Male criminals who become women behind bars

[MaryEllen]

The state was more than lenient by granting HRT and possibly electrolysis but drew the line at SRS. If he has the means to pay for it himself without involving tax payer money, that's fine.

[Guest Bellexia]

He? Is she not transsexual? I don't disagree that there needs to be a line especially if many outside are unable to get the same treatment but he?

[Kyla666]

yeah I agree calling her a he is going a little to far. She may have done wrong and is trying to get a free ride on tax payers money but you should not call the women names.

[Guest Jenni_S]

Jenni, I am no supporter of Kosilek did but let me ask you a question - if Charles Manson needed an appendectomy, should the prison provide it?

Yes. If that's the policy in the state of California. I believe I also said I wasn't questioning the legality of Kosilek receiving the surgery at the taxpayers' cost.

Again, I haven't challenged the legality of whether or not Kosilek receives medical care. By the judges ruling, it is quite legal.

Yes, I did.

I am not asking, or proposing, that they be denied medical care. That is for the courts to decide now, since the decision has been appealed. Whatever happens there, happens. This is not the issue I am presenting. It isn't a legal one, but a question for the community. Is the community itself advancing or hurting its own cause by supporting this person? I have made my reasons quite clear, I believe, for why I think it is not a good thing. Look at Colleen Francis and that whole thing. Everyone that ran to support her upon her cry of discrimination wound up with egg on their faces, once the rest of the story came to light. And I can't think the presently proposed laws about bathrooms and locker rooms are happening out of the blue.

Now we'll support a murderer, because it "helps the cause," to put it succinctly. Now put that in the public view. Is that a good thing? To see a whole community saying, hey, we support this person, because it helps us get our own? I am not asking if it's legal, or anything like that. This is what I have stated throughout. Is this the right thing for the community? Could all this energy to support Kosilek be directed to something less lousy?

The other part of the question is whether SRS is medically necessary or not. This is where things get tough! Very hard. Ugly. Because if SRS is medically necessary then it can not be denied. But if you deny SRS, you create one precedent for denial, and you've then opened the door to other cases being denied even when medically necessary.

Rights are rights, no matter how evil or ugly a criminal is. We are a nation of laws or we are a nation of tyrants. Kosilek forfeited certain rights when convicted of murder. The right to necessary medical care is not one of the rights forfeited.

And this is why Kosilek matters - because if SRS can be denied for Kosilek, it can be denied for any of us and it may never become completely covered by insurance. Kosilek is a human being who committed an unspeakably evil act, but Kosilek still has rights.

As soon as you deny Kosilek's rights, you've denied your own.

This isn't what I've been making a case for, as I've said. However, incarcerated felons are indeed denied rights. For example, I'm willing to bet real money that Kosilek is not presently allowed to vote in any election, being a convicted felon. Nor sit on a federal jury, or ever own a firearm. You give up rights when you are convicted of a felony and imprisoned; or rather, you lose them by law. By changing laws and rights for convicted felons, that does not affect my own rights in any way, since I am not planning on committing any felonies in my future. I don't see anyone petitioning for a restoration of these other rights that felons lose. Rather, I see, again, a vested interest on the part of the protesters. It is not a question of my rights, it is the rights of the convicted felon that are being made an issue. Those are not the same as the general citizenry of the United States, or the state of Massachusetts.

[MaryEllen]

He? Is she not transsexual? I don't disagree that there needs to be a line especially if many outside are unable to get the same treatment but he?

HE decided that HE was transsexual only after HE was tried and convicted of a heinous murder. Before that he dabbled in crossdressing. My suspicion is (mine only) that he thought he would get better treatment if he were to be incarcerated in a womens prison. He'll never get out so he's trying to make the best of a bad situation. I do not consider this person to be a true transsexual.

[Guest Bellexia]

True transsexual. Interesting...

[Kyla666]

....True transsexual.... Really? I think your feelings are getting in the way of what she done.

You have no idea what's been going on inside her head all her life. I myself never told a person ever and only "Dabbled" in cross-dressing from time to time till i was 28 and finally came out to everyone i was Transgender and wanted to transition. but i guess with your logic i am not a true transsexual..?

[Guest Sarah Faith]

True transsexual. Interesting...

I think the point that MaryEllen is trying to make is that the circumstances in regards to this persons desire to get SRS are a bit too suspicious for her to consider them someone who is legitimately transsexual. Honestly I have a hard time disagreeing, I'm a bit biased though as I stated previously in this thread that an uncle I was very close to as a child was murdered when I was 5. I have a hard time caring about the well being of any convicted murderer, and honestly in my opinion the only thing a prisoner is entitled to is food, water, exercise, and life saving medical treatment. They lost their right to happiness when they were convicted for murder, prison isn't mean to be a happy place.

[Guest Bellexia]

True transsexual. Interesting...

