Comments on: Is taxing plastic surgery sexist? http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/ In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:27:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: Donna http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-289385 Donna Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:17:02 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-289385 How about a tax on Viagra? football games? automatic weapons? chewing tobacco/pipes/cigars? all of these are much more in the male marketplace, and have a negative health impact....I agree w/the gals that think this unfairly singles out women, the numbers speak for themselves....and yes, the marketplace is murder, so if a little botox will make a gal look less worried and more confident, and more able to GET A JOB in this economy, than I think it's "medically necessary" if it converts into a job with health benefits.... How about a tax on Viagra? football games? automatic weapons? chewing tobacco/pipes/cigars? all of these are much more in the male marketplace, and have a negative health impact….I agree w/the gals that think this unfairly singles out women, the numbers speak for themselves….and yes, the marketplace is murder, so if a little botox will make a gal look less worried and more confident, and more able to GET A JOB in this economy, than I think it’s “medically necessary” if it converts into a job with health benefits….

]]> By: FCJ http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-288063 FCJ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:08:09 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-288063 aren't a lot of rich ladies' husbands the ones paying for these procedures anyways? aren’t a lot of rich ladies’ husbands the ones paying for these procedures anyways?

]]> By: Dryxi http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287952 Dryxi Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:17:11 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287952 The part of this that bothers me most is "surgery." How are we differentiating surgery from procedure? Here's my example: I have suffered from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome for 14 years. It was undiagnosed until this May, and even with the diagnosis, my insurance will not pay for anything except a very basic drug regimen. I have suffered with obvious hirsutism since I was 10. This has negatively impacted my entire life. I have been battling depression, and have had to be talked down from suicide on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, no one else seems to understand what it would be like to be a bearded lady, and how demoralizing it is to be the butt of everyone's jokes. I would absolutely *love* to get some permanent hair removal, but I can't afford it. I work an entry level job because I was too ashamed and depressed to finish college. My insurance company claims that hair removal is a "cosmetic procedure" and that I don't need it. I'd love to see the women who work there wake up and have to shave their faces every morning. Now hair removal isn't "surgery," but with undefined language, its not hard to see a jump from "surgery" to "procedure." The last thing I need is for this procedure to be made more expensive. The part of this that bothers me most is “surgery.” How are we differentiating surgery from procedure? Here’s my example:

I have suffered from Polycystic Ovary Syndrome for 14 years. It was undiagnosed until this May, and even with the diagnosis, my insurance will not pay for anything except a very basic drug regimen. I have suffered with obvious hirsutism since I was 10. This has negatively impacted my entire life. I have been battling depression, and have had to be talked down from suicide on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, no one else seems to understand what it would be like to be a bearded lady, and how demoralizing it is to be the butt of everyone’s jokes. I would absolutely *love* to get some permanent hair removal, but I can’t afford it. I work an entry level job because I was too ashamed and depressed to finish college. My insurance company claims that hair removal is a “cosmetic procedure” and that I don’t need it. I’d love to see the women who work there wake up and have to shave their faces every morning.

Now hair removal isn’t “surgery,” but with undefined language, its not hard to see a jump from “surgery” to “procedure.” The last thing I need is for this procedure to be made more expensive.

]]> By: Andrea http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287784 Andrea Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:29:41 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287784 Ginasf, you're right, unequivocally. If there were a way to assure that only those for whom this would actually be a luxury tax are taxed, then I'm all for it. I am, on principle, not against taxing luxury surgeries. However, since it's obvious that no concession is going to be made for trans-related procedures, then I'm against the bill. But NOT, and I repeat, NOT because I'm uncomfortable with taxing luxury cosmetic surgeries which are actually luxuries. Ginasf, you’re right, unequivocally. If there were a way to assure that only those for whom this would actually be a luxury tax are taxed, then I’m all for it. I am, on principle, not against taxing luxury surgeries. However, since it’s obvious that no concession is going to be made for trans-related procedures, then I’m against the bill. But NOT, and I repeat, NOT because I’m uncomfortable with taxing luxury cosmetic surgeries which are actually luxuries.

]]> By: ginasf http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287782 ginasf Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:46 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287782 Andrea, as it currently is, gender-related procedures / therapies / meds overwhelmingly are NOT covered by health insurance. Nor, as I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, are out-of-pocket expenses even deductible from taxes. So the most likely reality of any tax on plastic surgery is there will be NO exemption for trans-related procedures and they will continue to be viewed as elective cosmetic surgery. That's reality. It will, in effect, be a transition tax on an already marginalized people, some of who are already selling their bodies in an attempt to transition. And do you honestly believe for one second the HRC, conservative anti-tax groups, feminist orgs or other large GLB groups are going to step up to the plate and put themselves out for this issue? You are aware that, as of this year the HRC 'Equality' Index still bestows a 100 top score to companies which include virtually no trans health benefits? (and HRC's policy changes in that direction remain very vague)? So what is it we're talking about... a very real possibility of a "luxury tax" and, most likely ZERO exclusion for transition-related costs and procedures. I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about someone having to turn tricks for another several months to afford a tax on what they consider life-saving surgery. Andrea, as it currently is, gender-related procedures / therapies / meds overwhelmingly are NOT covered by health insurance. Nor, as I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, are out-of-pocket expenses even deductible from taxes. So the most likely reality of any tax on plastic surgery is there will be NO exemption for trans-related procedures and they will continue to be viewed as elective cosmetic surgery. That’s reality. It will, in effect, be a transition tax on an already marginalized people, some of who are already selling their bodies in an attempt to transition. And do you honestly believe for one second the HRC, conservative anti-tax groups, feminist orgs or other large GLB groups are going to step up to the plate and put themselves out for this issue? You are aware that, as of this year the HRC ‘Equality’ Index still bestows a 100 top score to companies which include virtually no trans health benefits? (and HRC’s policy changes in that direction remain very vague)? So what is it we’re talking about… a very real possibility of a “luxury tax” and, most likely ZERO exclusion for transition-related costs and procedures. I’m not talking about theory, I’m talking about someone having to turn tricks for another several months to afford a tax on what they consider life-saving surgery.

