are not aloud to have any assents worth over 3k at any time or they will #1 have to sign it over to the government or sell it off and pay back government for the benefits already given #2 loose there SSI/SSD benefits. these people definatly should be given the SRS/GRS paid for by our government first as I also believe any and all military vets should get preferred excepts as well when it comes to this. Anyone who serves understands what it takes and all there rights you give up when your in the service protecting others rights. No civilian will ever truly understand unless they have served.

These are my opinions take them or leave them your choice.

[Ravin]

If the person is in for a long time, and severely depressed with suicidal episodes over the dyphoria, it may well be more cost effective (as well as more humane) for the state to pay for the SRS

While I respect your point of view, there are many people on the outside who didn't commit a crime that would better benefit from this assistance AND become productive, taxpaying members of society once freed of the burden of dysphoria.

See my last paragraph above.

It's not that I don't think people not incarcerated should be denied healthcare (I think health care is a universal right the U.S. needs to get on board with). It's just a different issue and confounding them doesn't help determine the specific issue.

[Guest Robin Winter]

No offense to any one from Canada but your country already pays for SRS/GRS for its citizens.

Not all of Canada. Our health care is handled provincially, and only maybe 3 provinces pay for it, and the numbers per year are extremely limited.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

No offense to any one from Canada but your country already pays for SRS/GRS for its citizens.

Actually, no, the country does not

.

Some provinces do, some do not as health care falls to a provincial level. I know this because I worked in provincial government for almost ten years in Ontario.

It bothers me when people make blanket statements like this with the cast of derision in their words, as if Canadian transfolk have it "easier" than the rest of the world. They do not. My wife does NOT have it easier, and her SRS would NOT be covered. Trust me, if is was, we'd already be done with it.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

If the person is in for a long time, and severely depressed with suicidal episodes over the dyphoria, it may well be more cost effective (as well as more humane) for the state to pay for the SRS

While I respect your point of view, there are many people on the outside who didn't commit a crime that would better benefit from this assistance AND become productive, taxpaying members of society once freed of the burden of dysphoria.

See my last paragraph above.

It's not that I don't think people not incarcerated should be denied healthcare (I think health care is a universal right the U.S. needs to get on board with). It's just a different issue and confounding them doesn't help determine the specific issue.

I agree...healthcare SHOULD be universal.

My problem is more with people who, like you see on this site, are at a dangerous place with absolutely NO options, and those who have done harm to others are afforded something they really have no right to. In jail, you have the right to food, shelter and clothing - not SRS/HRT. My heart does not cry for someone who is dysphoric and also a person who has committed crimes against someone like you or me. I highly doubt that if someone killed one of your family members, and then wanted SRS, you'd be okay with it. I wouldn't.

Again, let me say that I do respect your opinion on this - I think we will have to agree to disagree, though. Nothing will make it okay in my mind that some scuzzbag in the pokey is getting more consideration than someone like you who ALSO wants SRS or HRT but can't afford it.

[Guest Bellexia]

Many blanket statements from both sides being thrown around here. Not all people in prison are violent offenders. Some rules they broke were quite arbitrary. Drug laws for instance. If it were truly a polite society they would not be there, but instead be getting help. That said, I am on the fence here. I think they should get it, only if I can get it. The meds yes, they should be getting because someone made a valid point. Who here pre transition wasn't angry? Were some of us even violent? Yes.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

Many blanket statements from both sides being thrown around here. Not all people in prison are violent offenders. Some rules they broke were quite arbitrary. Drug laws for instance. If it were truly a polite society they would not be there, but instead be getting help. That said, I am on the fence here. I think they should get it, only if I can get it. The meds yes, they should be getting because someone made a valid point. Who here pre transition wasn't angry? Were some of us even violent? Yes.

I never said that all offenders were violent offenders anywhere in my posts. I USED one as an example, but I never said all.

Laws are not arbitrary. That's why they are laws. If laws need to be changed, that's another forum topic.

The difference between the people here that were "violent", as you say, and those in jail is the difference of self-control and knowing right from wrong.

I maintain that if someone is in prison, they are there for a reason - not an arbitrary ruling. I'm not saying mistakes aren't made by the justice system - hell, that happens all the time, but again that would be another forum topic.

If someone is in prison then they do not deserve the luxury of having the culmination of their highest hopes and dreams fulfilled when others on the outside, living the best that they can do not. There is no fairness in that. You broke the law, you were tried by a jury of your peers and you were found guilty of your crimes. HEY! Let's reward you with the expensive SRS/HRT that you couldn't get on the outside!

Nope. Not fair, not cool. I see too many amazing and wonderful people who are stuck without those luxuries because of money, plain and simple. People here, in this forum who cannot afford to eat and pay rent at the same time as getting HRT, let alone SRS, and yet those incarcerated get to??

