AMA Says Transgender Patients Don't Need Surgery To Change Birth Certificate

huh

you say that you aren't sure if it's a mental illness but then say hey, let them have their penis removed if they want.

Should taxpayers pay for that? Should insurance companies pay for that?

 

Did not know anyone "at birth" could describe their feelings about what they want to grow up to be such as man, woman, gay or whatever. Therefore birth certificates create public record of the FACTS of the birth.

Geez, get over the fact girls who want to be guys or vice versa, simply are still what their birth certificate states. No getting around it.

 

Not in the real world

 

So your concern here is money. Send me your portion of the bill, I'll take care of it for you. I'm just that nice of a guy.

 

I agree with the AMA tweet in your link, “Requiring sex-reassignment surgery places a burden on an already marginalized population."

I also agree with the last paragraph, "AMA members said the organization should support modernizing state vital statistics statutes “to ensure accurate gender markers on birth certificates.”

The more accurate information people have the better imo. It's a fact that some people do not consider their gender as the sex they are born with. Whether it is by choice, mental illness, or just nature, the fact that these people consider themselves as a woman in a man's body, or man in a woman's body is information that lawyers, employers, doctors, or others might find useful. Just as knowing someone's sex can be useful. Gender and sex are different. I don't see why we can't use both concepts to make a variety of decisions. Don't change the sex on the birth certificate, because that is valuable factual information. But I don't see why we can't add a gender category (if needed) to our documentation to solve this whole problem.

 

The AMA is no more a scientific body than the democrat party is. It is a political group, and has been since the day they let Chiropractors into the group. All they want is money for their coffers through donations and membership fees. Less than 20% of practicing physicians are members of the AMA.

 

That won't solve any problems, obviously. It will, however, create innumerable problems, just like every other policy which caters to a depraved constituency.

 

interesting

I can't wait to see how many 5 and 6 year old children have their birth cert changed to read monkey, or puppy, or bunny because they play pretend as well

 

What is done with all those facts? What down side is there if we don't know the time, location, hospital, doctor, weight, etc etc?

 

It's a medical treatment for a psychological problem that left untreated can lead to serious mental disorders. So yes, insurance companies should pay for it.

 

Maybe if you lived in a Muslim country you might want to change your mind.

 

Hmm...., I don't think Iranian health insurance would be paying for it. Do you?

 

Is there a point to be made here?

 

I understand that many in the Progressive movement want to over ride Constitutional Law with Sharia Law. Obama for one.

Obama Administration Paves the Way for Sharia Law - Breitbart
www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/...paves-the-way-for-sharia-law
Aug 03, 2012 · The most harrowing prospect is the Obama Administration’s passivity in the face of attempts to introduce aspects of sharia law ... once American ...

 

How does a newborn tell you how he or she feels?

 

So there we go. Sex is defined by chromosomes. Gays can't change that. No matter how you rearrange your genitalia you still cannot change your x and y chromosomes. This is a scientific, biological definition of male and female, a definition which in scientific sense is immutable. So to work around this, the law will define male and female according to gender which can be legally redefined in 10 thousand ways.

 

Gay people are not the same thing as transgendered.

Mod Edit ~ Don't make it personal

 

Courts, lawyers and politicians also exist in a parallel universe shielded from reality. Or where reality is subjective rather than objective. Or where everything unliberal is conjecture, stemming from misled, prejudiced, culturally biased belief systems unless redifined in anecdotal terms.

 

If the individual's medically recognized as transgender then I don't care.

However a psych exam isn't enough to determine whether or not someone is "transgender" - if it's truly a biological abnormality in the brain structure then biological evidence should be required before being diagnosed as such - not just some kid saying to some shrink that they "want to be a girl/boy".

 

What some of you fail to grasp is that the decision for one to go through the transition process from male to female (MTF) or female to male (FTM) is not one that comes lightly. It comes after much soul searching and experimenting, and is finally decided that it's the only option. This takes many years sometimes. It's not a snap decision like "OH! I want to be the opposite gender today just for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles!", and to treat it as such is dismissive to those dealing with this.

 

Those facts are kept on record for many reasons, heres some of them.

http://cchealth.org/vital-registration/pdf/uses_of_certificates.pdf


On top of those there is the general common sense answer that if we are recording facts at birth at all.....why would you not want them to be accurate? So unless we decide we no longer are going to record births, and risk not knowing who's alive and living here, and who isnt....then the records we keep should be factual.


Now a question back at you.

What purpose does it serve to put false information on such a document?

 

Absurd. How is this "restructuring American society" in any other way than your imagination?

 

Gender can change easily. Sex cannot. Unfortunately, many methods of identification only as sex, and only give a person F or M options. Until this is changed, I don't blame a transgendered person from checking the box not prescribed to them.

Mod Edit ~ Don't make it personal

 

I'm with you that it's a psychological problem. You then go on to discuss mutilating a body, at taxpayer or insurance expense. Why don't we remove the lungs from cigarette smokers? Do we pay to install a tail or floppy ears onto children who believe they are a dog or bunny?