Second E3000 Session Results

Feb15

As promised, I am visually documenting my progress with E3000. I forgot to take an immediate pre-session before photo so I grabbed one at the 1.5 hour break mark. By that time the upper lip was largely cleared and work had also begun on the lower right side of the chin but it still conveys the amount of facial hair which was about the same as session one. I was told not to expect significant decrease in facial hair overall until we’ve completed at least four sessions but I will remark that there were more small “bald” spots on my face this time meaning less overall hair total.

E3000_session2_before_after_resized

 

The above were taken February 13th, 2014, in Dallas. The before photo was about 1.5 hours into the session and the after photo was immediately upon arrival back at my hotel around 5pm.

Second E3000 Session This Week!

Feb9

My second E3000 session will be later this week. I’ll be sure to take some before and after photos and try this time to get an immediate after photo to show the usual swelling as a reference.

I got a very nice PM from one of my daughter-in-laws. She’s so very sweet. I really wish I could see my new grandson but I know that will never happen. It’s something I have to move past. But I am thankful that she at least acknowledged me this once.

I’m going to be going to Memphis, Tennessee in March to see a very very dear friend and hopefully a second who may be coming down from Madison, Wisconsin that same week. I’m excited!

The ethinyl estradiol continues to work and better than the prior estrogen form I was taking. I’m finally noticing more feminization occurring so this is a good thing!

A friend of mine finally joined Facebook. I hope I can make her presence there more comfortable.

Life proceeds apace. I’m gathering materials to have handy for my coming out to HR and management in early March.

Small steps, baby steps, but onward I go.

 

I hit a nerve, didn’t I?

Jan21

Because that’s all some of these people have – is raw nerves.

I never said that I supported Michelle Kosilek. I never said that I was happy that this lawsuit was filed. I never asked for such to be filed. But it’s there and we cannot ignore it.

What one particular voice wants to ignore is that if the state decides that GCS is medically not necessary, then you can bet that every insurer in that state and in any state where that precedent can be used (which is likely to be many because of the nature of the federal court system) will use that decision as a basis for claiming that transgender health care should be excluded from coverage.

Yes, yes, some companies negotiate to cover that now. But open heart surgery isn’t a negotiated item. It’s required, because it can be medically necessary. The reason that we have this entire patchwork mess was because back in the 1980s, certain other shrill voices managed to convince the Reagan administration that GCS was not a medically necessary procedure, and even to call it “experimental” despite the fact that it had been in use successfully to treat GID since the 1930s.

For the federal courts to agree that it is a medically necessary procedure provides reference and precedent when reviewing the status of Medicaid coverage of GCS, which just so happens to be under review this year. And if Medicaid says it is medically necessary, most insurers rapidly fall in line and agree with the federal government. This has happened on all other manner of health care before – a federal decision which prompted the health insurance industry to stop treating something as optional. So your assumption  that this decision can’t be relevant elsewhere flies in the face of things I’ve been directly told by people with legal training.

I’ve not cheered on Michelle Kosilek. I’m not carrying any torch for her, despite your misguided attempts to paint me in that light.

As for your fear of answering those who questioned, you answer them honestly. Every single prisoner under the care of the state is entitled to medically necessary care. Even Charles Manson. That doesn’t mean anyone “supports” these people. That’s an absurd attempt to twist this into an emotional argument so you can maintain your faux moral outrage about this case.

You claim that I am supporting this when I never said any such thing. What I am saying and will continue to say is this decision is pure black and white due process. If the doctor’s diagnosis is medically necessary, then the state has no choice, no matter how much you, I, or your neighbor may dislike it.

Unless, of course, Jennifer, you want to amend the constitution to permit cruel and unusual punishment? Because that’s the alternative here. Deny medically necessary treatment, an act which is already deemed cruel and unusual punishment by prior US court cases, and which therefore violates the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.

You can’t have it both ways, Jennifer. I wish this case had never come before the courts. But it did. It’s here. And either the law has to be blind or we’re not a nation of laws.

It seems you no longer want to be governed by law but instead by moral outrage. Such a pity.

