Pat . . . Not Cool

One Thursday last month while waiting in line to order at In-N-Out, I noticed an unusual site in line just in front of me. I am not sure exactly how to describe Pat/Pat, who was not only wearing a dress, but also had make-up and lipstick on his/her face. The dilemma was that he/she was sporting more than a five-o’clock shadow, and had thick black hair on both calves above the pumps on his/her feet. Not cool.

Years ago I would have chuckled to myself and just shook my head, however on that particular Thursday I had a feeling of sadness for this unfortunate individual with his/her gender confusion. Later I subsequently wondered if he/she was going to get gender transformation surgery . . . irreversible gender transformation surgery, and also simultaneously wondered if he/she had the necessary insurance coverage to pay for this expensive surgery.

By the next day Pat/Pat was no longer on my radar, and for the last month I did not think about gender dysphoria . . . until this morning when I read about one of the latest rulings to come down from The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case involved 31-year-old Adree Edmo, an inmate in an Idaho prison, who was born a male but identifies as female. Edmo sued the state of Idaho for refusing to pay for his gender reassignment surgery. Not unexpectedly, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the State of Idaho must pay for his/her gender reassignment surgery. Oh yeah, BTW Mr./Ms. Edmo is currently serving three to 10 years for sexual abuse of a child.

After reading this I said to myself, “Let me get this straight. The state of Idaho (i.e. the taxpayers of the state of Idaho) must pay upwards of $75,000-$100,000 for sex reassignment surgery for a sex offender.” Granted, The Ninth Circuit never really uses any common sense when it makes these rulings, but if this ruling stands, there will inevitably be some not unforeseen consequences.

Consider the situation of Pat/Pat noted above. He/she wants gender reassignment surgery, but cannot afford it. A dilemma that can potentially be solved by committing and being convicted of a sex abuse offense or any criminal offense, and once imprisoned for his/her crime, demand sex reassignment surgery. Wallah, if in prison in a state which is under the auspices of The Ninth Circuit, he/she will get the surgery paid for by the taxpayers of that state. As Chuck Larabee, the retired black marine on Last Man Standing, would say,”Not cool!”

This will never happen, you say. Actually, there is another much less expensive but potential practical solution to this problem:  When someone in prison demands sex reassignment surgery, release him/her from prison, so that the taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for this questionably effective surgery! Again,”Not cool!”

Obviously, neither of the above would be an acceptable solution for anybody. Is there a solution?

Yes, I have one!!! Create a separate fund for “prisoner sex reassignment surgery (PSRS).” Anyone who thinks that a prisoner deserves to have whatever he/she wishes in terms of this type of surgery, can then contribute to this fund. When enough money for this surgery is contributed to this PSRS escrow account, then the surgery can proceed! I would predict that this escrow account would be funded only by those on the left . . . if at all. It is commonly said that those on the left of the political spectrum have an easy time spending other people’s money, as in this situation is evidenced by this decision by The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I wonder just how much money those jurists Is to on The Ninth Circuit would actually contribute to Pat’s PSRS fund?

43 Replies to “Pat . . . Not Cool”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.