Transgender Tax Cut
"Costs incurred in sex-change operations ....are tax-deductible, the US Tax Court has ruled."
Ryan Donmoyer in Bloomberg News, Feb. 4, 2010
A Boston resident, now named Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, had claimed the cost of sex-change surgery and hormone treatment as a medical expense on his (her?) 2000 tax return, and the IRS had rejected the deduction as mere "cosmetic surgery." The taxpayer, who had been married to a woman for 20 years and had fathered three children, convinced the Tax Court that the procedure was necessary to treat a "gender identity disorder." Maybe now thousands of other men who have longed to become women, but were deterred by tax-considerations, will be inspired to follow his example.
Older readers will recall that George Jorgenson of New York underwent similar treatment in Denmark in 1952 and emerged as "Christine Jorgenson." (1) So did tennis star Renee Richards about twenty years later. Chastity Bono (2) is undergoing treatment to convert herself into a man, to be known as "Chazz Bono." Transgender people are becoming increasingly common, and often appear as guests on the Jerry Springer Show.
But is sex-change real? The mainstream media, including Bloomberg News in the article quoted above, accept the change as valid, and apparently so does the Tax Court. After all, if modern science can put men on the moon, can it not change a man into a woman, or vice-versa?
If a veterinarian told dairy farmers that he could convert a bull into a cow, and charged them for allegedly doing so, I believe he would be indicted for fraud. A castrated bull is known as a "steer", but is not a cow, even if shot-up with boatloads of estrogen.
In all vertebrates the chromosome configuration of every cell is either XX for females or XY for males. The choice is determined at conception, and cannot be changed later. Moreover, true females are characterized by the development of ovaries and a uterus (womb) before birth. Today's medical technology is not capable of producing these organs in males, and I doubt that it ever will be. To say that a doctor has converted a male into a female is therefore bogus, in my view. But if someday a mammal born male undergoes a sex-change procedure and subsequently produces ova (eggs), I will retract this Glazerbeam and admit I was wrong. (I do not do this often, so call or e-mail as soon as it happens!) Meanwhile, O'Donnabhain should be considered a eunuch, not a woman.
Doctors are bound by the admonition "Primo, non nocere", which means "First, do no harm." I question whether surgically removing healthy tissue because the patient is unhappy with his gender role is not a violation of this principle. Patients who seek gender-reassignment treatment are undoubtedly sick, but the proper treatment for "gender identity disorder" may well be psychiatric, not surgical. Doctors should inform such patients that since true sex-change is not really possible, they should seek treatment that will enable them to accept the bodies with which they were born.
If the validity of sex-change is accepted by our legal system, numerous paradoxes would be created. For example, the Wisconsin Constitution now prohibits the State from recognizing a marriage between two women. So if a married man becomes a woman, the marriage would become invalid, even though no divorce has taken place. By the same token, if a Jewish man undergoes sex-change treatment, the individual would still be expected to sit on the men's side of the synagogue "mechitza " (partition), wear a "yarmulke" and don tefillin on weekdays, even if dolled-up in a dress and high-heels. (3)
But isn't the tax deduction for this procedure great? I could sure use a tax-cut, but this is one kind of cut that I definitely don't want. If I feel the need to reduce my tax liability, I would sooner vote Republican than part with any of my essential parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Wikipedia.
(2) Chasitity Bono was named after a bisexual woman played by her mother (Cher) in a film made by her father ( Sonny) . Shakespeare asked "What is in a name?" Maybe plenty.
(3) Both the emasculation surgery and cross-dressing are contrary to Jewish law.
Ryan Donmoyer in Bloomberg News, Feb. 4, 2010
A Boston resident, now named Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, had claimed the cost of sex-change surgery and hormone treatment as a medical expense on his (her?) 2000 tax return, and the IRS had rejected the deduction as mere "cosmetic surgery." The taxpayer, who had been married to a woman for 20 years and had fathered three children, convinced the Tax Court that the procedure was necessary to treat a "gender identity disorder." Maybe now thousands of other men who have longed to become women, but were deterred by tax-considerations, will be inspired to follow his example.
Older readers will recall that George Jorgenson of New York underwent similar treatment in Denmark in 1952 and emerged as "Christine Jorgenson." (1) So did tennis star Renee Richards about twenty years later. Chastity Bono (2) is undergoing treatment to convert herself into a man, to be known as "Chazz Bono." Transgender people are becoming increasingly common, and often appear as guests on the Jerry Springer Show.
But is sex-change real? The mainstream media, including Bloomberg News in the article quoted above, accept the change as valid, and apparently so does the Tax Court. After all, if modern science can put men on the moon, can it not change a man into a woman, or vice-versa?
If a veterinarian told dairy farmers that he could convert a bull into a cow, and charged them for allegedly doing so, I believe he would be indicted for fraud. A castrated bull is known as a "steer", but is not a cow, even if shot-up with boatloads of estrogen.
In all vertebrates the chromosome configuration of every cell is either XX for females or XY for males. The choice is determined at conception, and cannot be changed later. Moreover, true females are characterized by the development of ovaries and a uterus (womb) before birth. Today's medical technology is not capable of producing these organs in males, and I doubt that it ever will be. To say that a doctor has converted a male into a female is therefore bogus, in my view. But if someday a mammal born male undergoes a sex-change procedure and subsequently produces ova (eggs), I will retract this Glazerbeam and admit I was wrong. (I do not do this often, so call or e-mail as soon as it happens!) Meanwhile, O'Donnabhain should be considered a eunuch, not a woman.
