This is just too good!
Jennifer Usher
mentioned that the company that handles my short-term disability might
contact her concerning my surgery. She stated that might be a problem,
since she had not diagnosed me with "gender identity disorder." She did
not feel it appropriate since I was living quite comfortably and naturally
as a female.
Oh well, so much for all of Billy Boy's rants on the subject. I hadn't
really discussed specifics with her, but it turns out Billy Boy is full of
crap once again.
--
Jennifer Usher
George Orwell
Are you mentally unbalanced or what? I have never read any rants by Willow
on you, she only comments about your lack of compassion for other TS and TG
people. You do come off as some kind of a delusional man, honestly, online
at least. Your therapist might see a different version of your persona.
You sound like an idiot when you describe a woman who had her surgery
long before you as a male person, using a male name. It just makes you
look like a delusional idiot, to think you do this and that other people
don't do the same to you. Your pictures were posted once, remember?
You are not fooling anyone. They are just kinder to you than you are
to other people in the community.
It is all quite pathetic, your life I mean. You are such an incredible bigot,
is it any wonder nobody here of substance wants to associate with you?
The newsgroup is all but abandoned because of trolls like you.
Start a rose garden dear. Rose gardening would be time better spent
than anything a narrow minded ass such as yourself could hope to
contribute. What you do is not supportive. You are the antithesis
of support.
Borked Pseudo Mailed
Jennifer Usher
<PLONK>
--
Jennifer Usher
_SG_
living as a woman... isn't that .. kind of incompetatnt of the therapist???
and the fact you managed to leech funds for your srs by the state when you
weren't diagnosed with anything but simply wearing womens clothes ???
Something seems very fishy about this. Thats a very unprofessional approach
in my opinion. And here you are gloating that "billy boy" was wrong which
shows you STILL do have some doubts about your own gender.... Who was your
therapist ?
First you are a crossdresser, then you become a gentic woman, and then you
aren't diagnosed at, and then you obtain funds which could have been used to
support legitimate, diagnosed TS applicants.
Hmmm did the surgeon know about this ? you sound like an AG in denial (hence
the hate) to me, not a true transsexual.
andrea...@gmail.com
Jennifer Usher wrote:
> I found out something interesting today while visiting my therapist.
Do you run around in reallife with a big sign that says "Beat Me Up" as
well? Whatever do you hope to achieve by proudly pronouncing your
"sucess as a real woman" in the one place populated by your worst
critics? Wouldnt it be easier to just run around in a a hairshirt or
something?
Jennifer Usher
> Do you run around in reallife with a big sign that says "Beat Me Up" as
> well? Whatever do you hope to achieve by proudly pronouncing your
> "sucess as a real woman" in the one place populated by your worst
> critics? Wouldnt it be easier to just run around in a a hairshirt or
> something?
Now Diane, when you have something that is going to make someone like Billy
Boy that miserable, you don't keep it quiet. Unlike some, I long ago
ceased taking this place seriously at all. It has become an interesting
experiment in abnormal psychology. My worst critics? Hardly. More like
my favorite set of trained monkeys.
--
Jennifer Usher
andrea...@gmail.com
Why do both you and Bill think I am Diane? Why is everyone without a
name here always Diane? Diane Diane Diane. Why don't the both of you
go out and just lay her because you both seem completely fixated on
her. And for what its worth Bill is hardly your trained monkey. Youre
both more like two little monkeys doing something nasty inside their
cages.
Jennifer Usher
> Why do both you and Bill think I am Diane? Why is everyone without a
> name here always Diane? Diane Diane Diane. Why don't the both of you
> go out and just lay her because you both seem completely fixated on
> her. And for what its worth Bill is hardly your trained monkey. Youre
> both more like two little monkeys doing something nasty inside their
> cages.
Whatever. Sorry I violated some attempt at privacy. In any case, I know
what I am doing.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pangarune Corner
Well, we knew Usher was not a transsexual. Nice to have her therapist
agree.
One might note that both her therapist and surgeon did not follow the SofC
under which a finding of GID is a necessary condition for the approval
letters and surgery. So we have a totally incompetent therapist along with
a surgeon who does not follow the rules, and thus a patient who does not
have GID - and hence is not transsexual - having SRS with the probable
result mentioned earlier. Of course, they actually know Usher. Perhaps
they both wanted to simply get it done in the hopes that she offs herself in
a year.
If SRS was not done on a diagnosis of GID, then?? The result is an expensive
cosmetic procedure with no medical worth done at the expense of an insurance
company. That seems like insurance fraud to me. Which insurance company
covers SRS as a purely cosmetic procedure? It would be interesting to see
the wording of the current policy that covers Usher. Those policies that do
cover SRS normally rely upon a diagnosis of GID. Usher will no doubt state
she has a woman's brain, thus is intersexed. As to that claim, see her
posts. If you still believe Usher is feminine in any way, call me for the
latest listings of bridges for sale!
If the therapist cannot give a letter diagnosising GID for short term
disability, how could she give one for SRS? That raises suspicion that the
whole story of SRS was a fabrication. A surgeon operating without the aegis
of a therapist's letter? If there was a letter, what did it say - that she
had a "female brain"? If so, when was the autopsy?
It might be that the therapist simply was worn down or else pandering. More
likely that the therapist simply "did not give a shit", having already
received the money for sessions. Or perhaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptic_syndrome
What Usher is is readily apparent in her letters, and I doubt that even her
good friend Diane could find anything remotely feminine in those. They are,
by and large, simply ugly rants, without merit or value. The photos have
already been mentioned.
Truly, this post gave me more laughter that any prior Usher post. Might it
be that the deterioration of Usher is happening faster than anticipated,
giving Usher less that a year? Far from making me miserable, the peals of
laughter might well travel as far south as SF!
TTFN,
Willow
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:D-ednXl-e9o...@rcn.net...
Pangarune Corner
These are the Standards of Care presently in force. Wihout a finding of
GID, SRS is not a valid treatment for anything...
Jennifer Usher
> ROTFWL...
>
> Well, we knew Usher was not a transsexual. Nice to have her therapist
> agree.
