Prison Talk

Prison Talk (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered People in Prison (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=192)
-   -   The sadistic US supreme court denounces human rights (http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=677914)

new lady 05-05-2015 09:43 AM

The sadistic US supreme court denounces human rights
 
As I foresaw the Supreme court ruled against Ms.Kosilek. So they have nine sadists there using the highest power. People who feel that some people can be treated as non-humans. Now it will be a precedent that will allow prison officials to deny all surgeries perhaps for decades to come. And liberal politicians like Mr. Patrick and Ms. Coakley allowed this to happen. Ms. Harris is allowing the same in CA. When it comes to the transgender inmates the claim-to-be pro human rights politicians act as they would wholly agree with prison officials that are extremely biased. The prison officials decision both relating to the medical treatment and the placement of transgender inmates have agreed 100% with the religious right/ and so called TERF-movement. The prison officials have really showed their side.

xolady 05-05-2015 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new lady (Post 7440577)
As I foresaw the Supreme court ruled against Ms.Kosilek. So they have nine sadists there using the highest power. People who feel that some people can be treated as non-humans. Now it will be a precedent that will allow prison officials to deny all surgeries perhaps for decades to come. And liberal politicians like Mr. Patrick and Ms. Coakley allowed this to happen. Ms. Harris is allowing the same in CA. When it comes to the transgender inmates the claim-to-be pro human rights politicians act as they would wholly agree with prison officials that are extremely biased. The prison officials decision both relating to the medical treatment and the placement of transgender inmates have agreed 100% with the religious right/ and so called TERF-movement. The prison officials have really showed their side.

So glad this happened people who have life threatening illnesses don't get proper treatment in my book they are who count most when it comes to medical treatment in prison.

Straight 05-05-2015 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new lady (Post 7440577)
As I foresaw the Supreme court ruled against Ms.Kosilek. So they have nine sadists there using the highest power. People who feel that some people can be treated as non-humans. Now it will be a precedent that will allow prison officials to deny all surgeries perhaps for decades to come. And liberal politicians like Mr. Patrick and Ms. Coakley allowed this to happen. Ms. Harris is allowing the same in CA. When it comes to the transgender inmates the claim-to-be pro human rights politicians act as they would wholly agree with prison officials that are extremely biased. The prison officials decision both relating to the medical treatment and the placement of transgender inmates have agreed 100% with the religious right/ and so called TERF-movement. The prison officials have really showed their side.

I'm glad to see this. There's a difference between life threatening illnesses and some combination of feelings and drama.

safran 05-05-2015 02:09 PM

I too am glad to see this. I know how minimal prison health care is and feel life saving surgery should be put WAY in front of something like this.

yourself 05-05-2015 04:58 PM

BTW, they didn't rule against her - they just refused to hear the case. There's a big difference between the two, but the OP won't understand this.

Very glad this is the outcome. Someday, in the future, when the emphasis of prisons is different, maybe people like the Plaintiff in that case may do what's necessary to earn the funds to choose to change her body. Then again, I doubt it, since the society of such a prison would be completely different.

Oh, and if you can't get MA to agree with you on liberal issues, you're screwed in other states.

CenTexLyn 05-05-2015 06:55 PM

Perhaps Kosilek shouldn't have been so sadistic that he killed his wife because she didn't want to have to put up with Robert's 'lady feels.'

As noted, this was a refusal by the SCotUS to hear the appeal, meaning they are content with the manner in which the case was handled by the appellate court. I can only hope this puts the kibosh on the California nonsense now...

My guess is that Cheryl would have the same opinion, but, gee...we cannot ask her since Robert decided to kill her, practically decapitating her in the process.

Cosmetic surgery is NOT a matter of life and death. They should be maintained on whatever level of treatment they had prior to being committed to the penitentiary...and if they decided AFTER committing their crime that they were 'trans' then they can wait until release to seek pharmacological and surgical intervention for their mental health issue. If they don't like it, then don't commit the heinous crime (since invariably, these high-profile cases all seem to involve males who murdered or raped women and children).

safran 05-05-2015 07:06 PM

Oh goody! Declining to hear the case sends an even better, more clear message.

