Is sex reassignment surgery (SRS) plastic surgery? (1 Viewer)

[X Factor]

I think we tend to view plastic surgery as away to change something so it looks more "perfect" but that's actually cosmetic surgery, as I just recently learned. Plastic surgery seeks to correct or improve the appearance of a physical defect. I think, if anyone takes offense to my question it's probably because they think I'm devaluing SRS as being the same as a nose job or chin implants (which frankly, I have no problem with either). I'm not. I see great value in surgically improving the appearance of something that someone has had difficulty living with. Think of a burn victim getting plastic surgery to appear more "normal". I doubt anyone would think it frivolous or vain or begrudge them something that could make them more acceptable especially to themselves. That's basically how I view SRS. There's nothing medically wrong with the human body that's born male or female. There is no life saving, urgent procedure that needs to be done to correct for being biologically male or female. SRS is about appearance, like a prosthetic eye or nose, but that's not to say that renders it unimportant or wrong. I accept that it can be very important to the person seeking it.


So, what do you think? Have I convinced you?


Poll on the way.

 

[ecofarm]

Yes. Obviously.

Plastic surgery is a surgical specialty involving the restoration, reconstruction, or alteration of the human body. It includes cosmetic or aesthetic surgery, reconstructive surgery, craniofacial surgery, hand surgery, microsurgery, and the treatment of burns.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery

 

[X Factor]

Yes. Obviously.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery

Oh, look at that, the definition includes cosmetic surgery. Huh, so cosmetic surgery and plastic surgery are pretty darn closely related and not, at all, mutually exclusive.

What if 99percenter votes the same way you just did? Will you reconsider?

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, don't act like you were just immediately on board. :lol:

I was immediately on board.

Your post, 1:09 am:

I may have mixed my terms. Truly I thought using "plastic surgery" would actually be more inflammatory because it makes me think of people trying to look like Barbie/Ken dolls, but looking at it now, it seems that plastic surgery is more in line with what I thought cosmetic surgery meant. Had I used plastic surgery, would your response be any different?

My response, 1:13 am (4 minutes later):

It's clearly plastic surgery.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery



Prosthetics are not cosmetic surgery, see the wiki definition I posted above.

I'm curious about your initial snark and hostility toward my question in my other thread when I made it clear in my OP the way I was using my term, and can I now expect to see it directed the other direction?

Apparently, your description of "how you were using it" was insufficient. Clearly, SRS is not cosmetic surgery. Don't put blame on me for your mistake.

For cripe sake, it was argued in a thread that using the term "front hole" was a perfectly acceptable and accurate term for a natural vagina, while vagina was meant only for a surgically created one because the literature explained how they defined it.

Wrong. That is a misinterpretation of the article.

What if 99percenter votes the same way you just did? Will you reconsider?

I don't care who agrees with me, I'm right.

 

[DA60]

I would say yes.

It's not like you will die or be in physical pain without the surgery...it is an emotional requirement to change your body (drastically, in this case).

You hate your nose - plastic surgery.

You want to improve your skin that was badly burned - plastic surgery.

You want to change gender - plastic surgery.

They all vary in intensity...but they are all more or less the same...an emotional desire to change your present body that has little/nothing to do with physical pain/discomfort (assuming the burn example was not for alleviating pain).

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, look at that, the definition includes cosmetic surgery. Huh, so cosmetic surgery and plastic surgery are pretty darn closely related and not, at all, mutually exclusive.

Cosmetic surgery is a subgroup of plastic surgery. I think most people already knew this.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think we tend to view plastic surgery as away to change something so it looks more "perfect" but that's actually cosmetic surgery, as I just recently learned. Plastic surgery seeks to correct or improve the appearance of a physical defect. I think, if anyone takes offense to my question it's probably because they think I'm devaluing SRS as being the same as a nose job or chin implants (which frankly, I have no problem with either). I'm not. I see great value in surgically improving the appearance of something that someone has had difficulty living with. Think of a burn victim getting plastic surgery to appear more "normal". I doubt anyone would think it frivolous or vain or begrudge them something that could make them more acceptable especially to themselves. That's basically how I view SRS. There's nothing medically wrong with the human body that's born male or female. There is no life saving, urgent procedure that needs to be done to correct for being biologically male or female. SRS is about appearance, like a prosthetic eye or nose, but that's not to say that renders it unimportant or wrong. I accept that it can be very important to the person seeking it.