Awww, how nice, Billy Boy is being an idiot again.
> One might note that both her therapist and surgeon did not follow the SofC
> under which a finding of GID is a necessary condition for the approval
> letters and surgery. So we have a totally incompetent therapist along
> with a surgeon who does not follow the rules, and thus a patient who does
> not have GID - and hence is not transsexual - having SRS with the probable
> result mentioned earlier. Of course, they actually know Usher. Perhaps
> they both wanted to simply get it done in the hopes that she offs herself
> in a year.
Yes, I actually mentioned to my therapist that this was no exactly following
the SOC. Of course, the SOC is rather flexible, so the rest of Billy Boy's
remarks are just his usual silliness. The bottom line, my therapist
recognized that I needed SRS, passed me on to the committee that decides
such things, which affirmed her decision, and I had SRS. I didn't have to
"threaten," "sue," or "blackmail" anyone like Billy Boy has bragged about.
> If SRS was not done on a diagnosis of GID, then?? The result is an
> expensive cosmetic procedure with no medical worth done at the expense of
> an insurance
> company. That seems like insurance fraud to me. Which insurance company
> covers SRS as a purely cosmetic procedure? It would be interesting to see
> the wording of the current policy that covers Usher. Those policies that
> do
> cover SRS normally rely upon a diagnosis of GID. Usher will no doubt
> state
> she has a woman's brain, thus is intersexed. As to that claim, see her
> posts. If you still believe Usher is feminine in any way, call me for the
> latest listings of bridges for sale!
No Billy Boy is blowing smoke. The result is a woman getting a birth defect
corrected. The result is Billy Boy's whole world view going up in a puff
of smoke. It was certainly not seen as cosmetic. It was simply a
medically necessary procedure. Transsexuals, at least once they get past
their own envy, would delight in such a thing. A wannabe like Billy Boy,
who has to desperately try to justify what was an unnecessary, and
ultimately harmful procedure, is not going to see that.
> If the therapist cannot give a letter diagnosising GID for short term
> disability, how could she give one for SRS? That raises suspicion that
> the
> whole story of SRS was a fabrication. A surgeon operating without the
> aegis
> of a therapist's letter? If there was a letter, what did it say - that
> she
> had a "female brain"? If so, when was the autopsy?
Ah, another Billy Boy twist. Nothing was said about a "letter." I simply
told her that the company would be requesting my medical records from her
department (they are separate from the rest). Yes, it may well cost me the
small amount of money I would get from short-term disability, but hey, the
rest is pure Billy Boy silliness. Making it up as he goes, so to speak.
Did I need SRS? Yes. Why? Because like any transsexual, I had a brain
that was sexually differentiated differently from my body. Because I had a
real need. Not a fetish. Doctors have to come up with nice legal fictions
like "GID" to cover themselves when a nutcase like Billy Boy slips through
the cracks.
> It might be that the therapist simply was worn down or else pandering.
> More likely that the therapist simply "did not give a shit", having
> already
> received the money for sessions. Or perhaps:
ROTFL! Hardly. I have a very good relationship with my therapist. And she
is paid a salary, not by the client.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptic_syndrome
Now that seems more likely what Billy Boy had. "Skoptic syndrome can
sometimes be motivated by intense sexual guilt, in which the genitals
become identified as the source of the guilt-inducing sexual desire. This
leads to desire for removal of or damage to the genitals." Hmm, claims he
was raped in a Thai prison, that led to his desire for SRS. Yes, this all
makes sense.
> What Usher is is readily apparent in her letters, and I doubt that even
> her
> good friend Diane could find anything remotely feminine in those. They
> are,
> by and large, simply ugly rants, without merit or value. The photos have
> already been mentioned.
Well, we all know what I look like (I think someone described the photo that
Billy Boy is so fond of misusing as showing a "middle aged woman having
fun," And we all know what Billy Boy really looks like (fat, balding man
in a dress with a bad combover). So, that is rather silly of him to bring
up.
> Truly, this post gave me more laughter that any prior Usher post. Might
> it be that the deterioration of Usher is happening faster than
> anticipated,
> giving Usher less that a year? Far from making me miserable, the peals of
> laughter might well travel as far south as SF!
Yes, sure...that is why he spent so much effort trying to respond to it.
Yes, his laughter is oh so obvious....sure....
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
Good grief! He can't even find a link to the most recent version. The
above leads to the 5th revision, the most recent is the 6th:
http://hbigda.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf
Now, I am not going to bother looking at the outdated version that Billy Boy
claims is the version presently in force (a lie? or incompetence? Who
cares?). The current version states:
"Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In
persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment
surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a
treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when
prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically
indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental,"
"investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful
sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for
transsexualism or profound GID."
There is also a set of eligibility criteria:
Eligibility Criteria. These minimum eligibility criteria for various genital
surgeries equally
apply to biologic males and females seeking genital surgery. They are:
1. Legal age of majority in the patient's nation;
2. Usually 12 months of continuous hormonal therapy for those without a
medical contraindication;
3. 12 months of successful continuous full time real-life experience.
Periods of returning to the original gender may indicate ambivalence about
proceeding and generally should not be used to fulfill this criterion;
4. If required by the mental health professional, regular responsible
participation in psychotherapy throughout the real-life experience at a
frequency determined jointly by the patient and the mental health
professional. Psychotherapy per se is not an absolute eligibility criterion
for surgery;
5. Demonstrable knowledge of the cost, required lengths of
hospitalizations, likely complications, and post surgical rehabilitation
requirements of various surgical approaches;
6. Awareness of different competent surgeons.
Readiness Criteria. The readiness criteria include:
1. Demonstrable progress in consolidating one’s gender identity;
2. Demonstrable progress in dealing with work, family, and interpersonal
issues resulting in a significantly better state of mental health; this
implies satisfactory control of problems such as sociopathy, substance
abuse, psychosis, suicidality, for instance).
(This last one is significant, because clearly Billy Boy did not comply.)