Things like this do nothing but shine an even worse light on all inmates and as much as I hated being in prison I DO think even really nasty (like wife killers) deserve life saving surgery. I met many people that, except for their crime, were OK, but never once did I hear anybody whining to get health care unless it was really needed.

Of course, I was only in for ten years and as I've said before I would have been furious if I was housed with somebody with a penis. Especially somebody that disliked women AND had a penis.

Now that I think about it, I remember a few women doing life that might have been happy to facilitate his surgery. Perhaps not in a sterile environment and with primitive tools, but appendage removal none the less. You give a woman life after she murdered somebody due to decades of abuse; they're not too keen on seeing a penis.

yourself 05-05-2015 07:48 PM

I'm very cool with the whole - maintain at the level you're at when you go in. If you're on hormones, stay on hormones. But if you haven't had the surgery, you're not entitled to it on the taxpayer's dime. Sorry. Might be a bit more compassionate about the whole thing if the person was actually in the process of transitioning BEFORE committing a crime instead of dealing with a guy who's got LWOP who decides to trans. Might even be more compassionate about a guy who was a juvenile when sentenced to LWOP.

Bruce Jenner's gonna have problems if Jenner doesn't complete the transition before his case is heard, and Jenner has a significant history of gender dysphoria.

What NewWoman fails to understand is that there's a significant population of women in prison who've been victimized by men all of their lives. ALL of their lives. To expect them to put up with a person with a penis who's done that sort of victimizing - wow - how deluded can you be? The stats on women murderers are astonishing - http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-abuse/384826/

The failure of people like NewWoman to actually understand this is one of the most misogynistic aspects of her argument. Expecting women to live with people who committed male violence against women, especially when they still have testies and a penis, is arrogant as hell. The failure to understand that this feels like yet another violation, another intrusion of men violating the rights and boundaries of women, is a very male attitude.

Yes, it's fucked up that trans people are classified by a gender binary in prison. But, that's prison. You want to go into a women's prison, have female genitalia. You want to go into a men's prison, have male genitalia. You want women to think of you and treat you as a woman? Be sensitive to one of the most pervasive problems and biases women face - male violence against women.

And, if you think it's "so unfair", start working to save enough money to build your own prison specifically catering to the teeny-tiny incarcerated trans population. Don't see the trans community committing resources to that particular cause.

safran 05-05-2015 08:31 PM

I think an even better way, one that worked for me, is to DO NOT COMMIT A CRIME. Well, in my case don't commit a 2nd crime.

Stay legal and do what ever you want to want ever parts you have, but once you're in prison expect to live by the rules the prison enforces.

Again, prison health care is bad; if there's going to be changes I hope it comes for those that need medical help just to stay alive.

That's it for me. I'm D O N E with anything NewWoman has to say.

Combs 05-06-2015 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by new lady (Post 7440577)
As I foresaw the Supreme court ruled against Ms.Kosilek. So they have nine sadists there using the highest power. People who feel that some people can be treated as non-humans. Now it will be a precedent that will allow prison officials to deny all surgeries perhaps for decades to come. And liberal politicians like Mr. Patrick and Ms. Coakley allowed this to happen. Ms. Harris is allowing the same in CA. When it comes to the transgender inmates the claim-to-be pro human rights politicians act as they would wholly agree with prison officials that are extremely biased. The prison officials decision both relating to the medical treatment and the placement of transgender inmates have agreed 100% with the religious right/ and so called TERF-movement. The prison officials have really showed their side.

I find it encouraging and refreshing that the Supreme Court refused to even hear this case. Maybe now instead of spending untold amounts of money for “on demand" voluntary/cosmetic sex change surgery, the prison systems can channel that money into life-saving and other worthwhile, important medical care.

xolady 05-08-2015 06:42 AM

Its sickening to me that this even got as far as the supreme court. I truly believe people who bring bullshit lawsuits should have to pay the legal fee's for both parties. It would stop a lot of the crap that tax payers are footing the bill for. Hey I need a tummy tuck should I go kill someone so that I can have it done in prison??? IDIOTS!!!

yourself 05-08-2015 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xolady (Post 7441588)
Its sickening to me that this even got as far as the supreme court. I truly believe people who bring bullshit lawsuits should have to pay the legal fee's for both parties. It would stop a lot of the crap that tax payers are footing the bill for. Hey I need a tummy tuck should I go kill someone so that I can have it done in prison??? IDIOTS!!!

