My status as a trans woman seems to have split the discussion, and for that I apologize. I don't think the government owes me any help maintaining an Internet connection or a computer (beyond providing those things in public spaces like libraries). My point was that for people with chronic, preexisting conditions, the term "insurance" is something of a misnomer. As some pointed out during the healthcare debate, you can't buy insurance to fix a car you have already crashed. But we place fixing people on a morally higher ground than fixing cars. And rightly so. The question, then, is how do we - as a society - deal with people who require medical treatment they can't afford? Personally, I think the answer is a national, single-payer healthcare system. You're welcome to disagree with me. But it was people who said "the free market will solve it" who really frustrated me, since health care is a situation where the free market response may be "guess that person is going to die." Which I don't think is a good decision to make on a societal level.

Bringing the topic back to trans issues, I have some issues with the DSM's classification of trans people, but I think it's a good place to start. And the fact that there's medical consensus that being trans isn't a "lifestyle" (nice use of that rhetoric, BTW) makes me feel it should be treated like any other medical condition.

When wanting breast implants or a nose job or tattoos or a nice car is listed in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders, we can talk about equating being trans and wanting a nice car. Until then, I think the slope is neither particularly slippery nor particularly steep. My position is as follows:

• 1) Society should collectively fit the bill for medical expenses that individuals cannot afford
• 2) The medical expenses that society should pay for should, furthermore, be determined by medical consensus, not by a poll of the general population
• 3) There is medical consensus in the mental health profession that being trans is not 'fixable' by psychotherapy, but should be treated with hormones and (if needed) surgery
• CONCLUSION: Gender identity disorder should be treated like any other medical condition, from the stand point of society's collective footing of the bill

It sounds like, more broadly, you have a (legitimate!) concern as to where your tax dollars would be going. That's entirely reasonable. But medical consensus indicates treatment for trans folks is not elective, and I therefore don't think it should be up for public debate in the same way a nose job might be.

Ummm...yes? Your point being? ::Gasp:: I'm trans and interested in dating? That I use the Trillian_1138 moniker elsewhere on the web? That I don't have a particularly deep divide between my Internet and 'real' life?

. It means that one day we may be able to treat the root cause and let them be happy in their natural bodies. With physical disorders, that's not an option.

Playing devil's advocate, there are studies showing trans people are physically and biologically different than their typically gendered peers. What if being trans stems from hormonal development in the womb? Or a gene misfire? Or neurological development? It's premature to say being trans is "all in their head" (by which I mean that it's a psychological issue) when it may very well turn out to be a physical issue.

. I just can't get my head completely wrapped around it. Based on my (perhaps willful) ignorance, I don't know that I want to pay for you to be transgendered. I'm not for it, and I'm not opposed to it: I frankly haven't put any thought into the concept until just now.

I respect someone who can say "I haven't thought much about this, so I don't have a huge opinion." Let me try to lay out where I'm coming from.

First, being trans (or gender identity disorder, GID) is listed in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). While I have some issues with GID's listing, I'd rather go with the APA's view of what should and shouldn't be treatable than the general public's. That's why we have doctors, and don't make medical decisions based on democratic vote.

But I know appealing to authority - "The doctors say it's real!" - isn't going to convince anyone it's real. So lets talk about what it means to be trans, and why it's different from " a girl who feels she's grossly inadequate because of her bustline."

I The largest difference, I would say, is the pervasiveness. Very often, trans people (myself included) were aware of their gender incongruity long before puberty. Being trans isn't a 'sex' thing, it's an identity thing. Similarly, I - and most trans people I know - would continue on hormones and presenting as I identify, even if I were the last person on earth. Because it's about me, not solely about how others perceive me.

Likewise, transitioning works. For myself and for lots of other people. Where ex-gay therapies and the like fail, time and time again, a caring and appropriate medical team to help with a transition (or, for gay folks, a caring and appropriate therapist to help with coming out and feeling accepted) have better results than 'fixing the problem.