So, there is not requirement that a diagnosis of a mental illness known as
GID is a requirement for SRS. So, once again, Billy Boy looks the fool.
And it turns out that I was in compliance with the standards of care
anyway.
Good grief, this is getting too easy.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pangarune Corner
Toot Toot!!! Usher the Intersexed!
A nut case who found another nut case for treatment.
W.
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ov-dnY9EqrJQWf3Z...@rcn.net...
Jennifer Usher
> A fully functioning male body is a birth defect if the "brain" is female.
>
> Toot Toot!!! Usher the Intersexed!
>
> A nut case who found another nut case for treatment.
A man with no previous gender issues has SRS on the advice of an incompetent
therapist, and then has the audacity to speak of another as being a nut
case. What a hoot.
Do I claim to be intersexed? Nope, not under accepted definitions. Does
Billy Boy have any claim to be a transsexual, a woman, or anything other
than a deeply disturbed man? Nope, not under accepted definitions. Or
even under the incompetent rants of his heroes Blanchard and Bailey.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pangarune Corner
" Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In
persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment
surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a
treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when
prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically
indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental,"
"investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful
sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for
transsexualism or profound GID."
If you do not have GID - according to you - the above does not apply at all
("She stated that might be a problem, since she had not diagnosed me with
"gender identity disorder""). As you do not - according to you - there was
no medical reason for surgery if you were not being treated for GID.
Insurance fraud! No GID, no SRS paid. I really must track down which
company covers employees at UCSF. Your post indicates they were tricked
into covering the cost of SRS as you do not have GID. Birth defect indeed.
What a toot!!!
What a toot!!! What a total farce. No wonder you got no-name therapy and
no name surgery!
Gawds! What a lark. Usher the Intersexed, Usher the Woman, Usher the
Transvestite, Usher the ??? What next. Did the god position open up? Not
transsexual - oh no, not GID.
One might ask why a non-transsexual hangs around a TS group and give orders
about who is and is not TS. How would you know, dearie? You ain't one.
Gawds know what you are. A male person with major mental issues...
TTFN,
Willow
P.S. ROTFWL, again and again...
Usher the Nut sums it up very well...
Te he.. What a klutz.
W.
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:U8SdnTXwt7x...@rcn.net...
Jennifer Usher
> But dearie, you do not have GID! You and your therapist say so!
>
> " Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In
> persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment
> surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a
> treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen,
> when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically
> indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental,"
> "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful
> sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for
> transsexualism or profound GID."
Billy Boy again shows that he has very low reading comprehension. First he
thinks that the 5th edition of a document is more recent than the 6th
edition (granted, that COULD be incompetence in math) and now he thinks
that "transsexualism or profound GID" means "GID." No, it means that there
are are at least two different conditions that can be a basis for SRS.
> If you do not have GID - according to you - the above does not apply at
> all ("She stated that might be a problem, since she had not diagnosed me
> with
> "gender identity disorder""). As you do not - according to you - there
> was no medical reason for surgery if you were not being treated for GID.
Ah, now here Billy Boy presumes to know more than he does. He goes from
what is known by him (I was not diagnosed specifically with "GID") and then
makes up something (that there was no medical basis for SRS).
> Insurance fraud! No GID, no SRS paid. I really must track down which
> company covers employees at UCSF. Your post indicates they were tricked
> into covering the cost of SRS as you do not have GID. Birth defect
> indeed. What a toot!!!
Then he goes off on a real tangent, and gives more evidence for my final
harassment complaint. Now, let's really hope he does this, as it will be
hilarious. Alas, because of his abysmal reading ability, he has completely
missed the simple facts. I am in an HMO. My therapist, the committee that
approved my SRS, and my surgeons, are all covered under the same company.
Everything was done within the same HMO. Shoot, I have even mentioned the
name of my provider several times. He is again blowing smoke, thinking
this latest wave of his former penis will scare me off. Again, I REALLY
hope he goes for this. It will make things all the easier when I finally
deal with his harassment. And everyone will have a good laugh.
> What a toot!!! What a total farce. No wonder you got no-name therapy and
> no name surgery!
Ah, another Billy Boy lie. He rants about "big lies" and yet, well you know
the rest...
> Gawds! What a lark. Usher the Intersexed, Usher the Woman, Usher the
> Transvestite, Usher the ??? What next. Did the god position open up?
> Not transsexual - oh no, not GID.
What a sad joke. Billy Boy, as expected, takes a little fact, and builds
another major lie out of it. So predictable, so fun to watch. But a bit
too easy. But such is the nature of Billy Boy and his desperation.
> One might ask why a non-transsexual hangs around a TS group and give
> orders
> about who is and is not TS. How would you know, dearie? You ain't one.
Yes, Billy Boy has been asked this, repeatedly, but he remains.
> Gawds know what you are. A male person with major mental issues...
Ah, yes, the predictable repeat of a statement made concerning him. This is
classic Billy Boy. Say something about him, especially something very
true, and you can bet he will be repeating it as though it were original
with him So classic.
Ah, life is good, and Billy Boy is predictable as always. All is right with
the world.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pangarune Corner
Now, double-talk is all very well and good. Heavens know, your President
does that a lot. Perhaps it is becoming a national trait.
*IF* you have not been diagnosed with GID, you simply had no right to have
SRS. Period and end of story. The *only* medical justification for what
otherwise would be a procedure against medical ethics is a diagnosis of GID.
As you claim to have had SRS (a claim which your own posts casts into doubt)
and that your therapist did not diagnose you with GID, either you are lying
or your therapist and surgeon do not follow the SofC and your insurance
company should rescind its payment for such services. In fact, both your
therapist and surgeon, and any others who participated should be called
before their respective governing boards for discipline.
One might also wonder how you even gained access to hormones with no finding
of GID. The whole process you describe reeks of deceit.
Of course, you may just be puffing smoke concerning (1) any operation, (2)
your alleged conversation with your therapist, and (3) everything else you
proclaim so loudly and often. That is the most probable.
This is really a classic. Toot! TOOOOOT!!!
