Topic: Homosexuality is just half-assed transgenderism.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #108,963
100 years ago putting on a dress and being the bottom was as far as you could go, but today there's no reason a fag shouldn't be getting e and a front slot.
it's covered by insurance, have some follow through.
it's covered by insurance, have some follow through.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later[^] [v] #1,219,056
Because you know, there is no such thing as men who like men. Kys, OP.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,064
@previous (B)
One is the man, one is the woman.
if the woman doesn't shave her face and get a busty chest, she's doing a bad job at being a woman.
One is the man, one is the woman.
if the woman doesn't shave her face and get a busty chest, she's doing a bad job at being a woman.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,066
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,072
Vulma
Anonymous B replied with this 3 years ago, 8 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,089
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,670
spectacles joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,685
right. but... isn't that true for heteroexuality to then?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,688
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 15 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,726
Id feel better knowing Kooks opinion.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,731
Most of those surgeries are not covered by insurance
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,749
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 34 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,751
@1,219,731 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
gender confirmation surgery is covered by most insurance. I don't know of any insurance that doesn't. it can be. quite difficult to qualify for, and requires multiple doctors including psychology to prove it medically necessary. if you mean by "most of those" to include facial feminization surgeries or brazilian butt lifts you're answering a question no one has asked. what's your point?
gender confirmation surgery is covered by most insurance. I don't know of any insurance that doesn't. it can be. quite difficult to qualify for, and requires multiple doctors including psychology to prove it medically necessary. if you mean by "most of those" to include facial feminization surgeries or brazilian butt lifts you're answering a question no one has asked. what's your point?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,767
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,768
@1,219,731 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Unfortunately this is true in some places. I'd suggest moving to Iran where trans people have the government supporting their transition legally and financially.
If you are stuck in America, maybe DIY? In California you can get Medical to pay for it if you are underage. Adults need to meet a qualifying income threshold in California.
Unfortunately this is true in some places. I'd suggest moving to Iran where trans people have the government supporting their transition legally and financially.
If you are stuck in America, maybe DIY? In California you can get Medical to pay for it if you are underage. Adults need to meet a qualifying income threshold in California.
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,770
@previous (A)
it varies from state to state as to which procedures are covered by insurance, with the exception of gender confirming care, from psychological, hormonal, or surgical and deemed medically necessary. people have medical rights. what's true in some places for children and adults who qualify for Medicare in California has nothing to do with insurance coverage for gender confirmation surgery. I just googled it.
it varies from state to state as to which procedures are covered by insurance, with the exception of gender confirming care, from psychological, hormonal, or surgical and deemed medically necessary. people have medical rights. what's true in some places for children and adults who qualify for Medicare in California has nothing to do with insurance coverage for gender confirmation surgery. I just googled it.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,777
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,793
@previous (I)
the internet. google it if you're interested. I've had all this explained to me by both my psychologist and my insurance company who gave me all the exact options I have in Texas. for the 49 others you'll need to do the hard part yourself, or, just Google it and get a rundown on general info. are you not informed or what, you spoke so authoritatively, I guess you aren't so sure about that tho.
the internet. google it if you're interested. I've had all this explained to me by both my psychologist and my insurance company who gave me all the exact options I have in Texas. for the 49 others you'll need to do the hard part yourself, or, just Google it and get a rundown on general info. are you not informed or what, you spoke so authoritatively, I guess you aren't so sure about that tho.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,805
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,818
@previous (I)
you asserted an unsupported claim in response to kook's unsupported and vague assertion. if you wanna support your claims first, go ahead with those citations. and then we can look at mine. if you need some help, maybe starting with WPATH standards of care for transgender patients, a roadmap for doctors and insurance companies concerning access, and sets expectations for patients. in case you don't have anything off the top of your head.
https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc
you asserted an unsupported claim in response to kook's unsupported and vague assertion. if you wanna support your claims first, go ahead with those citations. and then we can look at mine. if you need some help, maybe starting with WPATH standards of care for transgender patients, a roadmap for doctors and insurance companies concerning access, and sets expectations for patients. in case you don't have anything off the top of your head.
https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,827
SuperaTrollmogeejiLosLimitless replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,828
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,829
@previous (SuperaTrollmogeejiLosLimitless)
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,830
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,831
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,834
i mean you supposedly have a source that you drew your conclusion from don't you? you can start with that, but no, you'd rather question the basis for questioning your unsupported assertion. I said here's a roadmap, implementation varies state to state. I thought you had something to add?
I'm still unclear on what specifically y'all are even assessing to be true. so, there are the goalposts.
I'm still unclear on what specifically y'all are even assessing to be true. so, there are the goalposts.
spectacles double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,835
spectacles triple-posted this 3 years ago, 20 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,836
can anyone even state the original assertion I took exception with? or are y'all just going to act like I'm the one making the original claim?
I wonder what kind of fallacy being stupid is.
I wonder what kind of fallacy being stupid is.
spectacles quadruple-posted this 3 years ago, 17 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,839
I'll just check back later
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,843
@1,219,834 (spectacles)
You claimed that most insurance companies covered trans affirming surgeries
You claimed that most insurance companies covered trans affirming surgeries
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,844
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 41 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,856
@1,219,843 (I)
Op said "100 years ago putting on a dress and being the bottom was as far as you could go, but today there's no reason a fag shouldn't be getting e and a front slot.
it's covered by insurance, have some follow through."
to which kook replied
@1,219,731 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Most of those surgeries are not covered by insurance
prompting anon a to change the assertion "it's covered by insurance," to
@1,219,768 (A)
> Unfortunately this is true in some places.
to what this is referring to as true is left as vague as kooks understanding can only imply.