I don't think it's bullshit - I just think that anybody who thinks that they should be able to get elective plastic surgery that's not necessary while in prison is about as narcissistic as you can get. I understand that people who are trans have a lot of body issues, but that will hopefully add to the budget for psych services - services that save tons of lives (or should) and help prevent recidivism (or should), services that need to be bulked up.

The law suits demanding hormones for those who were on them before prison - totally kosher. This one, while stupid, was necessary to set the precedent that elective, plastic surgery is elective, plastic surgery, even when it's backed up by a psychological diagnosis. The precedent is very important. Beyond hitting trans people who haven't had bottom surgery and therefor cannot be reassigned to a different gendered prison, it hits things like tattoo removal (especially gang affiliated tats for those who've left the gang, and facial tats for those who've finally figured out that getting a job outside of the tattoo industry is hard as hell with facial tats) and other, aesthetic issues like scar removal.

What's alarming to me is the OP and people like the OP thinking that a M2F trans with a penis, especially one who committed extreme violence against women in his 40's and is never getting out of prison, belongs in a women's facility as if women do not have a say in their own definition of self and security.

Like I said before, if having an appropriate facility for trans inmates to go was so important, the trans community would be trying to fund a private prison for trans prisoners, thereby getting away from the gender binary that they protest so much instead of trying to get a wife murderer with a penis housed with women, almost all of whom have been the victim of domestic violence. I'm sure that many states would love to ship their problem prisoners to a trans only facility and would pay the average housing costs. But, no, the qualm is that a person with a significant history of violence against women AND a penis isn't being housed with women.

redgrl 05-08-2015 10:50 AM

Oh my, I am dismayed at the stance you are all taking, do you not believe in equality and fairness for all, are you not aware of the difficulties a trans person has in life, effectively this is a woman in a mans jail, it must be horrendous. I am not surprised at the disgusting attitude of the supreme court having witnessed it time and time again.

nimuay 05-08-2015 11:57 AM

Redgrl, you seem to have missed the point. Medical care in prison is dismal, delayed and often incompetent.

I can sympathize with a trans person as to the discomfort, and I understand that the suicide rate is far higher among trans, but I can't quite get to the idea that those are sufficient reasons to place their medical needs above those of cancer-stricken non-trans or broken-boned non-trans inmates.

xolady 05-08-2015 12:14 PM

I get that there are special needs for someone who has started therapy, but frankly I don't care enough about anyone's problems who probably never would have sought this kind of medical treatment out side prison. To those who have and haven't committed crimes against people whether a man or woman, then its a shame that their treatment has to wait until they can pay for it and they should be housed either in special needs facilities or with men or women. Not I'm a man now I'm in prison but I'm really a woman inside. I know someone who decided to have a sex change, its costly and except for the mental part unnecessary. No one die because they didn't have a sex change operation.

safran 05-08-2015 12:58 PM

Actually, YES I strongly believe in fairness and equality and that's why I'm glad this trans surgery had been denied.

fbopnomore 05-08-2015 02:03 PM

I guess I'm missing the point of your claim that human rights are being denounced by the Supreme Court in this case. Where does the Constitution give anyone the right to have elective cosmetic surgery paid for by the government? I would be more sympathetic if she was able and willing to pay for the operation, but was blocked from having it. If she doesn't have the money, maybe her supporters will be willing to foot the bill for her.

yourself 05-08-2015 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redgrl (Post 7441637)
Oh my, I am dismayed at the stance you are all taking, do you not believe in equality and fairness for all, are you not aware of the difficulties a trans person has in life, effectively this is a woman in a mans jail, it must be horrendous. I am not surprised at the disgusting attitude of the supreme court having witnessed it time and time again.

redgrl - the case that was denied involved a man who was convicted of killing his wife a couple of decades ago. He had a long history of DV prior to that crime. He was convicted of first degree murder for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was the near removal of her head.

