November 13, 2012
From today’s NPR article “Inmate Sex Change: Should We Pay And Does The Surgery Actually Work?” by award-winning journalist and syndicated health columnist Judy Foreman:
“As the controversy continues to swirl over sex change surgery for convicted murderer Michelle Lynn (formerly Robert) Kosilek (there’s a hearing this month on whether taxpayers should pay for her electrolysis), I got to wondering about some of the questions this case raises.
Certainly, prisoners are entitled to basic health care. But do we really owe her a sex change operation?
Especially if — as some of the evidence I uncovered suggests — it wouldn’t leave her in substantially better mental health than she is in today?
I confess: I’m not sure I would even ask this question if I were sympathetic to her in the slightest. But I’m not. She is a convicted murderer. She is in prison for a reason, and a very good one.
But, that aside, back to my quest for facts: How well does sex reassignment surgery (SRS) work in the first place?
Here’s some data: There was a major study in 2011 by the Karolinksa Institute.
Using data from Swedish registers, they studied 324 people — 191 male-to-females and 133 female-to-males — who had SRS between 1973 and 2003. For each SRS patient, the researchers randomly selected 10 people from the general population who had not had SRS. From this group, two control subjects were matched to each SRS patient — one with the same sex and age as the patient at birth and the other, with the same age and sex as the patient after SRS.
All-cause mortality was three times higher for people who had SRS and deaths by suicide were also higher. People who had the SRS were also at higher risk for hospitalizations for non-gender related psychiatric problems. It’s not totally clear why people who get the surgery get worse. But the authors conclude,
“Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behavior and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism…”
So, in other words, the surgery does get rid of “gender dysphoria,” meaning deep unhappiness with one’s biological sex. But it doesn’t seem to help much with other mental health issues, including suicidality.
If that’s true for Kosilek, I wondered, why should taxpayers foot the bill?
The Karolinksa researchers did caution that for SRS patients their findings didn’t necessarily mean the surgery didn’t help at all: “Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment.”
I wouldn’t be so swayed by this pessimistic study except that it’s methodologically much better than previous research, including an oft-cited 2010 Mayo Clinic study.
Researchers performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 28 studies of hormone therapy and sex reassignment involving 1093 male-to-females and 801 female-to-males.
The studies were observational and most lacked controls. Overall, in the Mayo review, 80 percent of people who had the sex reassignment reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria, as well as significant improvement in psychological symptoms and quality of life.
But, as the Mayo researchers themselves note, all of these conclusions were based on “very low quality evidence due to the serious methodological limitations of included studies.”
In data-speak: garbage in, garbage out.
Ben Klein, senior attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, doesn’t see it that way. “All studies have limitations,” he told me, “but if you look at the overwhelming trend of a significant number of studies, all point to the same conclusion – that sex reassignment surgery is the only effective treatment for gender identity disorder.”
But I’m not buying that — pooling a bunch of bad studies doesn’t yield good data.
It makes more sense to wonder why the surgery doesn’t have better long-term results. One reason, suggests Renee Sorrentino, a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who runs the Institute for Sexual Wellness in Quincy, is that by the time a person seeks sex change surgery, gender dysphoria has usually been a problem for a long time and is often accompanied by significant traumatic experiences, including bullying. Those deep psychological wounds may not be so easily healed.
That said, I know a transsexual woman, Sara Herwig, who has been helped by the surgery and now feels like a “congruent person.” So I called her.
“The thing to remember about SRS or general reconstructive surgery is that it is not a silver bullet,” she said. “You still have to deal with everything in life that everybody has to deal with. It’s not going to have a big impact on clinical depression or other kinds of mental illnesses.”
Fair enough, but did she believe taxpayers should be on the hook for Kosilek’s surgery?
Herwig has mixed feelings, “My initial reaction is that nobody paid for mine. Health insurance doesn’t cover it. I understand her desire to have the surgery, but … vast numbers of other people I know have had to pay for their own. I do think there need to be reforms in health insurance so such surgeries are covered. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay for someone to have that kind of surgery.”
In the end, I concluded, neither do I.