As for worrying about people doing something just for kicks, that's an issue right now with certain painkillers. But rather than saying "No one can have opiates," we regulate them and have medical providers help determine what's medically necessary. But I really think that's an unrealistic worry. (As a side note, I think we should be moving toward a more informed consent model for helping trans people, but that's a different conversation.)

If you're interested in more information as to why this is an important issue, check out Injustice at Every Turn, a report on trans Americans' experiences. Some 'fun' statistics: 90% of trans people have been harassed or discriminated against at a job, and 26% (including me!) have been fired because their trans. 28% have been harassed by a medical provider, and 19% have been refused service outright. And 41% have attempted suicide, versus 1.6% of the general population.

-Rebecca

I'm taking estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone blockers as part of hormone replacement therapy, along with anti-anxiety meds due to longstanding anxiety issues.

Going slightly off topic, one of the things that frustrated me during the debates about healthcare in the '08 election was how folks (I particularly remember McCain) would talk about the free market. If insurance companies won't insure you (due to preexisting conditions) the free market kinda fails for that consumer, doesn't it? Whether or not a business should be required to take a customer - which is what banning preexisting condition refusals would mean - is a different question, but don't pretend the 'free market' can automatically solve everything for everyone.

More broadly speaking, the healthcare debate following Obama's election once again frustrated me due to its language. Lets be honest: I and others like me who have preexisting, chronic conditions don't need insurance, to insure us against catastrophe, we need assurance, assurance we'll have help paying for medication and treatment we can't always afford. Because yeah, from an insurance company's point of view, I'm a shitty costumer. They know they're gonna have to pay out, $X, monthly, for the rest of my life. If I were running an insurance company, I sure wouldn't want trans clients (or clients with cancer, or diabetes, or any other chronic condition). Where's the money in that?

What I would have liked to see the debate be about instead was what type of medical care, as a society, do we want to provide to people who can't afford it? What do we do with them? Who - at the end of the day - pays for their treatment? That would at least be an honest discussion about values, instead of a veiled discussion about false rhetoric.

-Rebecca

That's what Traveling wave reactors (TWR) are... a type of breeder reactor. One issue with those is the liquid sodium. Sodium gets very explodey when mixed with water... as Japan found out with its breeder reactor.

Concerning waste from LFTR -

Decommissioning remove the material unused salt for use at other plants. Some contamination may occur, so either reuse on site. Or worst case, crush building and store for 300 years of decontamination. This contamination would be much lower level compared to what is happening at current plants.

Runaway reactions are impossible with LFTR so no Meltdown/china syndrome. The reactor is underground, so it will be terrorist resistant. If a leak happens the molten mix will quickly solidify and not go anywhere (stay out of the groundwater).

We have the technology for much safer and nearly unlimited nuclear power. Only hurdle is how to deploy. What I am talking about is TWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor) and LFTR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor). They "burn" waste from current reactors, can be shut-of nearly instantly, no water cooling, and a smaller footprint and cost. Now we have to overcome this bad publicity provided by the old technology.

Not that I was all that fond of Sony anyway. Trying to rootkit my machine from a CD a few years ago didn't impress me, and the prices they charge have always been a little silly. With this action, Sony has now officially asked their lawyers to burn down decades of customer relationships. "Sony" and "Don't buy this" are now synonymous.

As far as two years of IP logs, good luck with getting anything useful out of that one. Then again, that wasn't the point. It was just another intimidation tactic to keep people from spreading the private keys. A little late, I think.

Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.

(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country safe is a whole different issue.),

PS - Is anyone else having trouble with the comment box? I wasn't able to paste properly,

That 2003 study was flawed by one major thing: the list of "facts" on which "Fox viewers" were "uninformed" were latgely either simply false, or defined "informed" as "agreement with the Conventional Wisdom." Such as for example climate change issues: disagreement with carbon-forced anthropogenic global warming was identified as "uninformed".

It isn't, really.