Sorry...I haven't been posting lately. I have a number of blog entries I've written, just haven't posted. I plan to throw them up here soon...as soon as I find a little time. (They will be retroactively posted, so they will have dates prior to this one.) In the meantime, though, I ran across an IRS/SRS article this morning:
I've mentioned this before, but it looks like Rhiannon is finally suing the IRS over their disallowing SRS costs to be deducted from her taxes (also here). I think she has a strong case, but the problem is, too many people have a hangup over transgender stuff. The poll shows 63% of people don't think it should be allowed as a tax deduction, 29% do, 8% don't know. Of course, I have a vested interest in the topic since I claimed my SRS costs as a tax deduction last year.
I've met Rhiannon at least twice now. Perhaps one of the issues she is dealing with is what I will term Societal Passability Discrimination. It basically comes down to the theory that the prettier and more passable you are, the better society will treat you. Rhiannon is up there in age, and I'll admit, she isn't a supermodel, but she does OK.
Some in society will say, when they see a pretty transsexual, that it was a good move for them. When the same person sees someone who doesn't pass very well, they may not have the same opinions. To me though, both can have the same reasons, desires, and pain associated with GID. There is no reason to deny one person the same opportunities of another simply based on looks.
If the IRS decides to decline my SRS costs as a tax deduction, I plan to defend my actions as well. Sure, I could pay the bill...but it's not the money...it's the philosophy of the policy.