So, he's serving what's essentially LWOP. Prior to at least a decade in prison, he'd never indicated in any way that he was a lesbian trapped in the body of a married man.

Because of the nature of his crime, plus the publicity, plus his general character, he's had some problems in prison. More than a decade into his term, he decided he was trans. Unlike Bruce Jenner, the petitioner never dressed as a woman outside of prison, never sought information or treatment for gender reassignment, never had problems fitting in as a straight male. In other words, outside of prison, he's fine with being a straight man.

Inside prison, however, with the expectation of living the rest of his life in prison, he's experiencing a number of things. Beyond the harassment and a bit of, "teaching him what it means to be a real man" shit that goes along with being a target and not practicing good prison etiquette, he's also dealing with the slippery nature of sexuality in an all male environment. Sexuality is not a stagnant thing for anybody, but throw a person in prison, and quite a few will change their mind about homosexuality - situational homosexuality is a thing, and some of the distinctions made by people in prison are absolutely amazing in terms of strange logic.

So, you have a person claiming to be a woman after more than a decade in prison. This person wants first and foremost to move to a women's prison, and if he has to lose his penis to get there, the person is fine with it.

Is this somebody who's really transgendered? Or is it somebody who's trying to play the system? The person's history suggests that this is much more the later.

The prison, as usual, says, "your genitalia dictate your designation", and the guy's got a penis. To get to a women's prison, he has to lose the penis. So, he's wanting surgery.

It's a b.s. claim. He's a bad representative for the trans community and should not have been the test case. Further, the idea that this surgery is NECESSARY belies the huge percentage of F2M transsexuals who have not had bottom surgery in hopes that the surgery improves enough to make bottom surgery result in anatomy that more closely approximates the male penis. So, plenty of trans people live without surgery, and live good, solid lives without doing the bottom surgery. If a significant percentage of trans people don't have bottom surgery because the surgery may improve enough to give more desirable results, the bottom surgery is obviously not necessary for the realization of ones gender identity.

So, you can spend the huge amount of money to make somebody more aesthetically aligned with themselves, and as a result reduce the amount of medical care available to ALL other inmates, or you can recognize that reassignment surgery is a very low priority in comparison with things like bypass surgeries, cancer surgeries (and treatments), orthopedic surgeries (which won't necessarily save somebody's life, but it does help to leave prison with all limbs attached and doing what they're supposed to), and all the other much more necessary medical requests out there.

As it is, nobody's going to prison with the intention of transitioning and maintaining that transition when they get out. Most of those young people who are LGBTQ going to prison while they're figuring out their gender identity and their sexuality aren't starting these types of law suits. These law suits are mostly coming from much older MEN who have significant crimes against women, who are having a hard time adjusting to prison, and aren't getting out.

Bruce Jenner is completely different - Bruce has been actively engaged in transitioning, is on a variety of hormones, has undergone some surgeries already. Bruce's criminal record involves Bruce's current charge of what's probably getting charged as a vehicular homicide (if Bruce gets charged). Should Bruce find prison in his future, I have a ton more empathy and sympathy than I do for the guy involved in the SCOTUS case. Bruce will be able to maintain the hormone levels and drug treatments in Bruce's current schedule. Bruce may be able to get further surgeries, coming out of his pocket, while incarcerated - Bruce won't be a maximum security prisoner serving LWOP. Bruce has a ton of women speaking on his behalf, has never abused a woman or been accused of abusing a woman.

Completely different scenario. And, because Bruce has been transitioning, the crime doesn't require prison, Bruce's record is clean, Bruce has a ton of character references, and Bruce is not a continuing threat to the world, Bruce probably won't face prison time. Bruce's transition will be factored into why Bruce shouldn't be imprisoned.

