Cosmetic or Not?

In Alberta, Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) has been talked about in most households across the province (and to a lesser extent) across Canada. Whether people are upset that it was funded in the first place, or upset that the Government removed funding, most everyone has an opinion on the matter.

Ultimately the decision on whether or not GRS should be funded will be resolved by the Human Rights Commission. Given the Hogan V. Ontario decision in 2006, the outcome is largely pre-determined, despite the fact that Lindsay Blackett's (Community and Culture Minister) opinion that "redneck" Albertans who are on the commission here will rule in the Governments favor. I have done my part to try and convince the Government the extreme foolishness of their actions and have been largely ignored, lied to, and misled, by the PC caucus. They refused to listen to sound reason, and logical arguments, so the Government, and by proxy the taxpayers of this province will pay a hefty price in legal costs along the way, fighting a battle they cannot win.

However, I feel I am digressing slightly. I am now talking to "Joe the Plumber" since that apparently represents the conservative mind in North America. An argument that is made time and time again is

"Why should cosmetic surgery be funded by the taxpayer? I can't get breast implants on the taxpayer dime, why should transsexuals get their surgery funded."

While this would be a perfectly sound argument, the premise on which it is founded is totally and completely false, and therefore, the argument is almost childlike. Since logic is not based on emotion, and opinion has no bearing on this matter, let me use facts that require little to no knowledge of GRS and are devoid of influence by my opinion, to completely debunk this argument and lay it to rest for the rest of eternity.

First of all, while all cosmetic surgery is plastic surgery, all plastic surgery is NOT cosmetic. Let me explain. According to Wiki, which we all know can NEVER be wrong **heavy sarcasm** but is fairly accurate in most cases, and unless proven false, we can proceed with it being an authoritative source on these fairly basic facts. Wiki says,

"Cosmetic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery are two fields that comprise the medical specialty of Plastic Surgery."

Wiki further defines cosmetic surgery as,

"Aesthetic Cosmetic Surgery is defined as an autonomous and independent specialty of surgery that uniquely restricts itself to the enhancement of appearance through surgical and medical techniques. It is specifically concerned with maintaining normal appearance, restoring it, or enhancing it beyond the average level toward some aesthetic ideal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery#Cosmetic_surgery

So cosmetic surgery fits into one of three categories,

1. Maintaining normal appearance - GRS is clearly not this as the appearance was never normal to begin with and "Maintaining" is certainly not a word that would fit when describing what GRS is.
2. Restoring it (normal appearance) - GRS clearly does not "restore" normal appearance, again in order to "Restore" something, you must have "had" it in the first place. And for Transsexuals, they have never had the genitalia the surgery is creating. Clearly not restoring it.
3. Enhancing it beyond the average level toward some aesthetic ideal - GRS is clearly not about improving the appearance of our vagina's to some aesthetic ideal. Again in order to improve, transsexuals would had to have had one in the first place. Clearly not applicable.

Since regardless of what personal knowledge you may have about why GRS is performed, simple logic proves that GRS clearly does not fit into the definition of cosmetic surgery. To continue with this argument represents a fundamental lack of understanding of what cosmetic surgery is, and as such is childlike at best. Regardless of your opinion on GRS and any knowledge you may have as to why it is done, it is fairly easy to understand that taking a penis and creating a vagina (or vice versa) does not fit the definition of Cosmetic Surgery in any way shape or form.

So for those of you that actually would like to know what GRS is, let me continue. For those of you that want to hide from knowledge in order to justify your ignorance, thank you for your time, and please stop repeating the same argument over and over again. Consider it officially refuted.

So what is GRS then? Could it be Reconstructive Surgery? Wiki tells us

"Reconstructive Plastic Surgery is performed to correct functional impairments caused by: ... developmental abnormalities ... Reconstructive plastic surgery is usually performed to improve function, but it may be done to approximate a normal appearace"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery#Reconstructive_plastic_surgery

So with that knowledge, lets explore why GRS is performed. To correct gender impairment between the physical body and the brain caused by developmental abnormalities that resulted in the wrong genitalia being developed by the body. It is performed to improve the function of genitalia for the patient and to approximate a normal appearance of the genitalia. Clearly this fits into the reconstructive surgery branch of the the plastic surgery family.

While I understand that Wiki is not "gospel" and can be less then accurate at times, unless the definitions of cosmetic surgery, or reconstructive surgery are radically different then what is stated on Wiki, the arguments are still 100% valid. And as such the question on whether or not to fund the surgery needs to be based on the same criteria that guides the decision on whether or not to fund other reconstructive surgery. Since Alberta has had a long standing record of funding GRS, and most every other reconstructive surgery, to pick one particular surgery, that affects such a small number of people in such a life altering way for a mere 19 pennies per Albertan, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.

Ignorance is Certainly NOT Bliss

Here is a letter sent to the Premier Ed Stelmach, and Finance Minister Iris Evans.

Dear Sir, Madam, and others,

This letter is being written to express my extreme concern over comments made by Finance Minister Iris Evans as reported June 18th, 2009 by CBC.

While many aspects of what was said is extremely troubling, I want to focus on this statement

"The huge failure of Canadians is not to educate the children properly, and then why should we be surprised when they have mental illnesses or commit dreadful crimes?" - Full Story

Not only were these statements made in complete ignorance of the actual cause of mental illness, they perpetuate the uninformed stereotype that someone who suffers from mental illness is uneducated, has low intelligence, and is that Canadians should not be surprised when they commit dreadful crimes. As someone who is university educated, has a spouse and four children, has never knowingly violated the law or has any desire to "commit dreadful crimes", AND suffers from 2 separate and distinct mental illnesses, this comment is inappropriate, hurtful, and should never be made by someone who serves as a representative of the people of Alberta as our Finance Minister.

This is a further attack on Albertans who suffer from mental illness and clearly demonstrates this Governments direct assault on Albertans with mental illness by promoting hate, ignorance, and enacting policies and budgets that prevent Albertans with mental illness from obtaining the treatment they require. This is clearly an attempt at eradicating mental illness from Alberta by "pushing" them out of the province through denial of services and actively promoting ignorance by spreading mis-information about mental illness.

I ask for a full public apology by the Minister of Finance, I ask that she participate in sensitivity training and also be personally educated on the causes of mental illness. I also request that all Elected Officals participate in that education and sensitivity training as the Minister's comments were an extension of the beliefs and actions of this Government. Furthermore, I request that the Minister step down, or otherwise be removed from her position as the Minister of Finanace as such actions and statements are not congruent with the execution of her duties as a Minister of Finance.