And as for this month’s hearing regarding hair removal?
Give me a break. I have a couple of eyebrows I’d like taxpayers to have waxed for me.”
April 13, 2012
“I can barely think right now….
I had FFS 9 days ago in Boston. I’m not supposed to decide whether to jump off a cliff for another three months. I posted about this a while ago… the post is probably still on here.
At 9 days I’ve already decided that this is a nightmare. I should have never had FFS. I wasn’t ready to transition. I wanted to be James still too much. There are warning signs all along the way.
March 10, 2012
October 5, 2011
“These days, Richards does not think transsexual athletes should be allowed to compete professionally. “I don’t think it’s a level playing field, even though the International Olympic Committee, in its utter wisdom, has declared that it is,” she explained.”
September 22, 2011
Eleven years ago Lyralisa Stevens killed a woman with a shotgun blast over a dispute about clothing. His victim was survived by two daughters. At the time of his incarceration Mr Stevens had been taking female hormones for 10 years, and had received silicone injections to his hips and buttocks. He received taxpayer funded female hormones during his incarceration at an annual cost of $1000.
According to CBS5 San Francisco, California provides such hormones to at least 300 prisoners at a taxpayer cost of $300,000 a year. It is unknown how many prisoners would request the $15,000 to $50,000 surgery if a precedent is set.
The first taxpayer-funded criminal ”sex change” surgery in the UK, performed on John/Jane Anne Pilley, (incarcerated for kidnap and attempted murder of a female taxi driver) not only received a taxpayer funded “sex change” surgery and was transferred to a female prison, but later filed suit for taxpayer-funded surgery to try to reverse the procedure when he changed his mind.
No US state has yet approved such tax-payer funded surgery for convicted criminals.
From the Sacramento Bee: “Although California and other western states are required to provide transgender inmates with hormone therapy pursuant to a 2000 federal court decision, a ruling in Stevens’ favor would have made California the first state required to provide medically eligible inmates with sex reassignment surgery.”
Two years ago, after serving nine years of his sentence for the murder of Bonnie Lynn Lewis, the California shotgun-wielding murderer Lyralisa Stevens decided he wanted to be transferred to a women’s prison, which California permits when males have had their penis and testicles surgically removed. Using a court-appointed attorney he filed suit for the state to provide and fund the surgical procedure that would make his transfer possible, claiming that his clinical transgender condition had taken a turn for the worse. Clinical transgender diagnosis is based solely on the patient’s self-report, and is the only psychiatric condition that is treated surgically.
Ronshonda Renee and Staci McWilliams, the children of Bonnie Lynn Lewis, who Stevens murdered in 2003, became aware of the situation when they saw it on the news in April and were aghast. They told CBS5 “I just feel that it was totally wrong for you to take someone’s mom away from them and then still turn around and want special privileges. I feel that whatever you are getting, you deserve it,” said McWilliams.
“You want the tax payers to pay? For you to use our hard earned money to pay for you to have surgery after you committed a murder? I don’t think so,” said Ronshonda Renee.
The court gave no reason for its dismissal of the appeal. Transfer to a female prison was also denied. Mr Stevens, now 42, is serving 50 years to life. His attorney has not decided whether to challenge the San Francisco 1st District Court of Appeal’s decision by appealing to the state supreme court.
From the LATimes: “Alison Hardy, Stevens’ attorney, acknowledged that a victory in her client’s case was always a long shot but said the court’s decision still came as a disappointment. ”Fifteen years ago, hormones weren’t prescribed in California prisons, either,” Hardy said. “We were hoping to…establish a beachhead.”
Research shows that there is no evidence that transgender “sex-change” surgery improves the lives of transgenders.
Last night ABC aired a show about “Transgender Children” that was, surprise surprise, 100% male. That’s right, not a single female trans-itioner (F2T) was featured or interviewed- or even mentioned. It was all male, all the time. And not a single trans or LGBT blog has mentioned this fact in their follow-up. Why? Same reason the plight of females are ignored and erased in every “mainstream” transgender discussion. The fact that females actually exist, and the fact that gender is entirely based on sex-roles designed to oppress women and maintain male supremacy and power, must be suppressed in order to uphold the Genderist Belief System which informs transgenderism. Transgender is an entirely male-supremacist philosophy that leaves no room for female reality.
