Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US: Trans prisoner requests electrolysis, and for court to refer to her as female

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Another Hannah 20 Nov 2012, 12:20pm

    This wouldn’t be given to a hairy female prisoner, no matter how it made them feel so I can see no reason why it should happen here. I’m often baffled by certain people getting much better treatment than the rest of us. It seems to happen frequently here in England, and it’s inclined to make me personally keep out of the LGBT community. Struggling here on benefits any treatment I neededincluding the huge cost of electrolysis had to be paid from my living costs. Why would people in gaol be given so much better treatment than those who cannot find work?

    1. If the extra body hair was caused by a hormonal imbalance, such as that caused by PCOS, and the cis woman prisoner was shrewd enough to find a doctor to prescribe electrolysis, then the state would be required to pay for her treatment once she twists its arm enough. The same would apply if the cis woman was on medicare or medicaid, though probably not for trans women because some states’ medicaid policies specifically refuse to cover any transition related healthcare, falsely claiming that it is experimental or cosmetic.

  2. Being referred to as female at all times – yes.

    Electrolysis – no.

    BTW why is she still in a male prison, surely being moved to a female prison is far more important than hair removal!!

  3. If this same trans person was NOT in prison and didn’t have the money for the surgery she wouldn’t get it no matter how much doctors say she needs it.

    1. Only because most states’ Medicaid programs explicitly exclude transition related healthcare. (Electrolysis for other causes of hirsutism is covered if you fight long and hard enough.) Because prisoners are wards of the state but do not officially fall under such a category, the government is required to pay for whatever doctors deem to be medically necessary.

      And Ms Kosilek’s case could be used as legal precedent that those exclusions in medicaid are unconstitutional. So if your argument is that she should not get treatment because those on medicaid cannot, then you are also arguing that those on medicaid should never be allowed to.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all