Faux Moral Outrage Among Shrill Transgender Harpies

Jan19

A federal judge upheld the right of a transgender inmate to receive gender confirmation surgery at the expense of the state. As usual, a particular crowd of transgender voices arise at this “outrage”, about how the “community” brings “shame” upon ourselves because some of us supported this decision. Since I cannot post my unfettered thoughts elsewhere, where these harpies gather like shrill ravens shouting down anyone who disagrees with them, I’ll post my thoughts here. What follows is what I would have addressed to these irrational, illogical, constitutional defying shrill voices of faux moral outrage had I been allowed to say it where it should have been said.

Some of you seem to hold the notion that prison should be cruel and unusual punishment, despite a clear constitutional prohibition against the same.

Some of you seem to want to pick and choose what the government is allowed to call “medically necessary”.

Some of you seem to want to deny that the AMA and APA have stated that GCS can be “medically necessary” in specific cases.

Some of you seem to want to deny the long standing legal finding that anyone in prison is thus a ward of the state and the state is therefore mandatorily obligated to provide “medically necessary” health care, because the state has removed the opportunity for the individual to do so themselves.

Given the above, the decision of the judge follows in clear black and white logic.

Some of you seem to not give a damn about the US constitution, two hundred years of legal precedents, the advancement of modern medicine, and the formal recognition by the scientific community that being transgender is a medical condition.

Here’s a hint – if GCS is medically optional for this prisoner, it is medically optional for every single one of you too. If it is medically optional for this prisoner, and not covered, then it should legally not be covered for you either.

I don’t care of you like or dislike this human being. I certainly don’t. I think what she did was reprehensible. But you cannot play the selective game with medically necessary treatment without also establishing legal precedent that it is therefore selective for everyone else,  including you.

There is a word for the short-sighted thinking you present and that word is hypocrisy. I would suggest you reconsider the legal and logical ramifications of your short sighted position, but I know better than that. That’s simply impossible for those motivated by such hypocrisy. Your quasi-moral outrage appears to be more important to you than consistency of legal application of the law in light of the AMA’s position on transsexual surgical health care. Your faux moral outrage defies facts and logic before the law but you’d rather “feel good” about your faux moral outrage than have consistent and fair legal precedents.

And yet some of you wonder why we have so much trouble getting insurance coverage for GCS for the rest of us? Go look in the mirror. You are why so many of us have such trouble. YOU  are the problem! You! Because as soon as you argue that this procedure is not medically necessary for Michelle Kosilek, you have argued that it is not medically necessary for you either. If you, as a layman, call into question the diagnosis of medical professionals in one case, you have created the legal basis for a layman to question that diagnosis in every other case.

So the next time a trans brother or sister wonders aloud why getting coverage for GCS is such a legal mess, please have the courage to stand up and say, “Me! Me! I’m the one who screwed you over, for my faux moral outrage! You’re welcome!” But I’ll bet not one of you has the guts to stand up and take responsibility for what you represent. Not one.

About Male Privilege

Jan9

Cisgender male often do not believe that there is something like male privilege in existence. Even feminists have trouble identifying it and pointing it out clearly, probably because they never experience male privilege and then experience its lack. Natal males experience it constantly so never see it missing. Natal females experience its lack constantly so have trouble identifying it.

Interestingly, this is one area where transwomen are most able to support feminists, because often transwomen can provide actual examples of male privilege. Here are some anecdotal examples, names removed to protect those other persons.

One transwoman I know spoke about buying a new car as a woman for the first time. She said the initial experience was strange because she’d never been talked “down” to while buying a new car before. This continued until they moved on to actually negotiating over the car, where the salesman saw her legal name change and credit history. Suddenly, he was treating her like a male again. She said she was not even sure if the salesman knew what he had done, his treatment of different genders being so ingrained.

Another transwoman, in dealing with a particular bank, found them to be condescending. She too had undergone legal name change but not finalized all documentation yet. When she presented her name change paperwork along with her old “male” id, the tone of the discussion shifted, almost seamlessly and she too wondered if the individual involved even knew what had just occurred.

The following video exemplifies this sort of thinking, pointing it out, and telling women to not accept it.

People who deny that male privilege exists are ignoring very real evidence that it does exist – from transwomen who have seen both sides of the same coin directly.