That ABC News could manage to fill an entire hour of a show dealing with sex-roles, without mentioning a single female human being, is truly mind boggling. Especially considering the enormous female adolescent trans-trending epidemic of young women desperately seeking to become- not “males”, but to pass as “not-female” to escape the horrendous sex-roles inflicted on young girls.
None of which is worth even a mention by ABC Nightline or any trans or LGBT media source. No, ABC is reporting on news here, and that means stuff that concerns males. Gender? An entire hour on males. Just males. None of the transgender blogs writing follow-ups even noticed that females were entirely absent:
“Nightline aired an extensive, five-part examination of the issues facing transgender people.”
“From 10 year Jack (upper left) to pop star transsexual “Kim Petras” the show presented an intelligent look at the trials facing our culture.”
“Despite the politically correct presentation, there was at least a modicum of balance.”
Advocate.com: “shouldn’t be missed” “in-depth report”
The program consisted of five segments. The first featured the boy that likes glam from “My Princess Boy”, and his Mom who’s cashing in on him big time, trotting him out to transgender conferences and autographing tons of books.
The second featured a ten year old boy who kept getting beaten up for being a “fag” and whose mother began researching transgenderism when he was AGED TWO and already showing signs of faggotry. At least she didn’t beat him to death for his lack of masculinity, she sought a medical cure for his “wrongness” instead. And now the kid is on puberty blockers in anticipation of chemical/surgical sterilization, and goes to school wearing a full face of make-up and fake boobs (yes- at age ten!).
Third was a 19 year-old young man who started popping black market hormones ages ago and works as a prostitute specializing in the “tranny-chaser” market- closeted gays who want dick, but only on a person who acts out femininity for them. This guy funnels all his cash into Mexican plastic surgery procedures that he thinks will make him beautiful ie. happy. He’s already had six procedures and is planning a bunch more, but not a sex change op because that would ruin his niche prostitution income, plus he likes his dick.
Next was a segment on Charles Kane, the British dude who got a sex change then changed his mind after 7 years and had it reversed. Or at least near as the surgeons could, of course he’s on synthetic hormone injections for life now.
Last was Kim Petras the youngest boy to ever get a surgical sex change (at the age of 16 in Germany). He is marketing himself as a novelty act based on being a transsexual pop singer.
So there you have it, all the boys and their sex-role medical treatments.
You can watch the segments HERE.
Oh, and Johanna Olsen, MD got a lot of face time. She’s the rainmaker at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles who runs her own damn clinic doing nothing but setting these kids up for a lifetime of drugs and medical dependence.
Lots of people require lifetime drugs and medical dependence, but the problem is those people have some sort of disease process. Like diabetes, or a congenital heart condition. And diseases end up costing money, which eats into profits. The beauty of Dr Olsen’s clinic is that all the patients are perfectly healthy at the start! And they’re children, so very resilient and very teachable. So the medical lifetime dependence that Dr Olsen installs into these healthy children is pure profit! It’s a form of “therapeutic disability” performed on healthy children with a 100% profit margin for the medical industry. It’s a form of Cosmetic Medical Disability, and Dr Olsen is one of the pioneers. Plus she’s locking them into lifetime medical treatments before they are old enough to change their mind- and who signs the consents for it all? The parents of course! It’s a marketing marvel. Pure genius. Pure Gold. And Olsen recruits children nationally. She sits on the board of TransYouthFamilyAllies, which markets the medicalization and sterilization of sex-role non-compliant children to parents nationally. Their motto is “Trust. Accept. Confidence. Treatment.” And Dr Olsen provides that “treatment”.
Dr Olsen shares TYFA board space with Andrea James, the male transgender who famously posted purloined photos of sexologist Michael Bailey’s elementary school aged daughter with captions over the child’s face saying “cocksucker”, among other things. Andrea James doesn’t just represent children (!) but also makes videos. Here is Andrea’s latest work:
(Come to think of it – No females in that video either)
If you are the parent of a gender non-compliant child- RUN RUN RUN from these people. Give your child the skills they will need to be themselves, just as they are, in a world that is hostile, crushingly hostile to females and gender non-compliant males.