So, what do you think? Have I convinced you?


Poll on the way.

From the other thread, since I am still curious:

How about telling us all what motivated you to create such a poll. You've read plenty on this issue here at DP, and I believe you know better. My guess is that this is some sort of anti-liberal partisan thing, since that has seemed to be your mood as of late. But perhaps I'm wrong. Tell me your motivation and I'll explain to you the difference between SRS and, in your words, "the correction or improvement of the appearance of a physical defect."

Actually, if you read your words very carefully and compare them to what SRS actually entails and what the results are, you might be able to change your own mind.

Oh, and plastic surgery is a component to SRS, but it is not only about appearance.

 

[Ahlevah]

This (plastic surgery or not) is an important distinction. Assuming we allow transgender people in the military, should taxpayers be required to then pay the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to hire private surgeons to perform the surgery for those lacking it? Enlisting would be a great way for a transgender to get it, as well as a nice benefit, don't you think? (And let's not forget the rest of it, such as counseling. That would probably have to be farmed out also, since it requires specialized expertise.) In addition to the GI Bill, just sign up for a few years and get a new pecker (or vagina). And you can wear a new hat, too, when you get out. ("Proud American Veteran" or whatever.) :cheers:

 

[Your Star]

This (plastic surgery or not) is an important distinction. Assuming we allow transgender people in the military, should taxpayers be required to then pay the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to hire private surgeons to perform the surgery for those lacking it? Enlisting would be a great way for a transgender to get it, as well as a nice benefit, don't you think? (And let's not forget the rest of it, such as counseling. That would probably have to be farmed out also, since it requires specialized expertise.) In addition to the GI Bill, just sign up for a few years and get a new pecker (or vagina). And you can wear a new hat, too, when you get out. ("Proud American Veteran" or whatever.) :cheers:

Yes.

Just like we should let soldiers get Viagra and Cialis under their insurance plans. Which costs us taxpayers 5 times more than all of the medical costs associated with trans military members.

 

[X Factor]

Yes.

Just like we should let soldiers get Viagra and Cialis under their insurance plans. Which costs us taxpayers 5 times more than all of the medical costs associated with trans military members.

So anybody who needs plastic surgery should be able to join the military to have the military pay for it?

 

[Ahlevah]

Yes.

Just like we should let soldiers get Viagra and Cialis under their insurance plans. Which costs us taxpayers 5 times more than all of the medical costs associated with trans military members.

ThinkProgress said it was 10 times. So which stat is fake news?

https://twitter.com/thinkprogress/status/890242111861391361

 

[Your Star]

So anybody who needs plastic surgery should be able to join the military to have the military pay for it?

That's nowhere close to what I said.

 

[Your Star]

ThinkProgress said it was 10 times. So which stat is fake news?

https://twitter.com/thinkprogress/status/890242111861391361

I stand corrected. It's ten times, but the point remains. It's not fake news; you can't live in a fact free world.

 

[DA60]

Yes.

Just like we should let soldiers get Viagra and Cialis under their insurance plans. Which costs us taxpayers 5 times more than all of the medical costs associated with trans military members.

I disagree.

Then a transgender person who is broke could enlist (with no intention whatsoever of ever serving), have all the surgeries at massive cost to the taxpayer...and then simply refuse to serve on some new-found religious reason or whatever other excuse they makeup.

He gets out of the service and has tens of thousands of free surgery on the taxpayer's dime.

That is not right.

If he/she wants to change gender - it should be on their dime.


If they were drafted...I might re-consider (though I doubt it unless they had a medical reason for performing the surgeries).

But they were not...they all volunteered...no one put a gun to their heads to join.


Again, I strongly disagree with Trump's transgender ban.

 

[DA60]

This (plastic surgery or not) is an important distinction. Assuming we allow transgender people in the military, should taxpayers be required to then pay the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to hire private surgeons to perform the surgery for those lacking it? Enlisting would be a great way for a transgender to get it, as well as a nice benefit, don't you think? (And let's not forget the rest of it, such as counseling. That would probably have to be farmed out also, since it requires specialized expertise.) In addition to the GI Bill, just sign up for a few years and get a new pecker (or vagina). And you can wear a new hat, too, when you get out. ("Proud American Veteran" or whatever.) :cheers:

Agreed.

 

[X Factor]

That's nowhere close to what I said.

Let me ask this, could you envision a set of circumstances in which a trans person would be refused some particular demand from the military that you would find reasonable? Is it ever ok to say no to a person who's trans?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes.