]]> By: Andrea http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287768 Andrea Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:40:50 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287768 I don't think anyone is saying "GRS is okay but everything else is elective." If such a thing were to work, all kinds of allowances and exceptions would have to be made. I personally don't think any of the surgeries you're describing are elective. It seems that this could easily be taken into account, as you've summarized it succinctly and clearly in one paragraph. Clearly this language needs to be written into the bill, and I fully support that. Whether it will be or not is another matter. I don’t think anyone is saying “GRS is okay but everything else is elective.” If such a thing were to work, all kinds of allowances and exceptions would have to be made. I personally don’t think any of the surgeries you’re describing are elective. It seems that this could easily be taken into account, as you’ve summarized it succinctly and clearly in one paragraph. Clearly this language needs to be written into the bill, and I fully support that. Whether it will be or not is another matter.

]]> By: ginasf http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287761 ginasf Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:03:13 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287761 I just want to remind some of the people posting here that to exempt SRS alone from this taxation doesn't prevent trans people from being punished for their identities, basically taxing transition and increasing the costs of attempts to be safe in an often hostile world. Yes, genital surgery is very important for many transpeople, especially in a country where legal gender change is mostly linked to the state of ones gentialia (some states allow FTMs to change gender if they've had top surgery or a hysterectomy). But this doesn't address how important social gender appearance is in terms of safety and employment. For MTFs, one's facial appearance (and voice) can make all the difference between getting employment or being totally ostracized. For FTMs breast surgery can be almost as crucial (albeit, because of the ability to bind, I might say not on quite the same level in terms of 'outing' people). For FTMs, having a hysterectomy can prove a crucial aspect of future health, since there is some evidence long-term testosterone usage isn't good for female reproductive organs. So how are these somehow elective surgeries while genitally-related surgeries aren't? These are complex issues which require, yes, a lot of community feedback, not mere quick statements from those outside these situations that "oh, GRS is okay but everything else is elective." I just want to remind some of the people posting here that to exempt SRS alone from this taxation doesn’t prevent trans people from being punished for their identities, basically taxing transition and increasing the costs of attempts to be safe in an often hostile world. Yes, genital surgery is very important for many transpeople, especially in a country where legal gender change is mostly linked to the state of ones gentialia (some states allow FTMs to change gender if they’ve had top surgery or a hysterectomy). But this doesn’t address how important social gender appearance is in terms of safety and employment. For MTFs, one’s facial appearance (and voice) can make all the difference between getting employment or being totally ostracized. For FTMs breast surgery can be almost as crucial (albeit, because of the ability to bind, I might say not on quite the same level in terms of ‘outing’ people). For FTMs, having a hysterectomy can prove a crucial aspect of future health, since there is some evidence long-term testosterone usage isn’t good for female reproductive organs. So how are these somehow elective surgeries while genitally-related surgeries aren’t? These are complex issues which require, yes, a lot of community feedback, not mere quick statements from those outside these situations that “oh, GRS is okay but everything else is elective.”

]]> By: Andrea http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287748 Andrea Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:47:24 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287748 Jemand, sad, but true. Jemand, sad, but true.

]]> By: jemand http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287747 jemand Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:04:35 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287747 If I had any sort of belief the current legislation would fix *anything* in the current health care industry, I'd say go ahead, tax everything medical, what the heck, tax money is going to be paying for a lot of these procedures *anyway.* But no, all we've got is a gift basket to the industry and we're arguing over cosmetic surgery. If I had any sort of belief the current legislation would fix *anything* in the current health care industry, I’d say go ahead, tax everything medical, what the heck, tax money is going to be paying for a lot of these procedures *anyway.* But no, all we’ve got is a gift basket to the industry and we’re arguing over cosmetic surgery.

]]> By: Andrea http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/11/19/is-taxing-plastic-surgery-sexist/#comment-287746 Andrea Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:57:24 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=17152#comment-287746 Sheelzebub, yes! Close those damn loopholes and set up a more progressive tax system. Couldn't agree more. Sheelzebub, yes! Close those damn loopholes and set up a more progressive tax system. Couldn’t agree more.

]]>