[Guest Bellexia]

Yeah some laws are arbitrary. That's why it's easier to get meds on the inside than outside. Bam broken argument already. If I can break a law, go to jail, get free meds and possibly free srs then some laws do not work.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

Yeah some laws are arbitrary. That's why it's easier to get meds on the inside than outside. Bam broken argument already. If I can break a law, go to jail, get free meds and possibly free srs then some laws do not work.

Yeah, honestly, you are not making sense.

When you refer to "laws being arbitrary", I don't think you know what that means.

The phrase itself is an oxymoron. Laws are NOT arbitrary. Policies? Yes. Guidelines? Yup. Laws? no.

What I think you mean, if I'm following the bouncing ball of you "BAM" logic is that you are trying to say that people PURPOSELY break the law to go to jail, and therefore they have easier access to the drugs/treatments in question.

That's not the definition of "Arbitrary laws". You are describing "finding a loophole and exploiting it to your own devices, regardless of the situation it puts you in". Not as pretty a phrase, but more accurate.

Have a nice evening.

[Guest Megan_Lynn]

No offense to any one from Canada but your country already pays for SRS/GRS for its citizens.

Actually, no, the country does not

.

Some provinces do, some do not as health care falls to a provincial level. I know this because I worked in provincial government for almost ten years in Ontario.

It bothers me when people make blanket statements like this with the cast of derision in their words, as if Canadian transfolk have it "easier" than the rest of the world. They do not. My wife does NOT have it easier, and her SRS would NOT be covered. Trust me, if is was, we'd already be done with it.

Yes I was wrong to say the entire country of Canada covered SRS/GRS but every trans person I ever spoke to from your country told me this.. So I did some research and found this nice piece of info. it shows what providences cover SRS/GRS and what ones do not.

http://www.xtra.ca/BinaryContent/stories/77/06/7706/7706-SRS/212_SRS.swf

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Sex_reassignment_surgery_in_Canada_whats_covered_and_where-7706.aspx

As for for my comment being mocking( cast of derision) no it was not and I really do not like being told my tone was something it was not. This is why texting and anything wrote gets taken out of text as its so darn impersonal. You can not hear nor see the persons true intent by the voice inflection nor face expressions.

As for do I feel trans people in Canada have it better your darn skippy I do and here is why.

#1 Gay marriage. This alone allows any and all citizens of Canada to marry each other. Trans people in the states have at times had marriages annulled as once they transition they are now considered a same sex marriage and or if single and a trans woman tries to marry a man they are deny-ed as the laws will say but you were born a man( granted this does not always happen)..

#2 while yes not every providence covers SRS/GRS the ones that do have the highest average population so the vast majority are technically covered. All that would be needed is to move to a providence that does cover it and spend some waiting time. #3 while yes not every providence covers SRS/GRS am pretty sure they all at least cover HRT( I may be wrong)

#3 lets look at this in numbers the entire population of Canada is 33,476,688 this is less then the state of California at 38,041,430 and the entire United States population at 313,919,040 Now lets look at the population of Ontario 12,851,821 , Quebec 7,903,001 , British Columbia 4,400,057 , Saskatchewan 1,033,381 this comes to a combined total of 26,188,260 or 76-77 percent of the entire countries population has coverage for SRS/GRS. This alone makes it 76-77 percent better for all trans people in Canada then in the states. The states have 313,919,040 people that are not covered by government SRS/GRs while only 7,288,428 people in Canada are without this coverage. So basically the United States has a 43 times greater chance a person is denied coverage. Factoring in that there is a average of the same amount of trans people per capita in Canada as in The United States. ( ex 1-200 1-1000 ect)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

So no sarcasm no mocking these are facts..

If any of the states started covering SRS/GRS you can darn well bet not just me but many other trans people would be moving just to be able to get it. As its ten to twenty times cheaper to move then afford the 20k plus for SRS here in the states.

[Guest Bellexia]

Yeah some laws are arbitrary. That's why it's easier to get meds on the inside than outside. Bam broken argument already. If I can break a law, go to jail, get free meds and possibly free srs then some laws do not work.

Yeah, honestly, you are not making sense.

When you refer to "laws being arbitrary", I don't think you know what that means.

The phrase itself is an oxymoron. Laws are NOT arbitrary. Policies? Yes. Guidelines? Yup. Laws? no.

What I think you mean, if I'm following the bouncing ball of you "BAM" logic is that you are trying to say that people PURPOSELY break the law to go to jail, and therefore they have easier access to the drugs/treatments in question.

That's not the definition of "Arbitrary laws". You are describing "finding a loophole and exploiting it to your own devices, regardless of the situation it puts you in". Not as pretty a phrase, but more accurate.