Now, as to your continual threats of dire consequences. Amazing. To differ
with you is to be a criminal offence? Nonsense. And total rubbish. Might
I remind you of your past deeds?
Simply put, fish or cut bait. Given your continual taunts, harassment lies
more heavily on your shoulders. Personally, I think it is more smoke from a
different orifice, but if you are so repeatedly claiming some magical
powers, now is the time. We have been dusting off here for three years, and
most certainly it has been stupid and meaningless most of the time. Go
ahead, please. In fact, either go ahead or shut up. False threats are in
keeping with your image but after too many repetitions of the same
silliness, it is getting to be terribly old news.
As to the insurance company, coverage of SRS is normally covered by a clause
in the coverage policy. Those that I have seen required as a condition
precedent a diagnosis of GID. You state your therapist did not so diagnose
you, therefore there was no medical reason for such operation unless it was
covered as a purely cosmetic procedure. If your statement is true, you are
endangering coverage of others by your fraud, as is your therapist and
surgeon. Note that is based totally upon your statement at the start of
this thread - if that is false, as seems likely, the rest falls. Without
such a diagnosis and in the absence of GID, medical ethics say clearly "do
not harm" - do not remove even with consent a health organ. That would
indeed be grounds for investigation by the appropriate governing bodies.
Given you have named your surgeon, repeatedly, I wonder if he would advise
as to the basis for your SRS given that no finding of GID was disclosed. By
all accounts, his proceeding without such a finding would be a breech of
ethics and reportable as such. As I assume you are simply lying, there is
no need to go further on that thought. Indeed, if this surgeon is trying to
get "into the game" as you state, and is operating in breech of the SofC and
ethics of his profession, it is a matter that does deserve investigation.
You have to know that if he were to write stating you had a "female brain"
he would be laughed out of professional organization.
Truly remarkably funny! Next you will say that as your birth certificate
has changed, you were indeed born female. What a lark! Toot!
TOOOOOOOOOOOT!
TTRN,
Willow
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e-ydnX1NaMS...@rcn.net...
Pangarune Corner
W
<andrea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147185425.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Pangarune Corner
W.
<andrea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147189643.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Jennifer Usher
> Toot!!! TOOT!!!!
>
> Now, double-talk is all very well and good. Heavens know, your President
> does that a lot. Perhaps it is becoming a national trait.
>
> *IF* you have not been diagnosed with GID, you simply had no right to have
> SRS. Period and end of story. The *only* medical justification for what
> otherwise would be a procedure against medical ethics is a diagnosis of
> GID. As you claim to have had SRS (a claim which your own posts casts into
> doubt) and that your therapist did not diagnose you with GID, either you
> are lying or your therapist and surgeon do not follow the SofC and your
> insurance
> company should rescind its payment for such services. In fact, both your
> therapist and surgeon, and any others who participated should be called
> before their respective governing boards for discipline.
Billy Boy suffers from two obvious problems here. The first is delusions of
grandeur. He presumes to determine what the, as he puts it, "*only*
medical justification" for SRS is. He also presumes that he knows more
about medical ethics than medical professionals do. Second, he suffers
from a very grade school level of reading comprehension. I would say
probably around second or third grade. He can make out the words, and he
has some idea what they mean, but when they are put together into sentences
he cannot fathom what is actually said. Or perhaps he simply does not know
what an HMO is. My insurance company, doctors, therapists, surgeons, and
the committee that approved my SRS are all one and the same. There is no
outside insurance company that gets the bills. It is a health maintenance
organization.
And now this idiot is willing to make an even bigger fool of himself by
bringing false charges before governing boards. How humorous. He keeps
hoping he will hit the right combination and terrorize me into compliance.
> One might also wonder how you even gained access to hormones with no
> finding
> of GID. The whole process you describe reeks of deceit.
He might well wonder. That was a long time ago, and my original endo died
of pancreatic cancer a few years ago. He was a friend of Harry Benjamin,
by the way. Highly thought of, a hospital at the University of Alabama,
Birmingham is named after him. He did it on the recommendation of my first
therapist, who diagnosed me as a transsexual.
> Of course, you may just be puffing smoke concerning (1) any operation, (2)
> your alleged conversation with your therapist, and (3) everything else you
> proclaim so loudly and often. That is the most probable.
Now where did we first see the words "blowing smoke" today? Now he doesn't
even bother waiting to steal lines. What a sad, sad, joke. Do I care if
Billy Boy, or any of the other trolls and bigots here believe I had SRS or
not? Hardly, as I did not have it for them, or for anyone else, other than
myself. If Billy Boy wishes to spread such a lie it is no skin off of my
nose. Just another blow to his credibility among those who know me.
> This is really a classic. Toot! TOOOOOT!!!
>
> Now, as to your continual threats of dire consequences. Amazing. To
> differ
> with you is to be a criminal offence? Nonsense. And total rubbish.
> Might I remind you of your past deeds?
>
> Simply put, fish or cut bait. Given your continual taunts, harassment
> lies
> more heavily on your shoulders. Personally, I think it is more smoke from
> a different orifice, but if you are so repeatedly claiming some magical
> powers, now is the time. We have been dusting off here for three years,
> and
> most certainly it has been stupid and meaningless most of the time. Go
> ahead, please. In fact, either go ahead or shut up. False threats are in
> keeping with your image but after too many repetitions of the same
> silliness, it is getting to be terribly old news.
No, not taunts, warnings. And yes, I agree, Billy Boy is quite stupid and
meaningless. But he is fun to watch occasionally.
> As to the insurance company, coverage of SRS is normally covered by a
> clause
> in the coverage policy. Those that I have seen required as a condition
> precedent a diagnosis of GID. You state your therapist did not so
> diagnose you, therefore there was no medical reason for such operation
> unless it was
> covered as a purely cosmetic procedure. If your statement is true, you
> are endangering coverage of others by your fraud, as is your therapist and
> surgeon. Note that is based totally upon your statement at the start of
> this thread - if that is false, as seems likely, the rest falls. Without
> such a diagnosis and in the absence of GID, medical ethics say clearly "do
> not harm" - do not remove even with consent a health organ. That would
> indeed be grounds for investigation by the appropriate governing bodies.
