Hard News: That escalated quickly ...
128 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
nor a funding issue
sorry I may have fuxt the maths there:
Thailand are around $16,000 and costs in a DHB could be around $20,000.
so accounting for:
three male to female surgeries and one female to male surgery every two years,
at current rates – which if we’re honest are highly prejudicial – total costs to Ardern’s Government may be hiked by something in the region of $10k per annum.
Government books reveal a $5.5 billion cash surplus
as I was saying:
“this Government fucking hates gender minorities and intersex people”
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Thailand are around $16,000 and costs in a DHB could be around $20,000.
Without accounting for the fact that where 16k was going offshore, now 20k is staying in the economy.
If my use of simple past/present tense there is a little baffling it’s because memeroll (this one feels appropriate):
It is my immense pleasure to announce on behalf of the New Zealand Government that contrary to media reports, Dr Yang is in fact being retained "privately" to perform domestic GRS (only vaginoplasty, not phalloplasty at this early stage) funded by the High Cost Treatment Pool.
To abate any confusion, the situation is such that OIA responses continue to maintain there is "no" surgeon because she’s not technically "employed" due to worries about confidentiality with regard to DHB vs.MoH contract negotiations and around stuff like liability in the case of false information. So officially there’s “no information”, but also “it’s not a secret” that they’re doing surgeries.
It may not be much just yet – but even at this preliminary point – on World Mental Health day 2018 – it’s a sea-change; this tiny glimmer of hope (the ultimate kindness) will help save lives – certainly (assuming the frequency picks up in a timely manner) it’s vastly preferable to the futureless nightmare that some of our most marginalised citizens have been living with day-to-day since the retirement of Peter Walker.
As for banning unnecessary state sanctioned and funded genital mutilation on intersex infants – there is still no word as to whether the Government has or will ratify the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommendations (above).
I can’t imagine why there would be resistance to a practice so distasteful.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
As for banning unnecessary state sanctioned and funded genital mutilation on intersex infants – there is still no word as to whether the Government has or will ratify the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommendations
Never one to let facts get in the way of a good story:
Trump set to abolish intersex people
memo was recently leaked from the Department of Health and Human Services. In it, the HHS defines sex as a binary determined by chromosomes (presumed to come in only two forms, XX or XY), and states that sex cannot be changed.
versus science
Results: Evaluation of the Y chromosome in the daughter and both parents revealed that the daughter inherited her Y chromosome from her father. Molecular analysis of the genes SOX9, SF1, DMRT1, DMRT3, TSPYL, BPESC1, DHH, WNT4, SRY, and DAX1 revealed normal male coding sequences in both the mother and daughter. An extensive family pedigree across four generations revealed multiple other family members with ambiguous genitalia and infertility in both phenotypic males and females, and the mode of inheritance of the phenotype was strongly suggestive of X-linkage.
timing is everything.
First and foremost, we recommend avoidance of harmful or unnecessary genital surgery on infants and children. No surgery should be performed unless it is absolutely necessary for the physical health and comfort of the intersexual child. We believe any surgery that does not meet these criteria to be essentially elective cosmetic surgery which should be deferred until the intersexual child is able to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed surgery and is able to provide appropriately informed consent.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.