Reader comments · US trans prisoner barred from hair removal therapy · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US trans prisoner barred from hair removal therapy

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Oh please not the same old trans prisoners stories that get used to attack the treatment for 99.9% of trans people who are not in prison.

    As a transitioned woman I find it abhorrent that she will get treatment for free the 99.9% of American trans women need to pay for in the USA if they can afford it.

    Maybe Pinknews could do a story on those trans people who find it hard to access basic healthcare that is refused by doctors because they are trans.

  2. Pumpkin Pie 11 Aug 2009, 6:52pm

    Utterly immoral. The transitioning process is a psychological necessity for the vast majority of those born as transsexuals – to force transsexuals to remain trapped in their former gender identities has serious repercussions for mental health. If we’re going to do this, then how about bringing back water-boarding? Cutting the hands off of thieves? Castrating fornicators? Random beatings by guards? I mean, criminals don’t deserve human rights, right?

    Also, Abi, the state has a duty to the upkeep of the physical and mental health of those who it has incarcerated. Although I totally agree that ANY transperson should be getting their treatment for free. Denying people treatment for legitimate health issues is immoral.

  3. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 12 Aug 2009, 10:03am

    I hope the judge thinks it over. C’mon, how much money are we talking about here anyway? A couple of bucks, for gawd’s sake.

  4. its a medical prodecure, i wonder what other ones are denied prisoners….

    and pink news, why the hell did you give us her old name? all that does is damage her actual identity in the eyes of anyone reading the article (reinforces the viewpoint that transpeople are not the sex they say they are). sort it out, please.

  5. theotherone 12 Aug 2009, 11:36am

    Abi1975: I hate to point this out but…

    What right do you have to say this about this woman? And secondly: the more people get treatment free the more ammo we have to get it free for everyone.

  6. Mihangel apYrs 12 Aug 2009, 1:52pm

    she’s referred to throughout appropriately, with her previous name given so that she is identified as the criminal she is. It’s like giving aliases etc – it allows people to identify the criminal.

    Transitioning doesn’t exempt her from her criminal acts, nor the right of people to know of it!

  7. The federal or state or even local governments SHOULDN’T pay for gender re-assignment surgery. This is a big waste of our money.

    They are in jail to be punished and not to be given “gifts” to complete their lives. What about the other prisoners that don’t get this kind of surgery but because of the lack of money doesn’t get other things to make them a little more comfortable.
    Like better health care.


  8. I read through this story in hopes that we wouldn’t be suckered into a debate like this… I’m glad that the above 2 readers are intelligent enough to know that someone in jail for someone who was convicted of killing their spouse shouldn’t receive the luxuries they desire. I’m certain that his deceased wife would’ve preferred not to have been killed, but Kosilek didn’t care then.

    Tough luck.

  9. Mihangel apYrs
    i dont even slightly suggest that transitioning should wipe the slate clean, what im complaining about is the use of her previous name, as far as i am concerned a transsexuals previous name should not be released by anyone but the person in question. its at best common decency and at worst extremly damamging to the persons identity. she had thatname when she did the crime but that has no bearing whatsoever on this case. a transpersons previous name is in no way an alias.

    gender reassignment is not a ‘luxury’ (would you find it luxurious to have your bits removed? didnt think so), its a medical treatment. deny it and you set a precidant to deny others. today srs, tomorrow immunisations? after that cancer treatment? after all their only prisoners, who cares about their rights…

  10. Rick George 12 Aug 2009, 4:48pm

    Well, what a complex and emotive quandry we have here. Part of me does go a little towards what the other two commenters have said in that this person has been convicted of an abhorrent crime that has deprived another person of the human right to life and maybe they should gain some understanding of the pain they have caused to that womens mother and father and family, depriving them of a daughter/sister etc. But also there is a part of me that is very much in favor of giving someone the opportunity to redeem themselves, forgiveness, rehabibilitation and all that stuff. I have some understanding of the transexual process and whats involved and I do sympathise. This person has been born with genetic information more towards being female and needs help and support with that. But I can also understand in the current economic climate why someone else might take umbridge at the state/government/health service footing the bill for the whole treatment for this person as well as having to pay to keep them in prison. I would support a law abiding transexual being funded but the crime element in this case does diminish my sympathy in this particular case. On the other hand they may be very remorseful for what theyve done so who am I to make judgements. I wasnt there when the crime for which this person was sent to prison was committed so I dont know all the circumstances and conditions of how that came about. For all I know they could have been wrongly convicted. Or it could have been self defence or an accident. I dont know. As always im open to change my opinion in light of different perspectives and look forward to reading and considering other views.

  11. If murderers (Trans or otherwise) are forever deemed to be dangerous then the key should be thrown away. However to deny a prisoner whosoever they are, medical treatment for a recognised condition, appears to be a callous, cruel and unusual punishment.

  12. Mihangel apYrs 12 Aug 2009, 6:33pm

    I never made a comment on transitioning, merely poointed out that if she was able to entirely behind the name she had previously held she could distance herself from the murder. As a rule I agree that the previous name should be forgotten, but she has lost some rights by her acts: if “A” knew her as a male, then without knowing the link “A” would assume she was an entirely different person.

  13. theotherone 12 Aug 2009, 7:25pm

    Andromeda: damn fvck1ng right! Would we allow a prisoner who needed their apendix removed to die? Not treat them for a heart atack? Remove blood presure medication? There’s no difrence here.

    Bobb comments ‘The federal or state or even local governments SHOULDN’T pay for gender re-assignment surgery. This is a big waste of our money.’

    -not ‘in this case’ but, it would seem, in general. Well my friend you can fvuck off with that manure round here. Deniel of medical treatment to a prisoner is in contravention of the Universal Decleration On Human Rights and, lets face it, if they do this to one person they’ll do it to all of us.

    Oh and unless the people commenting here know the ins and outs of the case they should realy refrain from comments about a ‘horific crime’ and their use of this to justify their Transphobic bullocks.

  14. Mihangel apYrs

    she committed the crime, not her previous name. a name is a label and that one no longer applies. there was no point at all to giving her old name.

  15. Mihangel apYrs 13 Aug 2009, 7:34am


    thank you for clarifying that: I withdraw my comment.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.