ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Is "Gender Reassignment" Even Done On The Over Burdened N H S?
117 Answers
https:/
If these attention seekers want to get chopped about that's up to them but why are tax payers paying for it?
Answers
The NHS should treat sick people.The NHS should not be there to give men vaginas, women penises, make women pregnant or make fat people thin. These, to me, should all be elective paid from one's own pocket, and if they cannot afford to do so, well that's their problem.
12:35 Wed 21st Feb 2024
Focusing on the narrow question of surgery is to miss the entire point of the article. The waiting times for even being seen by the NHS for an initial appointment are currently measured in years. And even that might be an underestimate, since it's based on data for people who have already been seen, rather than those who only recently entered the wait list in the last year. As an example, Leeds and York's Gender Identity service notes that there are around 5500 people on the waiting list (as of 9/2/24), and they are currently booking appointments for people who were added to the list in May 2019 - that is, almost five years ago. Assuming that the number of appointments equals the number of new additions to the list in future, someone entering the system in, say, July 2023 needs to wait until something like April/May 2028 for a first appointment, but that is a generous assumption indeed, sadly, as the waiting list was estimated to be "Only" three years or so.
Again, this is just an initial consultation - before any treatment on the NHS at all - hormones, other treatments, etc etc. Some patients who enter the wait list never follow through with surgery, for various reasons; others might lose patience and go private, and so on. I won't comment on what should be done about this, but I would stress that if you are describing people who enter the wait list, jump through all the various hoops by obtaining a diagnosis and the like, and so have NHS-funded gender-affirming surgery after a journey that could be as long as a decade or more, are not attention-seekers, and shouldn't be seen as such.
Also, and more seriously, whenever anything is "fobbed off", if you like, to private healthcare, then that essentially amounts to saying that you're happy for people to get the treatment they think they need if and only if they can afford. But poor people can be trans too. It shouldn't be a privilege to be taken seriously only because you have the cash; conversely, well-off trans people who can take the "short-cut" of private treatment shouldn't be dismissed as attention-seekers for lacking patience.
The tone of this post is, sadly, typical of TTT, who has evidently long-since stopped taking trans topics seriously. The reference to having no problem with "genuine" dysphoria doesn't change this: why do you think you're in any position to judge who is and is not "genuine"? What is your yardstick for it? At a minimum it's self-contradictory, because arguably gender dysphoria so serious that it leads people to wanting surgery in the first place are genuine, and so ought to deserve NHS care.
TORATORATORA, 'Barsel: "The thing is TTT perhaps those people who want gender reassignment can't live without getting it and some will take their own lives as they cannot live like this. " - Yes and they are the genuine cases of gender dysphoria, extremely rare.'
Would gender re-assignment be carried out on the NHS without a confirmed diagnosis of gender dysphoria?
CTG: " why do you think you're in any position to judge who is and is not "genuine"? What is your yardstick for it? " - I'm not but just arithmetically I'd expect an even number of cases between Y chomosome holders and non Y chromosome holders. I suspect the genuine cases do respect that. Now if we lump the charlatans in we have it very heavily weighted to men who think they are women. Now forgive the cycnic in me but could their possibly be a reason for that?
It's always easy to condemn NHS spending on something you don't need personally, and think others should go private to obtain things you don't approve of.
But that's not how a health service works.
By definition, it is there to make people's lives better, and the way it does that is vastly varied, and some situations are very controversial.
If I was upset about the NHS spending in wrong areas, it would start with the vast hierarchy of management that drains resources for little if any benefit.
I would also assess the genuine benefit of some of the trivial schemes on which large amoumts of money are spent, because they are currently 'sexy' and attract attention and funding.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.