This is plain mean-spirited.  It wont make an iota of difference financially, but it will definitely undermine the well-being of Albertans who wish to transition genders.  I was on a Facebook group created to protest this, and one lady there said how she could potentially become suicidal again if she can't complete her surgery.  It's ridiculously tough to have to stop your surgery half-way through because there's no money to pay for it; it opens you up to all sorts of abuse from people who will see clearly that you don't have a clear gender.  What a Kafka-esque situation to be stuck in. 

There will still be gender-queer Albertans who will transition, but only those who have over $20,000 per year to spare. 

Mean, short-sighted and vindictive.  This is a new low even by the standards of the Albertan Tories. 

I think that this type of surgery is something important in society, but not in all the ways it's being used. I've heard of people born genderless (or GENDERFULL!), and that's a place that I think this is appropriate, but when a person wants to have surgery to run away from who they are, I think it would be much easier for them to sit down with themselves and figure out who they are and how they fit into... everything!

I think that the money should be given to people stuck in the middle, and then if there people outside of that category who still want the surgery, then I GUESS we can help them out...

I self-identify as gender queer. Though most people are more comfortable when I say transgender. They also prefer me call myself lesbian (though I am not a girl loving girl) or gay (though I am the only male identifying person in the bedroom)... I, myself,  have no problem with and prefer queer.

Others identify me as butch, transgender... even gender atypical (what a word and what is typical)... along with the anarchist and rebellious term, gender non-conforming.

My sex, at birth, was assigned female. Though visually I required a bit of a guess. Female never worked for me.

I have never identified female. My mom can tell you I never did, though she busted her hump to try to make me.

I get sir as often as I get ma'am.

Identification as female was difficult not only internally (emotionally and mentally), but externally and physically with a 100% natural "member" the size of my thumb. Showers after gym class became a nightmare. I literally had nightmares that my towel dropped or something (though I always left my underwear on). Without need of hormones, I eventually underwent metoidioplasty (clitoral release). I opted not to have scrotoplasty or a full masectomy.

For me, finding a place (a way) to be my authentic self (the me I felt I was/knew I was) was vital beyond words. I was lost between society standards, gender rules and stereotypes, acceptance levels... I was just left feeling like I was everything, but essentially it felt like nothing. I was too much boy to be a girl and not enough boy to be boy.

I was attracted to girls, but this too posed a bit of a problem. Girls who like other girls had a problem with "almost a boy". So, I hid my physical presentation behind "stone butch". It meant that regardless of my relationship status, from 16-32, I never undressed in front of anyone. Intimacy was one sided. I was detached, from my body, from them.... I was not intimate, in letting anyone see, touch or discuss my body parts. I moved through life, but it was motions. I felt little life in me. At times it seemed easier to give up than to keep trying.

I eventually found myself being willing to discuss "my bits" with someone. The world began opening for me. I found I did belong. I could be intimate. I could just "be". I married her.

 I found a way, a place for me, in a compromise between genders. Others cannot.

Alberta cutting the budget may be needed. That those budget cuts come on the back of marginalized people, whether they be homeless, trangender, disabled... is cruel and wrong.

Think of those who are currently  pre-op transexuals left in the cracks of the system, stuck between genders. Those same policy makers would not think of  shutting off money for homeowners in the middle of the reno, promised money... because of the voice of outcry. Those who are our silent citizens, they get shit on because who raises hell for them?

Think of those who will choose to die rather than live a way that is miserable, empty, sad, lonely....

Peace

StevieG

PS Everyone in my family, my church, and my neighbourhood knows and they use a masculinized version of my name and switch pronouns all the time.

The Premier announced today that they would pay for all those currently in progress to complete the process, but they are holding fast on any new patients.

F-G, you may not be aware of this, but the process that is involved in gender reassignment is a very lengthy one, and it requires extensive psychological counselling.  In your words, they have already sat "down with themselves and figure out who they are and how they fit into... everything!"