ROTFL! That darned lack of reading comprehension again. HMO, not health
insurance company. Look up the concept and you will find how silly Billy
Boy is being. Billy Boy is really making a total fool of himself this
time. I really do hope he tries to file charges against my doctors. They
have the resources to deal with him better than I do. For them, the cost
of a lawsuit will be pocket change. And I imagine I might even be able to
go along for the ride. And such will only make my harassment complaint all
the stronger.
> Given you have named your surgeon, repeatedly, I wonder if he would advise
> as to the basis for your SRS given that no finding of GID was disclosed.
> By all accounts, his proceeding without such a finding would be a breech
> of
> ethics and reportable as such. As I assume you are simply lying, there is
> no need to go further on that thought. Indeed, if this surgeon is trying
> to get "into the game" as you state, and is operating in breech of the
> SofC and ethics of his profession, it is a matter that does deserve
> investigation. You have to know that if he were to write stating you had a
> "female brain" he would be laughed out of professional organization.
Such total idiocy. Look up a law commonly called HIPAA. You will find the
answer to Billy Boy's question there. Again, my SRS was performed by
Annette Cholon, who was training my "surgeon of record." But I forget,
Billy Boy does not know what an HMO is, or how they work. Oh well, it just
makes him that much sillier.
> Truly remarkably funny! Next you will say that as your birth certificate
> has changed, you were indeed born female. What a lark! Toot!
> TOOOOOOOOOOOT!
Of course not, though I do recall Billy Boy once claiming that he was a
woman because he his birth certificate changed. Now even he knows better.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Usher hopes that someone - anyone - will believe her...
Quite the contrary. I merely enjoy watching Billy Boy so bent out of shape.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pangarune Corner
start of this thread did indeed cause much laughter.
You and Blake, together at last.
I see Usher is trying to defend himself by saying this:
> and now he thinks
> that "transsexualism or profound GID" means "GID." No, it means that there
> are are at least two different conditions that can be a basis for SRS.
However, the SoC states very clearly that transsexualism is an informal name
for GID, not a separate condition:
> The pertinent phrase: The person's struggles are then variously
> informally referred to as a gender identity problem, gender dysphoria,
> a gender problem, a gender concern, gender distress, gender conflict,
> or transsexualism.
More particularly:
> The DSM-IV. In 1994, the DSM-IV committee replaced the diagnosis
> of Transsexualism with Gender Identity Disorder.
In other words, transsexualism is the informal way to refer to GID. One and
the same in the SoC.
Now, we really must come up with a name for what Usher is - aside from
idiot, that is. So, what we have is a non-transsexual who managed to
convince a no-name therapist to sign some sort of letter (certainly "not"
containing a diagnosis of GID) and a no-name wanna be surgeon (again, Usher
stated she talked with her surgeon and the surgeon wanted to get into the
SRS game...) with apparently no understanding of the DSM or SofC or the
rules of ethics that govern his profession who operated on... What? Is
Usher an intersexed person, truly a woman's brain in a man's body? Call for
an autopsy in the interest of science. A male crossdresser who, having
obtained a job at odds with his beliefs to obtain surgery he is not
qualified for, defrauds the HMO of resources by trickery (and later dies of
suicide, it is presumed)? A transvestite who, driven by the egocentric need
to dominate newsgroups (from religion to TSity and more) gets SRS due to the
need to belong anywhere? Now, I wonder if the surgeon even knows he
operated on a person who was not qualified? It is possible that Usher was
the first to latch onto this HMO's committee (again, if he is to be
believed) and they had no idea of what the standards were to be.
I really must look into that health insurance policy. Did the therapist
really defraud the insurance company - or was it just a goof. Since when
did a psychologist determine who had or does no have a female brain? On
what basis - that Usher wanted to pee sitting down? Does that justify the
expense of such a procedure? I don't think so... Must read that policy...
We have, if Usher is believed, a cosmetic operation for no sound medical
reason - simply because a misguided soul decided he wanted one. Allow this
to happen and no insurance company will fund SRS.
I suggest that if the operation took place in the absence of two letters of
approval in conformity with the Sof C, the surgeon should indeed be reported
for a breech of medical ethics. Now, that assumes Usher is telling the
truth concerning his therapist. Truth is a stranger to Usher so lies must
be anticipated. Naturally, one would not file such a complaint based only
on Usher's word. Maybe a post to the surgeon asking if the surgeon follows
the SofC. Nothing more. If the surgeon states that he does, Usher is a
liar for the surgeon will have in his files a letter from the therapist with
a diagnosis of GID. That is probable. The legal implications of operating
without such letters is grave indeed. In fact, if the therapist made such a
statement to Usher, it was no doubt a mere attempt to placate a problem
client with nice-nice words.
At least I can now agree in part with E. Whatever Usher might be, he is not
transsexual, and both he and his therapist agree. So do I!
I can now see why Usher has been so nasty over the years. It is called, I
believe transference. He sees in me a person who met the standards of the
SofC and has gone on with a new life. He knows that he is a fraud, a
transvestite not a transsexual, but he needs to be accepted into a group.
So he pretends and cons his way into an operating room using under-qualified
types who do not understand - or have not eve read - the standards of care.
Now he knows he has made a big mistake...
Maybe Usher will follow the Australian and English examples - an ideal case
to sue the surgeon for malpractice - again, if Usher's story is believed...
Toot! TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!
TTFN,
Willow
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:N86dnQuyQqG...@rcn.net...
Jennifer Usher
> The only way I am "bent out of shape" of from laughter. And believe me,
> the start of this thread did indeed cause much laughter.
>
> You and Blake, together at last.
>
> I see Usher is trying to defend himself by saying this:
>
>> and now he thinks
>> that "transsexualism or profound GID" means "GID." No, it means that
>> there are are at least two different conditions that can be a basis for
>> SRS.
>
> However, the SoC states very clearly that transsexualism is an informal
> name for GID, not a separate condition:
We have already seen the limits of Billy Boy's reading comprehension, so
this does not require further comment.