Together we can build a better world!
July 28, 2011
Awesome Graffiti left outside Calgary Radio Station 90.3 Amp in response to their
dumb-ass Breast Implant Contest:
July 23, 2011
I dropped back over to the Alice Dreger article on the medicalization of gender non-conformity in children (that I mentioned the other day here) to check out the comments. There were a few comments left by an Intersex person and activist named Georgina that were so thoughtful, well-researched, and well spoken that I am reprinting them here.
I get an awful lot of parents coming here to read and get perspectives on their sex-role noncompliant children who are so often pushed into a “treatment path” towards medicalized sterilization and lifetime disability by the trans lobby and by groups that claim to be supportive of children that reject sex roles but are actually pushing a medicalized gender enforcement. Groups like Trans Youth Family Allies, whose very motto “Trust. Accept. Confidence. Treatment.” epitomizes submission to sex-role enforcing and medically disabling “treatments”. For that reason I am reprinting a few of her comments to assist questioning parents who might otherwise miss such an important perspective left 60 comments down on a thread. Do feel free to read them on the original article comment thread if you prefer by clicking on the link to the article at the top of this post. Otherwise, for your convenience here they are:
“Actually this is NOT a trans issue, it is a human rights and children’s rights issue. Children should be accepted and loved as they are, and a societally defined “mismatch”of Gender and Sex should never lead to assumption that a child will need to or ought to change their mind or their body. Children should be free to explore and to be and to grow. We should start with the assumption that everything about them (body, mind, gender expression) is to be treasured as it emerges. The type of thinking that starts socially “transitioning” children in a pathway towards surgery at 5 or six hatefully pathologises the childs body in the same way earlier therapies hatefully pathologies hatefully pathologised childrens minds and identities. Intersex activists like myself have fought long for acceptance of diversity and against parents or mediocos making life-limiting decisions for children. This applies as much to children society (or parents or medicos) judges as having as miss-match of gender and biology as it does to intersex children with biological aspects that don’t match conventionally.
In adult life people chose gender expressions, sexuality and roles they never could have anticipated as children. We should not let parents or medicos limits life options for children by offerring sterilization and medical dependancy as part of package deal to “fix”gender/sex missmatch. The possibility that a child might grow up to be gay, genderqueer, or even a non-op transgender person is denied these children. While I am utterly against Dregar’s (former) advocacy of DSD terminology I believe she is that rare species of Academic who actually braves learning and changing her opinion to adapt to new understanding. This issue is really important human rights one regardless of your views on Dregar. And to the Academic [refers to Zoe Brain-GM] who has an astounding ignorance of the growing practice of transitioning children before they have the cognitive development to understand sex v’s gender (let alone the happy missmatches they might find as an adult) – please try to familiarise yourself with this very visible increasing trend (the topic of this article). Type “trans children” into you tube – and watch the multitude of interviews with children and the parents who descibe their 6year old’s genitals as birth defects and watch while parents tell lies to their children about the exciting surgical plans already made for them.
Posted by Georgina on July 8, 2011 at 6:35 AM “
” Two Families’ Reactions to Sons who like Pink:
The program and article I’d like you to look at show two different ways parents might react to having a son who from pre-school age seemed to behave in non-gender conforming (“girly”) ways.
What if your preschooler son was “Girly”?
If your preschooler son asked for a Barbie doll, how would you feel? Would you give it to him? In years gone-by almost all parents would answer a resounding “no!” to that question and would probably add “my son would never ask for that” in a defensive or dismissive tone. These days many parents are more flexible. They allow children access to toys and even clothes of the “opposite” gender, seeing it as part of growing up and exploring. But what about families of boys who recurrently break gender norms, those who raise undeniably feminine boys?
Let’s look at two very different families who let their son’s “choose pink”, and how these families different assumptions about gender lead to very different socialization of their children, and, consequently a very different range of future possibilities for their children.
