This really excellent news. Thank you for posting. I would be ashamed of my city had this gone any other way.

I'm not too hot on this. I don't see how this is different that the city health insurance covering plastic surgery. I would much rather this money going into preventative healthcare for there employees. If saving lives is what they want, they should get there employee's to loose some weight. Just sort of seems like a waste.

Opinions are like assholes; there's bound to be a few in a comment thread. Fortunately, and especially for the Portland city workers that have gender identity disorder (a condition officially recognized by the American Medical Association), yours has lost today (unanimously) in our cities politics. Happy Pride Month!

Cosmetic Gender Mutation.

Suicide rates AFTER a sex change is upwards of 18% Amanda.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul…

frankieb can choke on a bag of surgically-removed dicks, and enjoy paying taxes for the privilege.

@CC what is your problem man?

If this surgery was so necessary to a happier individual you'd think the suicide rate after surgery would be low.
Quite the opposite.
You haven't commented on this aspect Sarah.
another view:
http://anticlockwise.com/dani/personal/cha…

Though a tough watch, I'd suggest the Fassbinder film "In a Year of Thirteen Moons"

@CC - He offered a statistic that supported his case, and cited his source. If someone here needs to eat a bag of dicks, might I suggest....?

I am the most ardent supporter of the LGBT community, but I'm on the fence about this. There are millions of people who suffer from body related issues--people who feel their noses/cheek bones/calves/wrinkles/etc. are pieces of them that don't belong, or should be different. I know I'll catch a lot of flack for this, but I don't see how the pain of pain of hating one's genitals is different than the pain of hating one's face (a pain that drove a friend of mine to commit suicide a couple of years ago).

I think at the root, this issue is political, and in that regard, I'm kind proud of our city. On other counts, I'm not so sure.

Too many "pain ofs" in that sentence... my apologies.

@ Reymont/frankieb, I made my point the other day on this: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…

Opposition to this has everything to do with the phrase "sex change," ignorance about transgendered people, and the familiar intellectual laziness of the lifelong-privileged who seem to feel that since life has been fair and easy for them, for anyone else (though they would never cop to the belief) their problems are somehow partly their own fault. Because of that, those "others" aren't worthy of sympathy or equal treatment.

That's bullshit.

It's unbelievably stupid to compare gender reassignment surgery to a nosejob, which frank continues to do, and no quoting of suicide statistics (!!!) should have any bearing on a discussion about equal treatment when it comes to medical treatment for public employees.

"Seems to me that $32,000 is pretty efficient in saving a life," said Commissioner Amanda Fritz, before voting aye.

Seems to me that suicide was brought up in the article, and providing further statistics was germaine to the argument, whether or not you liked what they showed.

I find it offensive that you think I am blaming the transgenders for their emotions and feel they are not worthy of equal treatment. NO! You fucking idiot!

@frankie, what a surprise, you're capable of being personally offended, while simultaneously lacking the empathic ability to see when others are rightfully offended.

Fine, I haven't even looked, but you win the suicide statistic argument. Who the fuck cares?

You're not opposed to this because it's an ineffective suicide deterrent, you're opposed because you think it's an icky and expensive elective procedure.

@Commenty Colin - I think it's a great point. You're seem to be arguing completely from emotion, with no reason at all. You say you support the LGBT community? Fine - then why do you support a procedure that kills 18% of them? Shouldn't you be fighting this with your every breath?

He said "Here is why I'm worried about this procedure" and raised a valid point and cited his source. You told him to go eat a bag of dicks, and when pressed you said "Well, he REALLY only has problems with it because he's prejudiced against the gays." You know what? Fuck you. Nothing he said indicated prejudice - you were the one pre-judging people in this thread, so you can fuck right off. How the fuck do YOU know why he's "really" opposed to this? Are you a mind reader? Or, MAYBE, are you just swinging wild accusations against anyone, with no basis for them, and not responded to clear questions and statistics? Go back to your fucking playground.

@ Reymont, we argued about it on the previous thread from two days ago. I don't have to start from zero with someone on every single thread, particularly if we discussed it just two days prior, and I could give a shit if you're confused because I don't recapitulate every prior argument for your benefit.

Nice reasoning on your part that the operation was the pure cause of all of the suicides. Did you even read any of the rest of the article about flaws in research and medical literature? About positive outcomes?

@ Reymont, also, stop conflating transgendered with gay.

"But the council agreed with the American Medical Association that sex changes are necessary treatment for gender identity disorder and should be covered just like employees' prescribed heart surgeries and knee surgeries."

So do any of you have anything persuasive to say about why we shouldn't follow the lead of those avowed super-liberal softies* over at the AMA?

*(sarcasm, for those who don't know about AMA)

The AMA that represents 30% of all doctors? Hmm, I wonder how many of that 30% stand to profit from this as well.
But let's say we should never doubt a doctors altruism. I still think if we got an extra 32 grand (granted, a small number) of taxpayer money to throw at Health Care we as a society would be better served by putting towards children or the uninsured - somewhere where it can do alot more good.
Of course there are folks for whom this surgery will make happier, but there is also a huge downside to it for many.
I'm still fighting my Ins company over a foot surgery the Doc performed that was later deemed to be 'experimental' and thus not covered - and this surgery has far better, FAR better stats than a sex-change.
City Employee Health Care bennies should mirror the coverage of the average taxpayer.
Masking a lack of logic by crying bigot ain't cool.

So now you're against this because of the poor, uninsured children, huh? It isn't just the bad outcomes?

Your first two comments on the prior thread make clear that you consider gender re-assignment to be a purely elective surgery, on the same level with a nose or boob job.

To wit:
"Alot of people would feel better in society with a boob or nose job too. Think of the pain they must endure everyday because nature didn't see fit to make them as they'd like to be seen."

Everything else you've adding since is just post-hoc ass-covering.

I responded: "Do you really think the practically life-defining alienation that comes with a lifelong strong feeling that you were born into the wrong gender's body is really comparable to a purely cosmetic desire for a better nose?"

Your comments betray a fundamental ignorance or lack of concern with the profound issues involuntarily faced by the transgendered in society, and I've been sounding the same "that's bullshit" note, clear as a bell, since then. Everything you keep adding can't erase the first position you took.

If you want to talk about logic and rhetoric, I suggest you do some research on the phrase "mending the hold."

As for bigotry, I've never said you were a bigot - I've said consistently that you have betrayed thoughtlessness and ignorance. I don't have any reason to believe that you actively dislike these people, I just think it's more likely that you've never seriously thought about them before you shot off about paying for their incredibly rare and comparatively inexpensive surgeries.

Colin, you have me convinced.
Best of luck with your sex change.

Zoe, you obviously didn't read the article. It was neither from 50 years ago (in fact it is a more recent study than what you cite) nor does it say the control group is of 6 people.