And the conclusion that they, and the mental health professionals have reached, is that they need medical intervention so that their physical gender matches what is already true in every other way.

I think you're cool StevieG .

I find it appalling that they have cut this out.

and, where do they get off deciding the marker on the path to say who  should be allowed to continue.

dang them....

if someone has finally realized that the thing that has been messing them up is gender identity versus presentation....and have made the decision to follow down the road, and somewhere along that path...have decided to start the path to surgery....then, where on earth do they think that journey can be stopped?...when do they think it is fair or just to stop?

now, i say "decision" in that post.  I don't think it is a decision in the sense that one sits down and logically decides...such as to buy a house or to buy a car or a bike..  Rather, I see it as something that someone is..like...who one loves.

We, in our congregation, had the opportunity (?) to walk along with someone who was caught in the Ontario governments similair decision.  It ws frickin' ridiculous. Thankfully there were folks who understand and were able to assist in the support of that surgery. Thankfully, the decision was reversed.

argh...i so dislike this kinda crap.

The very concept of gender reassignment is in itself a fallacy.  Except in the cases of allowing a hermaphrodite to chose their dominant gender, or one born without gender to chose their dominant tendencies, sexually directed surgery should not ever be paid for by the public.

That said, I don't think the hoops that people who want the surgery have to jump through are fair either. 

Other than the exceptions I mentioned earlier, such surgery is at best, elective.  While it may be something that some people really want, or even feel that they need, it's no different than breast enlargement or a tummy tuck.  The results are at best only an approximation of the real thing and do nothing to change the person within. 

As for people believing that they "need" it, there are people believing that they "need" blonde hair, bigger bicepts, a new car.  I'm not trying to downplay how strongly some feel or to make light of their predicament, but just as with other "needs" that people claim to have, their dilemma is self inflicted.

They are unhappy people who look to external solutions for their situation.  Some may even feel for a time that such surgery actually makes a great difference in their quality of life, but the numbers and the science do not concur. 

If they opt to pay for such surgery on their own, fine, it is completely their own choice.  However, asking the public to pay for it is wrong, regardless of how strongly they feel about it.  If there truly is the support for it that they claim, then they can take a collection from the supporters and reach the financial goals they reqire to pay for it that way.

There are many people who require life saving/extending (depends on how you veiw it) surgery.  Many other health related avenues where the money would be much better spent, where the return for the dollar would be much higher.

Do you base your analysis on any current studies or expert guidance?

Or is that opinion purely generated by the gasses passing through your hind end?

well, that is one way of describing the vapours i thought it was made up of

No, it's what a medical professional tells you to do. You have to spend an entire year with a psychiatrist and they prescribe it for you.

Also, tummy tucks are covered in Alberta. You just have to meet the requirement - x centimeters of skin hanging around your belly. Breast reduction is covered too.

Pupil of Life,

Perhaps a glance at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and gender identity disorder and the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care. Where healthcare exists, the requirements are often tougher than the Benjamin SOC.

Equating it with tummy tuck or breast augmentation is either ignorance or rudeness. The medical community certainly does not equate them. One does not have to have a year of medical/psychological evaluation to get either of those. There is no requirment to have to have a year of "real life experience" wearing a girdle or a stuffed bra to see if you are certain.

In no meaningful way is SRS similiar to either a tummy tuck or a breast augmentation other than they are elective surgery. All elective means is that you choose and it is not currently a matter of life and death.

People confuse elective with optional or cosmetic. We do not usually rant and rave about elective surgeries, unless we are confusing cosmetic and elective. Elective surgery means planned, non-emergency surgery. It means there is a choice by doctor or patient or the time can be elected. There is emergency surgery and elective surgery.  Elective does not mean not serious, not required, not medically necessary... it means it is not an emergency.

Angioplasty is  most times elective. What else is non-emergency and elective? Cataract surgery is elective. Podiatry surgery? Elective. Most oral and facial surgeries? Elective. Colostomy bag removal? Elective. Hysterectomy and tubal ligation? Elective mostly. Exploratory, diagnostic surgery? Elective usually. Pacemakers? Often elective. Hip or knee replacement? Elective. The list goes on... if the ER is booked, you were given a surgery date and you did not go from ER to OR,  it is elective as a rule fo thumb.

