Oh, there's always work piled up when one returns from vacation! 
Oh dear, I seem to have missed that. Got a link?
Actually, the original op-ed piece posted by the OP was printed in response -- directly -- to the idea that government would no longer deny funding to exactly that... so I'm not sure what's irrelevant there.
In some circles, we call that "math". He's talking about numbers, and numbers don't lie. It doesn't mean we will always consider mathematics to always back what we feel is the moral argument. In other words, the right thing to do is not always mathematically correct, and vice-versa. But it is nevertheless a legitimate argument, in places where minds still inquire.
Which directly makes his point: that taxpayer-funding of SRS would not make an impact on the suicide rate. The suicide rate is the reason supporters of tax-funded SRS give for supporting it. If there is to be no impact on suicide rate, then, ipso facto, there's no argument to support tax-funded SRS.
Just what is it you're disagreeing with, then?

(14-06-2014, 08:23 PM)SarahSchilling Wrote: If I start eviscerating your feeble rhetoric again,
Oh dear, I seem to have missed that. Got a link?
(14-06-2014, 11:47 PM)AnnieBL Wrote: justification for a rant complaining against government funding of medical services for people's TS issues, whereas the source of funding is not I think even mentioned by the OP nor is the propriety of government funding, although such funding is mentioned in passing, any actual part of the thesis of the article.
Actually, the original op-ed piece posted by the OP was printed in response -- directly -- to the idea that government would no longer deny funding to exactly that... so I'm not sure what's irrelevant there.
(19-06-2014, 09:44 PM)kimdl93 Wrote: His argument is pure reductionism.
In some circles, we call that "math". He's talking about numbers, and numbers don't lie. It doesn't mean we will always consider mathematics to always back what we feel is the moral argument. In other words, the right thing to do is not always mathematically correct, and vice-versa. But it is nevertheless a legitimate argument, in places where minds still inquire.
(19-06-2014, 09:44 PM)kimdl93 Wrote: One would expect that people who have struggled with their gender identity for a lifetime would have higher rates of depression and suicide throughout their life. Sex change operations may resolve the immediate dismorphic state, but the psychic wounds may never fully heel.
Which directly makes his point: that taxpayer-funding of SRS would not make an impact on the suicide rate. The suicide rate is the reason supporters of tax-funded SRS give for supporting it. If there is to be no impact on suicide rate, then, ipso facto, there's no argument to support tax-funded SRS.
Just what is it you're disagreeing with, then?