I think the point that MaryEllen is trying to make is that the circumstances in regards to this persons desire to get SRS are a bit too suspicious for her to consider them someone who is legitimately transsexual. Honestly I have a hard time disagreeing, I'm a bit biased though as I stated previously in this thread that an uncle I was very close to as a child was murdered when I was 5. I have a hard time caring about the well being of any convicted murderer, and honestly in my opinion the only thing a prisoner is entitled to is food, water, exercise, and life saving medical treatment. They lost their right to happiness when they were convicted for murder, prison isn't mean to be a happy place.

I don't disagree about the happiness. I don't, I just think that none of us here outside are equipped to label who is a true transsexual. I am a bit leery of making such a call, I am not there to diagnose this person. I think this thread got out of hand real fast and it's quite understandable, the emotions on such a subject are heated. I don't feel like she should get the surgery I don't, however it's not my call to make. As a minority I would not want a majority making decisions for my life. I've been on the recieving end of what "true transsexuals" believe. There are some that don't feel I am female until I undergo all the surgeries necessary and that is a shame because we are all brothers and sisters in this community. I am a woman. Whole heartedly. I don't know, I am not making any call. I am just saying it's a slippery slope when we start deciding who is what like that. I do feel though that everyone in this thread could benefit from a patented hug from me. *hugs everyone*

[MaryEllen]

....True transsexual.... Really? I think your feelings are getting in the way of what she done.

You have no idea what's been going on inside her head all her life. I myself never told a person ever and only "Dabbled" in cross-dressing from time to time till i was 28 and finally came out to everyone i was Transgender and wanted to transition. but i guess with your logic i am not a true transsexual..?

I don't need to know what's been going on in his head. All I care about is what this monster did to Cheryl. He's a pathological liar and will say or do anything to better his cause. My logic is my logic. I will not speculate on your gender status. It's not my concern.

[Guest KimberlyF]

I never had to question if Kosilek was or wasn't a transsexual.

When you strangle someone to the point they almost lose their head, and then go out to dinner, you are an it. Dahmer was an it also. People don't act like that.

[Guest Rachel2170]

I will weigh in then go back into my hole lol. Explain to me why someone who is locked up deserves taxpayer money to make their lives better when the rest of us might have to work our backsides off and never ever get what is freely given to them. Especially when there are homeless and starving kids for example that are not being taken care of? Forget for a moment what we have to deal with as a demographic, all our pain and suffering but even by "Societies accepted practices in the states" THERE is no reason to do anything for a person in prison but food, shelter, and educate (if you give a person a fish they eat for a day, but if you teach them to fish they eat for life). I for one who is in law enforcement will never understand why society has to pay for choices of those who make the wrong ones. What we go through is not a choice I made nor would I wish it on anyone. And do not get me started on insurance companies as all they are is legalized racketeering.

[Guest Melissa Lissa]

For clarity's sake, I call Kosilek an it because it's not a human being. It can't be trans because in order to even have a gender to transition, you first have to be human. Unfortunately, that's a societal issue and law isn't as clear cut.

I think it's an unfortunate situation that definitely plays into the hands of people that are transphobic and intend to stay that way and even encourages others to agree with them. On the one hand, you don't want a case like this to cause a government to create laws or even guidelines that justify denying SRS to others or making future cases more difficult to win, if anything you want it to be accepted as a medically necessary procedure regardless of the person, we don't deny cancer treatment based on your standing in society so why should this be any different. On the other hand, this it is not who any of us want representing the community as a whole, and having to defend this awful it in order to avoid future trials referencing this one or future attempts by respectable people trying to have SRS justified by insurance denied by laws or guidelines put in place to prevent someone like it from getting that same right. If it fails to win it's right, it could be referenced and the resulting outcry could result in laws being made to prevent others in it's situation or even no where near it's situation from having access.

It's a bad situation to be in that looks bad for the overall community, the best thing that could have been done would have been to sweep it's attempt to get SRS under the rug and avoid the media attention or maybe encourage a much better representative of the community to champion the cause, seriously, anyone would have been better. Maybe the best thing isn't to support this legal action, but instead to bring up a new one with a new individual, someone who's not a monster in order to avoid dropping the issue, but also changing the individual representing the issue.

[Carolyn Marie]

Unfortunately, we cannot so easily dismiss Kosilek as being something other than human. We are faced with the fact that she is part of humanity, and we have to ask how someone gets to be like this. I've seen exactly this kind of person up close and personal, having watched a similar brutal murderer in a courtroom for three months. I don't know the answer to the question of what turns an innocent child into an unfeeling and uncaring brute. If the answer exists, no one has found it yet.

None of that makes any difference to the question at hand, though. GRS is not required to sustain her life, nor is FFS or BA if she wanted those. If she has the money, she should be allowed to find a surgeon willing to do the job. Good luck with that. But for the people of MA to pay for it, I wouldn't approve, and to the core question of this thread, no, I do not think the Community should rally behind Kosilek as a means to any end. We ought to be able to find other champions for our cause. If we can't, we as a Community are in bad shape.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest Rachel2170]

I respectfully understand your concern and can see where your coming from but I find it demeaning to the legit community (as ours and not those incarcerated-once they serve their time then I for one consider them part of our community again). By allowing them to ride the coat tails it doesnt make our fight any easier as they will just further "demonize" our community to the rest of the world as it is those who have a problem with us will always tend to gravitate to the idiots( the "it' mentioned above) to bolster their hate stance and prejudices against us. Besides like I commented above there are way worthier causes to dedicate money to than someone who is incarcerated. I believe we are far better off by not championing their cause for fear if we dont it will jeopardize our own.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

HE decided that HE was transsexual only after HE was tried and convicted of a heinous murder. Before that he dabbled in crossdressing. My suspicion is (mine only) that he thought he would get better treatment if he were to be incarcerated in a womens prison. He'll never get out so he's trying to make the best of a bad situation. I do not consider this person to be a true transsexual.