Do we want to cut elective surgery?

We like to bitch about elective surgeries only if they are ones we would not elect to have or do not know anyone needing. We don't usually bitch about people getting pacemakers or angioplasty or a hip replacement.

If cost is of importance, then let's think about this. 10 years after OHIP delisted, they had to relist it. HRC determined delisting to be discriminatory. They decided, based on all info available worldwide, that SRS was legitimate. That it is an internationally medically recognized non-cosmetic treatment. How much do you think that set back taxpayers of Ontario, that 10 year legal battle? Is Alberta not paying attention?  

Iran covers the surgery.

Albertans pick up the tab for all that legal BS until it is relisted.

The savings? The cost is 19 cents for every Albertan. That is not a deep cut by any means, it is simply  a cruel one.

The government of Alberta is hoping that most people approach the issues involved with transgender/gender queer people with the deep insight that Pupil of Life brings.  I hope they are disappointed.

For those in United Churches (or other congregations), could I suggest you encourage a letter campaign, including letters to the editor and to your  local MPP and/or a handsigned petition

I really want the United Church to say something...

The united church is really made up of the people in the congregations, and at presbytery ....why don't you go to your presbytery rep, and ask them to take a statement to presbytery.

(as conference gatherings are likely occurring soon, you may also recommend one go to ocnference....)

if nothing else, get those into the letters, do press releases to your local newspapers

etc.

I emailed...someone on the united church website. She said she was already following the news and there's going to be a trans commity or something at the end of the month. 

it wouldn't hurt, though kinst, to have local church communities put their support, via letters, etc.

word from "toronto"  may be less ifluential than local item.s

Alberta Northwest Conference may well have the worst website in the history of the internet.  Truly, truly horrible.

However, the person you should contact is the Executive Secretary in the Edmonton office.  She will know whom to put you in touch with.  Her name is Lynn Maki, and she can be found at 780-435-3995 x 224.

http://www.anwconf.com/public/staffedmonton.htm

Worst website EVER.  And no email contact.  But there ya go.

Sign the online petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/re-list-sex-reassignment-surgery-funding-in-alberta

Get the word out about the petition, the names on it are great news!

Maybe contact

Kim Uyede-Kai
General Council Minister
Racial Justice and Gender Justice
 

The United Church of Canada
3250 Bloor St W Suite 300
Toronto ON M8X 2Y4

kuyede@united-church.ca

Word from Egale:

“Once again the trans community is being discriminated against and denigrated,” says Mickey Wilson, Chair of Egale Canada’s Trans Committee. “First, gender identity was excluded from proposed amendments to the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act, and now sex reassignment surgery is de-listed from Alberta Health Care coverage. This announcement came with no warning or consultation with the community and has left many people scrambling to look for alternatives,” said Wilson.

The announcement comes at a time when other provinces have re-listed the medically necessary service making the Alberta Government’s decision even more confusing. In June of 2008, Ontario relisted the surgery after a ten year freeze.

Wilson said that the medical needs of trans people must be met and that the Alberta Government has a responsibility to ensure that appropriate and necessary health services are available to them. SRS is internationally recognized as a medically necessary procedure and access to health care should be a fundamental human right for vulnerable populations. He went on to say that Egale would do everything it could to ensure that the decision is overturned."

 Unfortunate decision by the Alberta government that I would agree, has nothing to do with the budget. I've known folks who have undergone "the surgery." There's no doubt that their quality of life (their "health" in a holistic" sense) is vastly improved afterward in most cases. Also agree totally with StevieG's analysis of "elective" vs. "optional" and also appreciate the sharing of your story.

Thanks Stevieg for your continued diligence in giving straight forward information.  When it is a subject that is out of the realm of most of our experience, a calm down to earth voice is needed, or it will be lost in the emotional shuffle.  I can always hear you.