Family One : “My son the pink boy” – by Sarah Hoffman
This article “My son the pink boy” (published on the Open Salon blog on 21st Feb 2011) describes a mothers acceptance of her son’s gender non- conforming choices. She let her son wear dresses, grow his hair and do ballet instead of football. The mother “Sarah Hoffman” notes other parents mixed reactions to her son, but also describes his happy interaction with both boys and girls his own age. She still sees her son as a boy – but describes his shade unconventional gender expression as being a “pink boy”. Hoffman notes peoples assumptions that her son will grow up to be gay but asserts “Random Mom doesn’t know who or what my son is going to grow up to be, any more than she knows who or what her kid is going to grow up to be.” Hoffman asserts that gender expression doesn’t necessarily predict sexual orientation and gives her husband’s feminine behavior as a heterosexual example of a feminine man, but further states that she will embrace her son’s orientation whichever way it goes.
Sarah Hoffman defends her son’s right to self-expression, and embraces and accepts his choices and his right to determine and define his own identity and sexuality as he grows. She accepts him as a perfect and healthy variation of his gender and sex and does not limit what or who he might be in the future. Hoffman’s son is likely to internalize positive and accepting ideas about himself because of this positive upbringing
Hoffman’s article also provides an insightful analysis of hidden homophobia in both social and media reactions to non-conforming gender expression in boys. She describes how talk show Guru Dr Phil discourages feminine behavior in boys because of its association with homosexuality
In the 1970’s when feminine behavior in boys was widely ostracized, many feminine boys were diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. Researcher Zucker theorized these boys would go on to be surgery seeking transgender people. In a large scale longditudinal study it was found that these boys rarely ended up trans – usually ending up self-accepting homosexual men (roughly 3/4) or heterosexual men (roughly 1/4). This is important to consider when looking at the socialization in the following video, set in a cultural context where there is little tolerance for gender ambiguity.
Family Two – Real life: Transgender Kids – The Romero Family
This documentary details the journey of a number of children who are being socialized towards surgery intended to match their body with their gender expression.
Josie Romero was born male, but showed a preference for feminine toys and clothes. In Josie’s cultural context gender roles are still very traditional, with no room for ambiguity. Such cultures are usually also stridently homophobic. In such cultures men are masculine, and because homosexuality is seen as “sinful”, it is something you would avoid seeing the possibility of in your child. Boys in such cultures internalize the view that pink and sparkly is only for girls, so if they feel drawn to such things it compromises their gender identity. Socially unacceptable variations can sometimes be excused as blameless by re-conceptualizing them as medical problems. Here Josie’s family describes their child’s penis as a birth defect. They are blind to other differences in primary sexual characteristics. Josie is told by her mother she will get an operation that will fix her birth defect by turning her penis inside out to make it the vagina it was meant to be and hormones will give her a female puberty. When Josie asks “How?” her questions are brushed off. Science and medicine don’t offer Josie these possibilities. If she does not escape the path already plotted for her Josie will be sterilized and artificial genitals will replace her real ones before she even gets to try them. She will be medically dependent for life. She will never experience a live and responsive endocrine system, only a flat-line one delivered by pills. Josie is being socialized in a way that deprives her as self-determination and betrays her with false choices. The characterization of her biological self as defective, will likely be internalized in her self –perception, as will the lack of autonomy created by her dependence on medical intervention she has not initiated. Her experience of surgery and treatment might be expected to be closer to that of an intersex child who has had surgery chosen for them than the potentially empowering experience of a self-determined transexual who has chosen surgery for themselves. Josie’s parents say she has made this choice, but it is clear that an informed choice could not be made by an eight year old in this situation.
Josie has been socialized in a way that limits her future choices and autonomy. The drastic pathway planned for Josie at the tender age of eight is new and extreme form of gender policing, where if minds and behavior can’t be conformed, to sex –matching ideals then bodies are controlled to give the appearance of a match.
Henslin, J. M., Possamai, A. and Possamai-Inesedy, A. (2011) Sociology: A Down-to-Earth-Approach, Pearson Australia
Hoffman, S. My son the pink boy, Salon.com 2011, Feb 21st.