Just like we should let soldiers get Viagra and Cialis under their insurance plans. Which costs us taxpayers 5 times more than all of the medical costs associated with trans military members.

Maybe you should examine why. Upwards of 60% of those suffering under PTSD get ED as well. The military helped CAUSE the condition, they should help treat it as well. This particular line of debate is pretty bad on your part.

 

[X Factor]

I disagree.

Then a transgender person who is broke could enlist (with no intention whatsoever of ever serving), have all the surgeries at massive cost to the taxpayer...and then simply refuse to serve on some new-found religious reason or whatever other excuse they makeup.

He gets out of the service and has tens of thousands of free surgery on the taxpayer's dime.

That is not right.

If he/she wants to change gender - it should be on their dime.


If they were drafted...I might re-consider (though I doubt it unless they had a medical reason for performing the surgeries).

But they were not...they all volunteered...no one put a gun to their heads to join.


Again, I strongly disagree with Trump's transgender ban.

I do too, but it's not enough, is it? The anti ban people may be making a mistake in demanding capitulation to every potential demand. I think most people could be convinced that, as long as a person can fulfill their job requirements and maintain military standards of conduct, it really doesn't matter if someone is trans, but throw on, "oh, and you need to pay for whatever they can get a doctor to sign off on, and you'll be happy about it" and that may be a deal breaker.

 

[Ahlevah]

Again, I strongly disagree with Trump's transgender ban.

You disagree with the ban, but you also disagree with the public paying for surgery. Realistically, if transgenders are allowed in, then their best friend (the federal courts) will ensure that, in addition to getting a cot and three squares a day, they'll also get a new vagina or penis, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

 

[Your Star]

I disagree.

Then a transgender person who is broke could enlist (with no intention whatsoever of ever serving), have all the surgeries at massive cost to the taxpayer...and then simply refuse to serve on some new-found religious reason or whatever other excuse they makeup.

He gets out of the service and has tens of thousands of free surgery on the taxpayer's dime.

That is not right.

If he/she wants to change gender - it should be on their dime.


If they were drafted...I might re-consider (though I doubt it unless they had a medical reason for performing the surgeries).

But they were not...they all volunteered...no one put a gun to their heads to join.


Again, I strongly disagree with Trump's transgender ban.

If you can provide evidence of a mass amount of transgender people doing this, also, how would they be allowed to do this? Anyways, if you can show me proof that trans people are doing this en mass, then maybe you have a point; however, there is no evidence of trans people doing this, and the money involved is so low anyway, this is no way to cut money.

If someone is diagnosed with a medical problem, then they should receive the treatment for that medical problem. It shouldn't have anything to do with what that problem is, especially if they are willing to fight and die for this country.

 

[Your Star]

Let me ask this, could you envision a set of circumstances in which a trans person would be refused some particular demand from the military that you would find reasonable? Is it ever ok to say no to a person who's trans?

If they want to murder someone they shouldn't be allowed to.

We can play these silly games all you want, X.

 

[Your Star]

Maybe you should examine why. Upwards of 60% of those suffering under PTSD get ED as well. The military helped CAUSE the condition, they should help treat it as well. This particular line of debate is pretty bad on your part.

It was to show that the money is trivial, the money is not the real issue here. The real issue is anti-trans bigotry.

 

[X Factor]

If they want to murder someone they shouldn't be allowed to.

We can play these silly games all you want, X.

Shoot, I'm surprised you conceded that much.

 

[ecofarm]

If you can provide evidence of a mass amount of transgender people doing this, also, how would they be allowed to do this? Anyways, if you can show me proof that trans people are doing this en mass, then maybe you have a point; however, there is no evidence of trans people doing this, and the money involved is so low anyway, this is no way to cut money.

The premise is nonsense anyway. One cannot "simply refuse to serve on some new-found religious reason or whatever other excuse they makeup." One can make up reasons to not serve and thereby spend the rest of ones enlistment (or longer) in Leavenworth (prison), but one cannot make up a reason and quit.

 

[Ahlevah]

If someone is diagnosed with a medical problem, then they should receive the treatment for that medical problem.

Sure, but does he have a right to demand to be admitted into the military in order to get treatment or in spite of requiring it? Normally, people have to get whatever condition is affecting them cured or corrected before they enter military service, assuming it doesn't permanently disqualify them. Should the same criterion apply to transgender people? If not, why not?