Democracy without assurance that minorities will be protected, is no more enlightened than bullies running the playground.  I don't think most people stop to consider this when they spout that majority rules.  It sounds so democratic if you don't look too closely. 

This cutback may not lose too many votes because most voters do not know a transgender person and do not understand this as an issue of protecting a minority.  I honestly would not know and understand the heartache involved if I wasn't on wondercafe.  

I don't blame the voters because they are uninformed but you can be certain that governments are not uninformed and yet they consistantly practice democracy without protecting minorities.  It's ugly.     

But the results are not always rosy

Plastic surgery can lead to depression , even murder

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/03/1080941724086.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200310/plastic-surgery-and-suicide

Yeah, you might  Beshpin including, but not limited to

a)  problems with work situation due to gender identity barriers in workplaces

b)  additional load of having a heavy decision not supported by the majority and of being "the other"

c) the cost of surgery + recovery cost less wages during time off (dependent on one's employment)

so...yes, you are right, there may be other issues; however, all the more reason to ensure it is covered and the individuals are protected through employee rights legislation.

Jes, having to cope with inane posts on wondercafe can result in depression as well.

What? Beshpin? The low end of the needs scale? 

Do you comprehend at all what has been written on this thread and on this board regarding gender identitiy.

Let me give you an example of your logic.

We, at our workplace a few years ago, gave $25 in our benefits package for wigs.  No one even noticed.  I read the policy one day, and said, wtf.  A good wig is expensive.

I took it to the committee, including management, who argued back & forth, but I finally got them to submit it such that it would cover two wigs (i think), based on need (ie, cancer treatment), as required.   It was done a bit begrudingly by folks, but they couldn't argue with asking.

The insurance company returned the statement that their would be no virtually no increase in cost to any one individual, as the probability of the requirement for wig by an employee was so low. 

So, we got it -- and a while later a woman that I know was able to afford a wig that she may not otherwise have been able to afford....and a while later an HR manager's wife did.

Those  people in that room are the same people who easily voted that their max spend for braces shoudl go up.

Consider the number of people who have GRS per year in the country.  Now put that across everyone's health insurance costs.

it is the same stupid logic to exclude it, as it was the people who worried about wigs.  Yeah, right, I am going to get GRS just cause I can...and I am going to have chemotheraphy just so i can.

get a life.

Beshpin, if you want me to respond to questions regarding should dental be covered, especially as you have indicated,the answer is yes, I do.  and I also believe that dentists should be governed as are doctors. 

This of course is a much bigger issue, and is a much different situation.  Many many people need dental coverage, and there are shades of coverage.

   I have had friends who could not afford dentistry due to choices as you indicate.  It wsn't life threatening, but it was debilitating. My one friend never smiled without covering her face.  When she got dental coverage through a partner we danced for joy...and she began a long series of repairs. 

note: there are circumstances where dental work can be covered. If you are in that desperate a situation, please contact your doctor or the local support offices.

read to the end, beshpin -- the logic is that grs is of no significant cost to the taxpayer.  as the wigs were of no significant cost to my  fellow employees/employer.  Same kind of stupid logic was refusing to care for folks.

...time to let others reign in....don't want this to be a beshpin / ping discussion.

Yikes Beshpin.  You might want to think things through again.  If you don't understand it (really understand it) don't judge what is and isn't an essential need for another human being.

Beshpin

As a student you might get a bit of an extra tax refund this year and also to defray the new hst tax single people are supposed to get some extra money in 2010 ...... $300 for individuals in the first year of the HST

I don't want to seem crass but however we look at it .... this is still cosmetic surgery ..... many people would like to change things about themselves but they cannot afford to and so they simply live with who they are ..... we have an epidemic of health issues that are skyrocketing not just the health care costs but mortality rates as well ... from heart disease , to cancer to diabetes and a host of others , if that 20,000 can go to repair a damaged heart valve , replace a broken hip , or remove brain tumors then i feel the money is better spent there .... the only cosmetic surgery that should take priority should be as a result of disease or accident...