Zucker, KJ. Gender identity development and issues. Child Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics North America 2004, 13: 551-568.
Posted by Georgina on July 8, 2011 at 6:53 AM “
June 26, 2011
Because I forgot to set this to post last night- lol.
June 3, 2011
Transgenders celebrated a major victory this week in a landmark case representing one of their own: Massachusetts child rapist Sandy-Jo Battista.
McDermott Will & Emory, one of the largest law firms in the world, representing over 50% of the Fortune 500 companies globally issued a press release this week announcing their latest landmark victory. After six years of free pro bono representation a team of McDermott Will & Emory litigators has won “the right” for the rapist of a ten year girl to receive tax payer funded sex change treatment while he remains incarcerated. The law firm, established in 1934 by Chicago lawyers Edward H. McDermott and William M. Emory called the ruling a “Major Win in Landmark Transgender Rights Case”.
Transactivists and McDermott Will & Emory believe that child rapists have a right to receive tax payer funded “sex changes” if they claim to begin suffering from symptoms of a disordered “gender identity” during incarceration for their violent pedophilic sex crimes. The law firm provided six years and unknown thousands of dollars in free legal representation to secure this “right” for Sandy-Jo Battista, formerly David E. Megarry Jr., who was convicted of robbery, kidnapping and the rape of a child. He- or as transgenders claim- “She” is currently detained via civil commitment in the all male Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons facility without limit of sentence due to his legal status as a “Sexually Dangerous Person”.
Battista was apprehended in 1982 for hiding in the woods and abducting a ten year old girl, forcing her into his car, abducting and driving her into the woods known as Lombardi’s Grove in Milford, Mass. where he tied her up, gagged her, raped her, and left her there. He was also charged with robbery for taking the money she had earned selling fudge door-to-door to raise money for her skating club (which is what she was doing when he abducted her).
From the Dedham, Mass. Daily News Transcript: “When he was 14, Batista assaulted a 6-year-old girl. A year later, prosecutors say Batista took another young girl into the woods, but stopped short of assaulting her.
He spent three years in a Department of Youth Services program at Medfield State Hospital for the juvenile incidents. Behind bars for child rape, Batista got slapped with 64 entries on his disciplinary record.
In a 1986 case, Batista got caught making obscene phone calls to young girls he picked out of local newspapers. About a decade later, Batista was penalized for keeping pictures of young girls in his jail cell, said Assistant District Attorney Peter Pratt.
Transgenders say that the ten year old girl may have been “asking for it”. From the trans website “A Gender Variance Who’s Who” site administrator Zagria in a post defending Megarry and concerned about the rapists’s welfare in a post titled: “What will happen to Sandy-Jo?” speculates about the ten year old rape victim: “Was it real forcible rape? Was it statutory but consensual? Was it mainly a misunderstanding? The various mentions online say nothing between these options.”
The Department of Justice, which unlike transactivist Zagria doesn’t consider child rape and kidnapping as an “option” took a different view than transgenders and sentenced the baby-raper to 18 years in prison. Transactivists may be surprised to learn that no legal entity in the country considers rape between a grown man and a ten year old child consensual. Go figure! As for Megarry/Battista, he remains civilly committed by the state of Mass. Due to his – “her” – frequent infractions behaviors and incidents during his – “her”- incarceration which deems him an ongoing threat to girl children.
Transactivists claim that men like Megarry/Battista should be given taxpayer funded “sex changes” and transferred to women’s prisons. Supporter Zagria cites the Canadian case of “Synthia Kavanagh” a male murderer who was given a state-funded “sex change” and then transferred to a women’s prison.
In countries with Gender Identity Protections, (which override sex-based protections of women in favor of the “internal gender identity” of males) state funded “sex changes” of male rapists and murderers of women and subsequent transfer of the perps to women’s prisons is commonplace. In some cases, like John Pilley’s, the perp decides women’s prison isn’t as fun as they thought, wants to change back, and demands “sex change reversal” treatment, also paid for by the state.