>> The pertinent phrase: The person's struggles are then variously
>> informally referred to as a gender identity problem, gender dysphoria,
>> a gender problem, a gender concern, gender distress, gender conflict,
>> or transsexualism.
>
> More particularly:
>
>> The DSM-IV. In 1994, the DSM-IV committee replaced the diagnosis
>> of Transsexualism with Gender Identity Disorder.
>
> In other words, transsexualism is the informal way to refer to GID. One
> and the same in the SoC.
Alas, poor Billy Boy. He picks and chooses a few phrases, and ignores other
things, like the ICD-10 section. No real need to argue with him, as it is
like shooting fish in a barrel. Simply follow the link I provided, and
read what it actually says, not what Billy Boy tries to make it say.
> Now, we really must come up with a name for what Usher is - aside from
> idiot, that is. So, what we have is a non-transsexual who managed to
> convince a no-name therapist to sign some sort of letter (certainly "not"
> containing a diagnosis of GID) and a no-name wanna be surgeon (again,
> Usher stated she talked with her surgeon and the surgeon wanted to get
> into the SRS game...) with apparently no understanding of the DSM or SofC
> or the
> rules of ethics that govern his profession who operated on... What? Is
> Usher an intersexed person, truly a woman's brain in a man's body? Call
> for
> an autopsy in the interest of science. A male crossdresser who, having
> obtained a job at odds with his beliefs to obtain surgery he is not
> qualified for, defrauds the HMO of resources by trickery (and later dies
> of
> suicide, it is presumed)? A transvestite who, driven by the egocentric
> need to dominate newsgroups (from religion to TSity and more) gets SRS due
> to the
> need to belong anywhere? Now, I wonder if the surgeon even knows he
> operated on a person who was not qualified? It is possible that Usher was
> the first to latch onto this HMO's committee (again, if he is to be
> believed) and they had no idea of what the standards were to be.
Two thoughts here. First, I don't care what Billy Boy calls me, because it
is meaningless. Beyond that, what is the appropriate "label" for me? That
is simple. Woman. Just as the appropriate terminology for Billy Boy begins
with "man." There are other terms that can be added, but basically he is a
man, as in "a man pretending to be a woman," or "a man in a dress," or "a
man with some serious mental health issues."
> I really must look into that health insurance policy. Did the therapist
> really defraud the insurance company - or was it just a goof. Since when
> did a psychologist determine who had or does no have a female brain? On
> what basis - that Usher wanted to pee sitting down? Does that justify the
> expense of such a procedure? I don't think so... Must read that
> policy...
Again, I really hope he does. He can't seem to grasp simple facts presented
to him, and he is just asking for trouble. I will gladly help supply it to
him.
> We have, if Usher is believed, a cosmetic operation for no sound medical
> reason - simply because a misguided soul decided he wanted one. Allow
> this to happen and no insurance company will fund SRS.
We have, simply put, a very disturbed individual, known by several names,
including "Billy Boy," who has become obsessed with me. He really needs
help. He now presumes to make a medical diagnosis because he doesn't like
what doctors with real degrees determined.
> I suggest that if the operation took place in the absence of two letters
> of approval in conformity with the Sof C, the surgeon should indeed be
> reported
> for a breech of medical ethics. Now, that assumes Usher is telling the
> truth concerning his therapist. Truth is a stranger to Usher so lies must
> be anticipated. Naturally, one would not file such a complaint based only
> on Usher's word. Maybe a post to the surgeon asking if the surgeon
> follows
> the SofC. Nothing more. If the surgeon states that he does, Usher is a
> liar for the surgeon will have in his files a letter from the therapist
> with
> a diagnosis of GID. That is probable. The legal implications of
> operating
> without such letters is grave indeed. In fact, if the therapist made such
> a statement to Usher, it was no doubt a mere attempt to placate a problem
> client with nice-nice words.
Again, if Billy Boy does, I will strongly suggest that my surgeons deal with
him as harshly as they feel necessary. Of course, Billy Boy, in his
pursuit of the big lie, ignores everything except one concept. I was not
approved by my surgeons, except in medical terms. They were concerned with
my health, and little more. I was approved by a committee of my HMO, made
up of specialists in several fields. I was approved unanimously by the
way.
> At least I can now agree in part with E. Whatever Usher might be, he is
> not
> transsexual, and both he and his therapist agree. So do I!
Except that E has not said that. In fact, E recently referred to me as a
transsexual woman. Now, I do agree with E that Billy Boy is not, but that
is another matter.
> I can now see why Usher has been so nasty over the years. It is called, I
> believe transference. He sees in me a person who met the standards of the
> SofC and has gone on with a new life. He knows that he is a fraud, a
> transvestite not a transsexual, but he needs to be accepted into a group.
> So he pretends and cons his way into an operating room using
> under-qualified types who do not understand - or have not eve read - the
> standards of care. Now he knows he has made a big mistake...
ROTFL! I know many things, but none that Billy Boy claims.
> Maybe Usher will follow the Australian and English examples - an ideal
> case to sue the surgeon for malpractice - again, if Usher's story is
> believed...
I will leave that path to Billy Boy. He has already shown an amazing
fascination with such cases. I expect the day will come. And I will
gladly contact whoever he sues and offer them whatever assistance they can
use.
Perhaps Billy Boy should become a telephone psychic. It would go nicely
with his career as an Internet psychopath.
--
Jennifer Usher
SoC
know its her posting as andreaoboko. Very unstable mentally. add to that
Elaines admission that diane was in great suffering as evidence and there
you have it. Diane has gone kooky. Probobly the lack of Laura Blake has made
her go wierd because she cant exorcise and project the demons onto Blake.
Now we know Jennifer is insecure and thinks that being told that she was
never diagnosed with GID that it will make willow upset is laughable. All
it shows is Jennifer's insecurity and need to be defined by willow the way
she wants. When willow doesn't do this Jennifer jumps up and down like a 5
year old.