Doctors are bound by the admonition "Primo, non nocere", which means "First, do no harm." I question whether surgically removing healthy tissue because the patient is unhappy with his gender role is not a violation of this principle. Patients who seek gender-reassignment treatment are undoubtedly sick, but the proper treatment for "gender identity disorder" may well be psychiatric, not surgical. Doctors should inform such patients that since true sex-change is not really possible, they should seek treatment that will enable them to accept the bodies with which they were born.
If the validity of sex-change is accepted by our legal system, numerous paradoxes would be created. For example, the Wisconsin Constitution now prohibits the State from recognizing a marriage between two women. So if a married man becomes a woman, the marriage would become invalid, even though no divorce has taken place. By the same token, if a Jewish man undergoes sex-change treatment, the individual would still be expected to sit on the men's side of the synagogue "mechitza " (partition), wear a "yarmulke" and don tefillin on weekdays, even if dolled-up in a dress and high-heels. (3)
But isn't the tax deduction for this procedure great? I could sure use a tax-cut, but this is one kind of cut that I definitely don't want. If I feel the need to reduce my tax liability, I would sooner vote Republican than part with any of my essential parts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Wikipedia.
(2) Chasitity Bono was named after a bisexual woman played by her mother (Cher) in a film made by her father ( Sonny) . Shakespeare asked "What is in a name?" Maybe plenty.
(3) Both the emasculation surgery and cross-dressing are contrary to Jewish law.
Labels: tax, transgender
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:33 AM
4 Comments:
I have no opinions on this subject but I am a physiologist and you should know that the issue is much more complex than you have outlined.
There are hermaphrodites, although they are usually or always (I don't remember which)sterile, they do have gonads of both sexes. What would you call a person who had a uterus and testes? There are people who do not have either XX or XY; they have multiple chromosomes, e.g. XXY. There are situations when people have more than two types of sex chromosomes such that they may have characteristics of both sexes or they may look like one sex but have gonads of a different sex.
However, I am also a veterinarian and such sex physiological confusion amongst animals is much rarer, and in my experience and education does not really occur at all; so your analogy with animals is not appropriate.
The other thing of course is that there is more to sex than reproduction. Is a man who is sterile not a man? Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy not a woman? Is a child who is incapable of reproduction not a male or female?
In addition your concept of the physiology of human behavior is also too simplistic. What happens if a person looks like one sex but has hormones or brain physiology (sex hormone stimulating agent production, sex hormone receptors, genetically determined brain structure and physiolgical responses of one sex) of the opposite sex such that the behavior of the person is opposite to that of their body. No amount of psychiatric intervention can correct for a physiological trait.
Also from a Jewish perspective there is a thought from midrash that the first humam was indeed a true hermaphrodite who G-d split into Adam and Eve.
I have no idea what sex is. I know what I like, but I would never tell anyone what sex they are or should be.
Why not? It's a medical procedure after all.
One more thing.
Mr Glazer seems to have made a religious decision, but he is not a Rabbi and has not such authority.
Mr Glazer wrote: "By the same token, if a Jewish man undergoes sex-change treatment, the individual would still be expected to sit on the men's side of the synagogue "mechitza " (partition), wear a "yarmulke" and don tefillin on weekdays, even if dolled-up in a dress and high-heels. (3)"
In addition, Mr Glazer suggests (3) that these surgeries are against Halacha (Jewish Law) without providing the proof or evidence or citing the Rabbinic ruling.
It should be understood that all (but three) of the Jewish Laws, i.e. 613, can be transgressed legally in order to save a life, including the laws regarding these surgeries.
What if the person who wants the sex change is suicidal and is so distraught by the situation that they might kill themselves or others unless they have the surgery. In this case it is very possible for Rabbis to conclude that having the surgeries are not only permissable but required.
This situation is not far fetched as there is a well known analogous situation which does occur.
Aborton is also against Jewish Law, but sometines it is not only alowed but required. If having the baby jeapardizes the life and even psychological condition of the woman the baby must be aborted. This decision, however, must be made in consulation with the doctors, the woman and the Rabbi.
The same situation could apply to the person who needs a sex change operation and in this case the situation is actually less severe as no other life has to be taken.
It just should be understood especially for the non-Jewish readers that Judaism is not rigid. Even though there are 613 laws they are not administered without a heart or a brain. They are all mutable, but three.
One more thing as I look through my Endocrinology Textbook written by Robert H. Williams (W.B. Saunders Co. Philadelphia, 1968).
There are not only XX and XY, but also XXY, XYY, XYY, XO, XXX, XYYY, XXYY, XXX, XXXX XXXXX, XXXY, XXXXY, and the following mosaics and chimeras: XO/XX, XO/XY, XO/XYY, XO/XY/XYY, XO/XXX, XO/XX/XXX, XY/XXY, XX/XXY, XX/XXX, XO/XXXY, XX/XXYY, and XX/XXY/XXYYY.
Now which of the above does Mr Glazer think are male and which are female?
There are also the following syndromes or sexual abnormalities that make sexual identification very difficult and the need for surgery essential to the mental health of the patient; and for which I seriously doubt any Rabbi would object:
Klinefelters stndrome
Turner's syndrome
Gonadal dysgenesis
Hermaphroditism
Pseudohermaphroditism
Genetalia ambiguus
Reifenstein's syndrome
Hypospadias
Cryptorchism
Anorchia
Hypogonadism
Laurence-Moon-Biedl syndrome
Congenital absence of various sex strucrtues and organs
etc.
etc.
I wish I could post the pictures from my textbook and test Mr Glazer on what sex he thought each person was. Then he might have a very different viepoint on the necessity of sex change operations for some people.
The point here is that this is a very very complex issue that is not just XX and XY and the Rabbinical interpretation of this issue and what surgery can and should be done is also very complex and cannot be stated in such a simplistic way as was done by Mr Glazer.
Post a Comment
<< Home