> I'd suggest moving to Iran where trans people have the government supporting their transition legally and financially.
>
> If you are stuck in America, maybe DIY? In California you can get Medical to pay for it if you are underage. Adults need to meet a qualifying income threshold in California.
don't put the onus of burden of proof on me for stating OP was not incorrect to begin with and asking what in the fuck they're talking about - I seriously don't think they have any idea what they are concluding to. notwithstanding my stated understanding of the consensus, assertions aren't an argument.
@1,219,770 (spectacles)
> it varies from state to state as to which procedures are covered by insurance, with the exception of gender confirming care, from psychological, hormonal, or surgical and deemed medically necessary. people have medical rights. what's true in some places for children and adults who qualify for Medicare in California has nothing to do with insurance coverage for gender confirmation surgery. I just googled it.
it is always true that insurance coverage is for ONLY things deemed medically necessary or decried by various state laws.
so why are they conflating elective and medically necessary distinctions when gender affirming surgery has to be deemed medically necessary specifically to not be denied by insurance? are they saying it's routine to deny coverage for transgender care under insurance? I thought it was a huge problem how easy it is for children to have boob jobs and so many trans people everyone panics over 3rd grade pronouns.
I don't think y'all know what the fuck y'all are even talking about.
Op said "100 years ago putting on a dress and being the bottom was as far as you could go, but today there's no reason a fag shouldn't be getting e and a front slot.
it's covered by insurance, have some follow through."
to which kook replied
@1,219,731 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Most of those surgeries are not covered by insurance
prompting anon a to change the assertion "it's covered by insurance," to
@1,219,768 (A)
> Unfortunately this is true in some places.
to what this is referring to as true is left as vague as kooks understanding can only imply.
> I'd suggest moving to Iran where trans people have the government supporting their transition legally and financially.
>
> If you are stuck in America, maybe DIY? In California you can get Medical to pay for it if you are underage. Adults need to meet a qualifying income threshold in California.
don't put the onus of burden of proof on me for stating OP was not incorrect to begin with and asking what in the fuck they're talking about - I seriously don't think they have any idea what they are concluding to. notwithstanding my stated understanding of the consensus, assertions aren't an argument.
@1,219,770 (spectacles)
> it varies from state to state as to which procedures are covered by insurance, with the exception of gender confirming care, from psychological, hormonal, or surgical and deemed medically necessary. people have medical rights. what's true in some places for children and adults who qualify for Medicare in California has nothing to do with insurance coverage for gender confirmation surgery. I just googled it.
it is always true that insurance coverage is for ONLY things deemed medically necessary or decried by various state laws.
so why are they conflating elective and medically necessary distinctions when gender affirming surgery has to be deemed medically necessary specifically to not be denied by insurance? are they saying it's routine to deny coverage for transgender care under insurance? I thought it was a huge problem how easy it is for children to have boob jobs and so many trans people everyone panics over 3rd grade pronouns.
I don't think y'all know what the fuck y'all are even talking about.
spectacles double-posted this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,857
@1,219,844 (A)
do insurance companies cover things NOT deemed medically necessary as a universal policy regardless of state laws? or do they only cover what they are required to? and if so than can how "most" include refusing "financial assistance and legal assistance" to a surgery that is only ever performed when deemed medically necessary? by law.
do insurance companies cover things NOT deemed medically necessary as a universal policy regardless of state laws? or do they only cover what they are required to? and if so than can how "most" include refusing "financial assistance and legal assistance" to a surgery that is only ever performed when deemed medically necessary? by law.
(Edited 55 seconds later.)
spectacles triple-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,858
y'all know what malpractice is, right?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,861
spectacles replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,862
spectacles double-posted this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,219,865
a tangential aside:
> In 2017, an Iowa pathologist mixed up tissue sample slides from two patients, and the result was an Iowa man received a debilitating surgery for prostate cancer that he never had. The pathologist said that the barcode scanner used to match a patient’s slides with his records accidentally scanned a barcode from another patient’s form.
> The urologist took the wrong slides and assumed that the patient has prostate cancer and proceeded to remove the prostate. A third pathologist examined the prostate that was removed after the surgery and found no evidence of cancer. The patient was compensated 12.25 million in damages for incontinence.
and yet they still deem prostate removal a medical necessity with respect to prostate cancer and still perform the surgery. funny how one case of malpractice doesn't invalidate anything other than not ensuring standards of care are thorough, well considered and more than vague assumptions.
> In 2017, an Iowa pathologist mixed up tissue sample slides from two patients, and the result was an Iowa man received a debilitating surgery for prostate cancer that he never had. The pathologist said that the barcode scanner used to match a patient’s slides with his records accidentally scanned a barcode from another patient’s form.
> The urologist took the wrong slides and assumed that the patient has prostate cancer and proceeded to remove the prostate. A third pathologist examined the prostate that was removed after the surgery and found no evidence of cancer. The patient was compensated 12.25 million in damages for incontinence.
and yet they still deem prostate removal a medical necessity with respect to prostate cancer and still perform the surgery. funny how one case of malpractice doesn't invalidate anything other than not ensuring standards of care are thorough, well considered and more than vague assumptions.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