Anyway, enough of the guy in MA who wants to be in a women's prison. I'm very glad that nobody's going to suffer the loss of a much more necessary surgery because that yahoo wants to be in a women's prison and demands an unnecessary surgery.

safran 05-08-2015 03:21 PM

Are there any U.S. prisons that allow an inmate to pay for outside, free world medical care?

The Feds don't and I can see how allowing this might be viewed as favoring those with money.

Macushla 05-08-2015 03:31 PM

He must be well over sixty by now?

I do not recall the ins and outs of the case exactly but dimly remember his wife was aware of his gender dysmorphia when she married him as she had met him in a treatment centre?

I do not believe we should judge him, we did not walk in his shoes.

I do believe that the medical treatment is abysmal and that other people who need urgent surgery to save their lives and general health are not being treated at all. He would probably not have been able to afford this surgery had he been out. So in this case I do agree with the rejection of a hearing.

yourself 05-08-2015 04:43 PM

66 years old.

There have been cases where people have been allowed to pay for medical care - usually when an inmate is a live donor of a transplant organ. It's not a sure thing - it also depends on the security risk of the inmate, and the inmate has to pay for everything, including extra security.

Is that a money thing? Dunno as it sucks no matter what.

I highly doubt the guy would have gone the route of transition on the outside. The outside is a very different world from the inside. Further, there are a ton of other elements at play.

If he was in a treatment facility with gender dysmorphia, and got married rather than transition, that's yet another indication that the man was never going to transition without the pressures of prison and the availability of "free" prison medical care.

The appellate court ruled, "After carefully considering the community standard of medical care, the adequacy of the provided treatment, and the valid security concerns articulated by the DOC [Department of Correction], we conclude that the district court erred" and that's what's dictating the ruling.

The interesting twist is that MA is one of three states that covers gender reassignment surgery in its insurance. Granted, this inclusion only started recently. The public dime will be paying for these types of surgeries, but not for prisoners .

Like I said, if you can't get recognition for your trans issues in MA, you're doing something very wrong. Trans rights, not to mention medical care and coverage for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford insurance - this is the place to be.

So, the idea that people would be committing crimes to get surgery is bogus - in MA, as of a few months ago, you could get surgery on the public dime, just not as an inmate in prison.

It's been more than 20 years since the inmate committed the crime. If outside, he could have transitioned. Inside, he's been given a lot of leeway including female clothes, hormones, and laser hair removal (really? laser hair removal? really? Shit, the inmate's 66 - lots of post menopausal women have to shave, my grandmother used to even joke about it).

Surgery is not necessary. If gender is between your ears, then it's not what's below your belt. As a result, surgery is not necessary.

I look forward to a real case that challenges the gender binary. I don't think it'll have any traction at the moment, but changing to a gender fluid understanding of society, not just a sexuality fluid understanding of society, will be a significant step forward. It may also cause prisons to change significantly to address actual issues of helping people to become mentally whole instead of just warehousing, but there's a lot of distance to travel before then.

The LGBTQ community choosing inmates like the one mentioned in this case isn't helping the agenda.

safran 05-08-2015 04:45 PM

He's 66.
Born: April 10, 1949 (age 66), United States of America

Macushla 05-08-2015 04:58 PM

Wouldn't any ethical surgeon who usually carries out these operations consider 66 years too high risk anyway?

yourself 05-08-2015 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macushla (Post 7441741)
Wouldn't any ethical surgeon who usually carries out these operations consider 66 years too high risk anyway?

for an Orchiectomy? no - the removal of testicles isn't that invasive. As for the creation of a vagina - it would depend on how healthy that person is, same as anybody else.

It's usually around 70 that they start having problems with age, or with age alone being considered a factor against surgery.

What's the standard in Ireland?

Tourniquet 05-08-2015 07:03 PM

Regardless of what some people may believe, SRS/GRS can be a "life or death" issue for many people.. that combined with being unable to truly judge the guilt or innocence of a person, as there are many cases of innocent people in prison, lead me to believe that medical care, and ALL medical care at that, should be provided by the state.

while i support this being covered, i should mention that i also feel that all medical care should be covered... it's near impossible in some prisons to get urgent medical care even for emergencies, let alone things like this.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online