Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In just a few days, San Francisco’s legislature will vote on a landmark new bill that if approved would allow city employees to undergo sex change operations on the government’s dime.
The comprehensive new program is part of the city’s universal health plan and is designed to help transgendered individuals who struggle physically and emotionally with their mismatched bodies.

If approved, San Francisco would become the first city to offer such benefits. Minnesota once had a similar program, but the government eliminated it in 1998...

Supporters of the new bill are calling this move a historic step for not just LGBT equality but for civil liberty as a whole.

89Hen wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

In just a few days, San Francisco’s legislature will vote on a landmark new bill that if approved would allow city employees to undergo sex change operations on the government’s dime.
The comprehensive new program is part of the city’s universal health plan and is designed to help transgendered individuals who struggle physically and emotionally with their mismatched bodies.

If approved, San Francisco would become the first city to offer such benefits. Minnesota once had a similar program, but the government eliminated it in 1998...

Supporters of the new bill are calling this move a historic step for not just LGBT equality but for civil liberty as a whole.

UNI88 wrote:I understand the feeling of puzzlement about why a gender change operation s/b covered but I can also understand it from the other perspective.

dbackjon wrote:Great news indeed, for those transgendered Americans.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Great news indeed, for those transgendered Americans.

No doubt. And horrible news for everyone else.

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: No doubt. And horrible news for everyone else.

Get over it. If a majority of San Fran taxpayers are okay with it, WGAF?

Grizalltheway wrote:If a majority of San Fran taxpayers are okay with it, WGAF?

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:If a majority of San Fran taxpayers are okay with it, WGAF?

Are they?

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: Are they?

I wouldn't be surprised...at all.

MSUDuo wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Get over it. If a majority of San Fran taxpayers are okay with it, WGAF?

Then let the ones who are ok with it pay for it.

UNI88 wrote: I understand the feeling of puzzlement about why a gender change operation s/b covered but I can also understand it from the other perspective. Yes a gender change operation is elective similar to something like Lasik but there is probably a huge difference from being insulted/hurt because someone calls you "four eyes" to feeling completely out of place in your own body. A gender change operation could do more to make a person feel at peace with themselves than any amount of therapy.

death dealer wrote:I think it's great if someone who thinks they'd rather be a different sex than they were born genetically can go and get a pseudo sex change (because that ultimately is what we are talking about here. Genetically, they are still a man or woman, and cutting off or adding on an appendage doesn't change that). However, I do have to fall on 89's side of the line on this one. It is elective surgery, and should not be covered by insurance anymore than porcelain veneers or a face lift.

kalm wrote:How expensive is the procedure and how many people will do it?

The increased productivity at work for the recipients and those they work with might pay for it.

BlueHen86 wrote:

death dealer wrote:I think it's great if someone who thinks they'd rather be a different sex than they were born genetically can go and get a pseudo sex change (because that ultimately is what we are talking about here. Genetically, they are still a man or woman, and cutting off or adding on an appendage doesn't change that). However, I do have to fall on 89's side of the line on this one. It is elective surgery, and should not be covered by insurance anymore than porcelain veneers or a face lift.

I agree.

We have a spending problem in this country. There are certain things that we can't afford to spend money on, even if we wanted too. Elective surgery falls into this category.

Grizalltheway wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
I agree.

We have a spending problem in this country. There are certain things that we can't afford to spend money on, even if we wanted too. Elective surgery falls into this category.

If this were happening on a federal level, I would agree with you guys. But it's California; they're going broke anyway, who cares if they snip a few dicks on the way down?

93henfan wrote:I'm with the Conks on this one.

Ever since my (COONT!) ex-wife got my insurance to pay for her boob redux I have been opposed to these elective procedures.

93henfan wrote:I'm with the Conks on this one.

Ever since my (COONT!) ex-wife got my insurance to pay for her boob redux I have been opposed to these elective procedures.

89Hen wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

In just a few days, San Francisco’s legislature will vote on a landmark new bill that if approved would allow city employees to undergo sex change operations on the government’s dime.
The comprehensive new program is part of the city’s universal health plan and is designed to help transgendered individuals who struggle physically and emotionally with their mismatched bodies.

If approved, San Francisco would become the first city to offer such benefits. Minnesota once had a similar program, but the government eliminated it in 1998...

Supporters of the new bill are calling this move a historic step for not just LGBT equality but for civil liberty as a whole.

D1B wrote:More hatred from the catholic.

89Hen wrote:

D1B wrote:More hatred from the catholic.

Love your consistency.