Nope...not just only your suspicion.

I liken these people to those who "find God" on the inside, then when they get paroled, commit more crimes. I find it laughable that so many find sympathies for convicted felons trying to screw the system to service their own devices on the inside, while good, law abiding, hard working people on the outside scrimp and save to try and find happiness and contentment.

There is no reason in my mind good enough to allow these ******** luxuries that people on the outside cannot afford - people like any one of you. I find it even sad that I read the posts by some of you who are almost suicidal, or worse, who see no end in sight and yet you think it fine for some scumbag in jail to be handed the ability to change HIS world for the better while you all suffer.

These people are being punished ( I think that Sarah Faith pointed this out before); they are not there to be healed. It's not supposed to be Club Med, guys. It's JAIL.

I said I was done with this thread, but honestly, I walked away from Laura's because of the irrational commentary, the derailing from the original thread, and the blindness for such a strong issue. How can anyone here honestly say that handing these rights to a convicted felon is okay while you all sit at home, miserable and in despair because you cannot "be" who you were born to "be".

I just have to shake my head - I feel sad about this whole thing.

[Guest Gypsyfeenix]

HE decided that HE was transsexual only after HE was tried and convicted of a heinous murder. Before that he dabbled in crossdressing. My suspicion is (mine only) that he thought he would get better treatment if he were to be incarcerated in a womens prison. He'll never get out so he's trying to make the best of a bad situation. I do not consider this person to be a true transsexual.

Nope...not just only your suspicion.

I liken these people to those who "find God" on the inside, then when they get paroled, commit more crimes. I find it laughable that so many find sympathies for convicted felons trying to screw the system to service their own devices on the inside, while good, law abiding, hard working people on the outside scrimp and save to try and find happiness and contentment.

There is no reason in my mind good enough to allow these ******** luxuries that people on the outside cannot afford - people like any one of you. I find it even sad that I read the posts by some of you who are almost suicidal, or worse, who see no end in sight and yet you think it fine for some scumbag in jail to be handed the ability to change HIS world for the better while you all suffer.

These people are being punished ( I think that Sarah Faith pointed this out before); they are not there to be healed. It's not supposed to be Club Med, guys. It's JAIL.

I said I was done with this thread, but honestly, I walked away from Laura's because of the irrational commentary, the derailing from the original thread, and the blindness for such a strong issue. How can anyone here honestly say that handing these rights to a convicted felon is okay while you all sit at home, miserable and in despair because you cannot "be" who you were born to "be".

I just have to shake my head - I feel sad about this whole thing.

And for those who do not know, I am NOT a transitioning person, though my wife is.

Since coming here, I am frightened at the number of suicidal people who have been isolated by their stage in transition solely because of the lack of funds to make the change to better their lives. THIS is where my anger comes from.

[Drea]

Koselik should be granted an appendectomy because a burst appendix is life threatening. Denial of SRS, while deemed a medical necessity, is not life threatening. It will not kill this murderous scumbag to be denied SRS. I find it appalling that many in the transgender community are upholding this person as a poster child for the right to have SRS.

I think ME says it very to highlight the difference between medically necessary to save one's life verses "medically necessary" to enhance.

People convicted of crimes and incarcerated forfeit many rights. To not have the right to have their desired "sex change" (as the general population will see it) denied doesn't affect those not convicted/incarcerated. I think that is a specious argument. I don't care if this person has funds to pay for the surgery themselves or not. Are prisoners allowed to just buy anything they want when in prison?

I see no rights gained by this occurring or lost if it were denied. It is a ruling against a policy, not overturning some law. It is something that most non-trans will find quite disturbing to be provided in prison as well as many trans. While this person may have gotten a legal ruling in their favor, it wouldn't be at all surprising for there to be efforts for to amend the law to specifically exclude a repeat or new laws to specifically prohibit gender reassignment for prisoners. Such efforts will likely be successful given the general level of disgust a situation like this creates.

When trans folk support a person like this, the whole community gets seen in a negative way which not only spurs legislation that may be negative to trans in general and generates support for that legislation. In my opinion, to the degree the community supports this sort of action, the more it harms the cause.

I tend to view the holding the status quo policies that have largely been in place as a pretty reasonable compromise. Now if this

Of course if this surgery goes ahead the next thing would be a required transfer to a womens facility if this person isn't already at one. Yet such a transfer would be viewed as another success despite being imprisoned in the first place for murdering a woman.