I'm seeing the major health organizations come out in support of third-party funding for SRS. I'm seeing that though the research is not particularly robust, it is because more robust research would be either unethical or impractical, per the American Psychiatric Association's Task Force on GID published in 2012, on page 22 of the electronic version (q.v.). Many other areas of the country and other countries provide funding for SRS. There seems to be a general consensus among those in field, based largely on clinical experience (since more robust research would be either unethical or impractical), that SRS is medically necessary for some.
Now I see that, in my area, good luck finding a plan that covers it! Probably every plan on the state's healthcare exchange excludes it. At the company I was working at, from which I will be terminated next Saturday after my LOA runs out, there seemed to be no interest at all at adding coverage, even when I showed that the company could do it at little to no cost. If I tried to get the state government to require coverage, I'd be derided. If I left town, I'd lose my only source of support (my parents). My gay uncle will absolutely, positively not support me. In fact, he derided me for having to go on disability. Lots of people online I discuss this issue with show absolute opposition to funding anything like SRS.
So there's some cognitive dissonance here. How do I resolve it? Easy. I deride SRS, the thing I cannot get. I make fun of post-ops for their fake-ness. I go ahead and agree with my opponents that the only reason the major health organizations support coverage is because they're just trying to make money for the surgeons, even if that is ridiculous.
This reduces my cognitive dissonance and protects me.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
01 Feb 2015, 10:00 am