From the victorious McDermott Will & Emory press release:
“The injunction obtained by McDermott on behalf of the Firm’s pro bono client, Sandy Battista, requires the State of Massachusetts to provide necessary medical care for Ms. Battista’s gender identity disorder (GID). The opinion reinforces the fact that GID is a recognized disorder that, if left untreated, creates a “substantial risk of serious harm,” and “can be extremely dangerous.” The First Circuit found that an unjustified failure to treat GID gives rise to a constitutional violation. Judge Michael Boudin wrote the First Circuit opinion, joined by Judge Norman Stahl and retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who sat on the panel by designation.”
“This case is about one’s right to medical care while incarcerated,” said [Former actor] Neal Minahan, an associate in McDermott’s Boston office who argued the case before the First Circuit. “Incarcerated, transgender individuals have as much right to medically necessary care as any other person in the State’s custody. The First Circuit recognized that waiting nearly a decade to fill a medical prescription is inexcusable. In this case, it violated our client’s constitutional rights.”
“Ms. Battista, a transgender resident of the Massachusetts Treatment Center, was first diagnosed with GID in 1997 and has struggled to receive treatment for the disorder for over a decade. In June 2005, Ms. Battista filed this case as a pro se litigant in the United States District Court of Massachusetts in response to the DOC’s decision to block her prescription for GID treatment. That treatment, which included hormone medication, had been unanimously approved by the DOC’s own contracted medical providers. In November 2007, District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock appointed McDermott as pro bono counsel. Years of intensely fought litigation culminated in a bench trial before the U.S. District Court in June 2010. The McDermott trial team was lead by Minahan and Dana McSherry, a partner in the Firm’s Boston office.”
“The District Court found that Ms. Battista “may not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment which consists of the neglect of her serious medical needs, nor may her serious needs become a pretext for the infliction of additional punishments. And that is what has happened here.” After trial, the court issued an injunction requiring the DOC to provide GID treatment to Ms. Battista, including access to hormone medication. That injunction was stayed pending the DOC’s appeal to the First Circuit panel, which issued its unanimous opinion on Friday, May 20, 2011.” [Italics/bolding mine-GM]
“The McDermott team working on this case also included partner Mike Kendall, associate Benjamin Franklin, legal assistant Christine Slyman, and former McDermott partners Christopher Man and Emily Smith-Lee.”
Another inmate, convicted strangulation killer Robert Kosilek, now “Michelle Lynn Kosilek” since developing transsexuality during his life sentence for murder- filed papers yesterday in response to the ruling, demanding state funded electrolysis and plastic surgery to construct a superficial approximation of female genitals. He has already been receiving tax funded hormones.
It is currently unknown whether the murderer and child-rapist will be transferred to women’s facilities upon completion of their cosmetic transformation. Also unknown is if state funded FFS (facial feminization surgery) will be mandated, although according to medically accepted WPATH standards-of-care facial surgery along with breast augmentation IS considered medically necessary care.
Some transactivists feel tax payer funded breast implants, electrolysis and “sex change” surgeries are not enough to “affirm” the “gender identity” of rapists pedophiles and murderers. Transjactivist Monica Roberts complains today about transgendered murder suspect Nina Kanagasingham, who is accused of throwing another male transgender under the wheels of a subway car, “My British trans cousins have been more than a little pissed about the sensationalist and transphobic coverage being generated in the British media concerning this case. They are also not happy about how Kanagasingham has been treated by the British legal system either. In addition to being housed in a men’s prison, she was hauled into Old Bailey unshaven, a point in which the British press took great glee in pointing out in their stories.”
It’s unknown if trans advocates will win the right for police to hand suspected murderers claiming GID a razor prior to arresting them so that their “right” to look clean shaven is “protected” but after these recent transgender victories for male murderers and child rapists, who knows? With the advocacy and unlimited resources of the law firm of McDermott Will & Emory, anything is possible.
To the woman, almost 40 now, who was abducted, tied up, gagged and raped 30 years ago at the age of ten by this serial pedophillic predator and monster: My thoughts and prayers go out to you tonight as you struggle to deal with the “victory” of this man through the work of McDermott Will & Emory and trans activists worldwide. YOU ARE NOT FORGOTTEN.