We aren't upset you got your SRS without following SoC - we are sad that
some in the medical establishment didn't do their job. I think this case
should be highlighted. I wonder what Andrea James would think of this case.
<g>
Funny how Jennifer and Diane are the last to realise they are the biggest
kooks and trolls of ASSRS.
Pangarune Corner
In my opinion, Stoller was right in stating that SRS should remain
"experimental" and in the hands of researchers and clinics, not private
practise. We do not yet know enough of the causes or the treatment. What
we now do is palliative only. While some, perhaps most, clinicians and
doctors are ethical, others are simply in it for the bucks. From what I
hear of HMOs, the "bucks" are a major incentive.
Let us assume for the moment that Usher is telling the truth, not Usher's
normal practise. We have a therapist, presumably a psychologist, who states
Usher does not have GID. Yet this same therapist apparently issues one of
the necessary approval letters for surgery, a condition precedent for which
is a diagnosis of GID. The surgeon either (1) does not have the necessary
letters and is taking a big legal risk or (2) acts upon a letter from the
psychologist that does not contain the necessary diagnosis, which also
carries a legal risk.
Usher provides one answer in her own posts. They are all part of the same
HMO. Give a read or watch "The Corporation". The sole purpose of a
corporation and an HMO, is to make money. The therapist, the surgeon, the
committee - all paid from the same purse and sharing in the financial pie.
In this instance, again assuming Usher is telling something close to the
truth, the HMO/Corporation gets the percentage of the take from all parties,
even for the hospital stay and aspirin. Crass as I may be, this spells
motivation. And the "medical professionals" also get their portion of the
gravy train. If they say "no" to Usher or others like him, they loose
money.
Contrast that with the university clinics, most of which are now closed.
They could say "yes" or "no" and that made no difference financially. If
anything, saying "no" was easier on the budget. The doctors who approved my
surgery did not gain financially in any way; the therapist who approved
Usher did.
Now, going one more step, if Usher's therapist had declined, what then?
Usher bad mouths the psychologist all over the Internet (by name and
address, I would bet), the number of clients goes down, and eventually the
psychologist either changes her tune or looks to a new area of interest.
Word gets around quickly.
It is foolish to eliminate good olde self-interest, financial self-interest,
from the equation. HMOs are not all goody-goody. Various criminal charges
show that clearly. So, an unknown therapist in SF, a doctor who wants to
get more SRS patients, and an HMO that wants to sell medical services that
are fully paid by insurance. Sure, the insurance company looses, but it
adds the bill to the charges it makes to others, so they are happy too in a
sense. So they pay out for services not really covered. All insurance
companies pay out for fraudulent claims - it is part of doing business. The
cost of insurance reflects this.
In any event, that is speculation and based only upon Usher's bragging and
boasting, for that is certainly what her first post was. "Look and me,. you
all. I am so much better than any of you and especially the evil Willow.
My therapist says I am a woman, 100%. So much a woman that I do not have
GID, I have a female brain". Take another look at the pics of Usher and
draw your own conclusion on that one. Usher is trying so hard to be like E,
or at least as E states E is. Usher would love to go and visit E, to be
invited to the special parties. I think E would rather jump off a bridge
than introduce Usher to any of her friends. E now ways you are a transexual
woman? Hey babe - you are bragging that you are a woman, n'est-ce pas?
Can't you recognize an insult from E when it arrives? Dummy.
Now, I do agree with Blanchard and in this case, the answer is clear.
Usher, with marriage, a family and more already in her life, is an AG as
much as I am. I can accept that; Usher cannot. E knows this as well.
Usher wants a myth, any myth, that gets her out of that factual situation.
So she invents her life on the Internet and attacks others. As his
sycophants pander to his ego, so he panders to that of Andrea James and
others, hoping they will "let her in". What a laugh. They do not want her
any more than we do.
Oh yeah. Remember Sugir and the great romance. Now, he also announced more
recently a new love and "talk of marriage". Not anything more - and Usher
is not one to keep a brag quiet - not for a moment.
Oh yes, Usher is now - well, she was before SRS as well, according to her -
a "woman". Try a simple test. Ask the next ten women you meet if they had
to have any operation to remove a penis. Bets on the result.
Oh yes, Usher. A simple letter to your surgeon asking if he follows the Sof
C regarding SRS is not, in any manner whatsoever, a criminal matter. I do
not even intend to mention your name. A survey, if you will, such has been
done by the Alberta Health Department. My bet? He says he does. You lie
like a rug...
TTFN,
Willow
P.S. I am waiting for your massive criminal charge to arrive. Is it in the
mail??
TTFN,
Willow
"SoC" <s...@soc.com> wrote in message
news:44614...@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
Pangarune Corner
up of specialists in several fields. I was approved unanimously by the
way."
So? The buck stops with the surgeon and if he did not question you as to
the understanding of the operation and satisfy himself as to GID, he is
liable. Very basic black letter law. The surgeon retains the final say,
and if he did not have theletters and diagnosis, he was acting contrary to
medical ethics.
Smile.
Be happy.
W.
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5LednRz1esTCpvzZ...@rcn.net...
Pangarune Corner
Toot! TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!
W.
Jennifer Usher
> Yes. indeed.
>
> In my opinion, Stoller was right in stating that SRS should remain
> "experimental" and in the hands of researchers and clinics, not private
> practise. We do not yet know enough of the causes or the treatment. What
> we now do is palliative only. While some, perhaps most, clinicians and
> doctors are ethical, others are simply in it for the bucks. From what I
> hear of HMOs, the "bucks" are a major incentive.
ROTFL! The HMO I am part of is non-profit. Whoops, Billy Boy flops again,
> Let us assume for the moment that Usher is telling the truth, not Usher's
> normal practise. We have a therapist, presumably a psychologist, who
> states
> Usher does not have GID. Yet this same therapist apparently issues one of
> the necessary approval letters for surgery, a condition precedent for
> which
> is a diagnosis of GID. The surgeon either (1) does not have the necessary
> letters and is taking a big legal risk or (2) acts upon a letter from the
> psychologist that does not contain the necessary diagnosis, which also
> carries a legal risk.