Have a nice evening.

Quite hostile but ok. So many people today are just so hostile for no reason other than to win an argument. Congrats I guess. That said.

I cannot go into what I believe are arbitrary laws on this forum because I do not want to be banned. However while I did misuse that term I do believe that certain laws have no place while others are in place/not in place. There is already precedence in getting surgery. Maybe not in every state but there is. http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2012/09/12/ruling-trans-inmates-surgery-gets-bipartisan-rebuke If the link is not allowed, then it is the Michelle Kosilek case.

So while I would not personally commit a crime to get it, the laws are there that allow such loopholes. Laws policy whatever. In the end if you break them you break the law and pay the consequences. So it's a moot point to argue the definition when laws go by many different terms, morals, sin, code, rules etc.

Oh and I won't wish you a nice day, not to be rude but I don't want to be condescending like that. I personally find the pretending to be nice like that very rude. Something I have noticed a lot here :/

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

No offense to any one from Canada but your country already pays for SRS/GRS for its citizens.

Actually, no, the country does not

.

Some provinces do, some do not as health care falls to a provincial level. I know this because I worked in provincial government for almost ten years in Ontario.

It bothers me when people make blanket statements like this with the cast of derision in their words, as if Canadian transfolk have it "easier" than the rest of the world. They do not. My wife does NOT have it easier, and her SRS would NOT be covered. Trust me, if is was, we'd already be done with it.

Yes I was wrong to say the entire country of Canada covered SRS/GRS but every trans person I ever spoke to from your country told me this.. So I did some research and found this nice piece of info. it shows what providences cover SRS/GRS and what ones do not.

http://www.xtra.ca/BinaryContent/stories/77/06/7706/7706-SRS/212_SRS.swf

As for for my comment being mocking( cast of derision) no it was not and I really do not like being told my tone was something it was not. This is why texting and anything wrote gets taken out of text as its so darn impersonal. You can not hear nor see the persons true intent by the voice inflection nor face expressions.

As for do I feel trans people in Canada have it better your darn skippy I do and here is why.

#1 Gay marriage. This alone allows any and all citizens of Canada to marry each other. Trans people in the states have at times had marriages annulled as once they transition they are now considered a same sex marriage and or if single and a trans woman tries to marry a man they are deny-ed as the laws will say but you were born a man( granted this does not always happen)..

#2 while yes not every providence covers SRS/GRS the ones that do have the highest average population so the vast majority are technically covered. All that would be needed is to move to a providence that does cover it and spend some waiting time. #3 while yes not every providence covers SRS/GRS am pretty sure they all at least cover HRT( I may be wrong)

Right, so everything that you just posted educated you to the facts instead of hearsay. Wonderful.

As far as the rest of it, Same Sex marriage has nothing to do with anything that this topic is about. You did sound sarcastic when you posted it. I can tell you that picking up and moving to another province is just as costly for us to do as it would be for YOU to do it. Moving to another province means cross country moving expenses based on the ideal that you MAY have a job, a place to live and resources to tap into. I find it hard to believe that in a country where you can buy your HRT in Walmart, you would say something like that. Of course, I realize that you are probably stung by my comments about the "cast of derision" seeing as you quoted it, but frankly, if I hadn't brought it up, would you have honestly gone looking for the truth?

We have had a glut of same sex couples coming to Canada so they can be married - not for the publicity, but because they want to announce their commitment to each other. Still not sure how this is relevant to the conversation.

As far as the rest of it goes, please do not assume that you need to educate me about my country. I know very well what goes on here. I live here, and I pay taxes. I vote on these issues and get ticked off when they do or don't get passed in legislation.

lets look at this in numbers the entire population of Canada is 33,476,688 this is less then the state of California at 38,041,430 and the entire United States population at 313,919,040 Now lets look at the population of Ontario 12,851,821 , Quebec 7,903,001 , British Columbia 4,400,057 , Saskatchewan 1,033,381 this comes to a combined total of 26,188,260 or 76-77 percent of the entire countries population has coverage for SRS/GRS. This alone makes it 76-77 percent better for all trans people in Canada then in the states. The states have 313,919,040 people that are not covered by government SRS/GRs while only 7,288,428 people in Canada are without this coverage. So basically the United States has a 43 times greater chance a person is denied coverage. Factoring in that there is a average of the same amount of trans people per capita in Canada as in The United States. ( ex 1-200 1-1000 ect)

Are you honestly trying to say that because of RATIO, our transfolk have it easier than americans?

I am offended that you would say something like that. It catty and to minimize someone else's pain based on population is not acceptable. I'm done having this petty conversation. I am shocked and disappointed that you would belittle the pain of others this way....

[MaryEllen]

Okay folks. Calm down. I won't say this again.

MaryEllen