Really, Kinst, I think this is wonderful news and I'd say the same about the government cutting any kind of health care. I don't personally happen to believe that government should be in the business of funding health care.

The Alberta government has decided to delist Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) from its budget for 2009. What do you think about this? I Agree

i'm curious as to how you are able to reconcile this with your belief in jesus??  

imho, jesus would have been fully in support of universal health care. 

I consider the government's taking of our money to fund public health care as being akin to theft. I believe very strongly that Jesus was against things like theft.

And that must be through government taxation because...? Well, actually of course it doesn't. The point here is to be charitable. I have absolutely nothing against charities. Indeed, I contribute myself. It's something I choose to do with my money. No coercion involved. I feel compassion, I offer aid. Quite different then forced taxation.

(As an aside, thank you for providing the Scripture. God uses His Word to strengthen and give faith in Jesus Christ.)

match3frog, I strongly believe that a society can be measured by how it treats its weakest members. That verse saying how we treat the least of these is very important to me. Of course, it means doing things as individuals. I also believe that the government can do things to make society better for all. Universal health care is one such thing.

AMEN!!!! Preach it sister!

but the government using our tax dollars to provide public health care is what is allowing the poor to actually GET health care in our country, frog... look down south.  the poor there don't have anything close to the health care that the poor in our country enjoy.

again, frog... the health care that we have in canada, provided by your tax dollars, is what cares for the poor, and what allows them to be cared for until god takes them home.

this is EXACTLY what jesus asked us to do - to care for the poor. 

again, i ask you - how can you say that this isn't exactly what jesus had in mind??

it should be run by the government, imho, simply because if a private industry ran it, they would need to make a profit.  and when you look at how that has turned out in the united states, where they have a situation that is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what jesus would have wanted, well, i'd say that we are running it pretty well the way that jesus would have.

i'm not sure why you feel taxation is 'forced'... i pay my taxes freely.   my taxes allow children to have an education, for the poor to have health care...

We agree, sighs, that Jesus would have us care for the poor, the ill, etc. Where we disagree is on the means. As I said before, I consider coerced government taxation to be akin to theft. You are right when you say that currently the way our society provides for the ill is through taxation. However, that does not mean that that has to remain the way things are done. It does not mean that we cannot do better.

At the gunpoint of threatened jail time.

"The only effective way to stop the deterioration of health care services we are experiencing is to have all medical and health plans open to competition on the free market.

Therefore we support: an end to all compulsory or tax-supported health-insurance plans; the right of all individuals to contract freely with health care practitioners of their choice; the right of doctors and other professionals to join in any voluntary associations, the rights of associations to set standards for their members, and an end to government interference in this area (doctors and other health care professionals should be free to work without licensing from the government); the repeal of all laws limiting the liability of doctors in cases of malpractice; and the repeal of all laws forcing any individual to submit to testing, treatment, or the administration of drugs against his or her will." - (source: http://www.libertarian.ca )

LOL!!

'the only way'?!?!?

if this were even remotely true, frog, then there would be no way that the american health care system would be such a shambles. 

again, if private health insurance were indeed such a great thing, america would have no problem with equal distribution of health care.  that ain't happening, so i am wondering why you think that private health care would even come CLOSE to providing adequate and equal health care to the poor.  how would that happen, frog??

huh??  where does that happen??  i've lived in canada for 40 years now, and never once have i had drugs administered against my will, or been subjected to testing or treatment that i didn't consent to. 

the only place that we ever see anything even close to this is in mental health, and only on the rare instances where a person is deemed a threat to themselves (a suicide risk), or those around them.  are you suggesting that these laws need to be repealed, frog??

 Thanks

so, what would be a better way then, frog??  because your outline of 'no taxes, everyone pays for their own health care' simply won't ensure equal health care for the poor. 

as evidenced by the abyssmal failure of the american health care to provide even adequate health care to the american poor.