Other than the fact that I have never been caught in lies, but Billy Boy has
been numerous times, I will address this in a bit.
> Usher provides one answer in her own posts. They are all part of the same
> HMO. Give a read or watch "The Corporation". The sole purpose of a
> corporation and an HMO, is to make money. The therapist, the surgeon, the
> committee - all paid from the same purse and sharing in the financial pie.
Unless, as is the case with mine, the HMO is non-profit.
> In this instance, again assuming Usher is telling something close to the
> truth, the HMO/Corporation gets the percentage of the take from all
> parties,
> even for the hospital stay and aspirin. Crass as I may be, this spells
> motivation. And the "medical professionals" also get their portion of the
> gravy train. If they say "no" to Usher or others like him, they loose
> money.
The HMO is the hospital. Billy Boy is grasping, and looking sillier and
sillier. This is going better than I planned.
> Contrast that with the university clinics, most of which are now closed.
> They could say "yes" or "no" and that made no difference financially. If
> anything, saying "no" was easier on the budget. The doctors who approved
> my surgery did not gain financially in any way; the therapist who approved
> Usher did.
Nope. And the doctors who approved Billy Boy were "blackmailed." By Billy
Boy, who went about making threats of suicide and such. He shouldn't have
bragged so much.
> Now, going one more step, if Usher's therapist had declined, what then?
> Usher bad mouths the psychologist all over the Internet (by name and
> address, I would bet), the number of clients goes down, and eventually the
> psychologist either changes her tune or looks to a new area of interest.
> Word gets around quickly.
Given that my current therapist (one of my two letters) is part of the HMO,
sees patients assigned to her by the HMO, and does not see patients that
are not part of the HMO, that would be silly.
> It is foolish to eliminate good olde self-interest, financial
> self-interest,
> from the equation. HMOs are not all goody-goody. Various criminal
> charges
> show that clearly. So, an unknown therapist in SF, a doctor who wants to
> get more SRS patients, and an HMO that wants to sell medical services that
> are fully paid by insurance. Sure, the insurance company looses, but it
> adds the bill to the charges it makes to others, so they are happy too in
> a
> sense. So they pay out for services not really covered. All insurance
> companies pay out for fraudulent claims - it is part of doing business.
> The cost of insurance reflects this.
Laughable speculation. The air will be cleared shortly.
> In any event, that is speculation and based only upon Usher's bragging and
> boasting, for that is certainly what her first post was. "Look and me,.
> you
> all. I am so much better than any of you and especially the evil Willow.
> My therapist says I am a woman, 100%. So much a woman that I do not have
> GID, I have a female brain". Take another look at the pics of Usher and
> draw your own conclusion on that one. Usher is trying so hard to be like
> E,
> or at least as E states E is. Usher would love to go and visit E, to be
> invited to the special parties. I think E would rather jump off a bridge
> than introduce Usher to any of her friends. E now ways you are a
> transexual
> woman? Hey babe - you are bragging that you are a woman, n'est-ce pas?
> Can't you recognize an insult from E when it arrives? Dummy.
>
As I said, laughable speculation. The ravings of a silly imagination.
> Now, I do agree with Blanchard and in this case, the answer is clear.
> Usher, with marriage, a family and more already in her life, is an AG as
> much as I am. I can accept that; Usher cannot. E knows this as well.
> Usher wants a myth, any myth, that gets her out of that factual situation.
> So she invents her life on the Internet and attacks others. As his
> sycophants pander to his ego, so he panders to that of Andrea James and
> others, hoping they will "let her in". What a laugh. They do not want
> her any more than we do.
Blanchard is a fraud. He uses pseudo-science to attack transsexuals, who he
holds in contempt. Billy Boy is so desperate for acceptance that he
ignores what is in front of him.
> Oh yeah. Remember Sugir and the great romance. Now, he also announced
> more
> recently a new love and "talk of marriage". Not anything more - and Usher
> is not one to keep a brag quiet - not for a moment.
I am also not stupid enough to reveal certain things that Billy Boy might
use.
> Oh yes, Usher is now - well, she was before SRS as well, according to her
> -
> a "woman". Try a simple test. Ask the next ten women you meet if they
> had
> to have any operation to remove a penis. Bets on the result.
>
> Oh yes, Usher. A simple letter to your surgeon asking if he follows the
> Sof
> C regarding SRS is not, in any manner whatsoever, a criminal matter. I do
> not even intend to mention your name. A survey, if you will, such has
> been
> done by the Alberta Health Department. My bet? He says he does. You lie
> like a rug...
Go ahead. You will prove nothing. As I said, I was approved by a
committee. They passed me on to him. I suggest you try to find out who is
on the committee.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> "I was approved by a committee of my HMO, made
> up of specialists in several fields. I was approved unanimously by the
> way."
>
> So? The buck stops with the surgeon and if he did not question you as to
> the understanding of the operation and satisfy himself as to GID, he is
> liable. Very basic black letter law. The surgeon retains the final say,
> and if he did not have theletters and diagnosis, he was acting contrary to
> medical ethics.
No. As long as a reasonable and thought out procedure is followed, it is
pretty much up to the providers how they work things out. The SOC has not
value beyond providing one set of guidelines that may or may not be used.
They certainly do not carry the weight of law.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Goodness!!! I forgot!!!
>
> Toot! TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!
ROTFL! I think Billy Boy is going off the deep end.
--
Jennifer Usher
Pangarune Corner
Toot!! TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!
W.
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eYGdnS_KpYi2-PzZ...@rcn.net...
Pangarune Corner
Sounds right. You know - the design of a camel and such...
W.
"Jennifer Usher" <jenni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eYGdnS_KpYi2-PzZ...@rcn.net...
Jennifer Usher
> "Non-profit". Ever look at the administrative salaries?
Desperation is so unbecoming.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> On Mon, 08 May 2006 20:17:14 -0700, Jennifer Usher <jenni...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I found out something interesting today while visiting my therapist.
>
> That you've been seeking a quack?
Oh no! Lyle's back!
--
Jennifer Usher