Insurance Exclusions Against Transgender Persons Should Be Eliminated

==DSM and Politics== Literally every minor variation in human thought and behavior is based on physical events in the brain. Yet often this is all they point to as justification for including something in the DSM. This shows that categorizations are primarily political-based, or based on what scientists are able to get funding for in order to examine. If Gender Identity Disorder is to be considered a valid diagnosis so should Skin Color Dysphoria and so should basically any type of Body Dysphoria since it's bound to have some physical correlation in the brain because this is a material universe and nothing of the mind or how we feel happens without something physical in the brain. This would overtax the insurance companies, so a better solution is to just regard all this as someone wanting their body to look different, give them the right to go through with it if they wish, but make them pay with their own money just the same as if you were getting a tattoo. As to surgery being effective in treating dysphoria I'm sure it would also be extremely effective in treating a person's "dysphoria" or feeling bad about the way it is in relation to other aspects of bodily appearance. ==Forgoing Insurance== Since Obamacare's mandate you can't forgo insurance so this point is moot. ==Coverage for Pimples== If the insurance companies want to cover pimples, tummytucks, or even sex changes that should be up to them. There are things necessary in order to stay alive and have one's body be in good physical condition and there are things a person may want for their body. A distinction has to be made. A line has to be drawn, or else the day will come every manner of plastic surgery is required to be covered by insurance and is considered its own disorder. ==Fixed Gender Identity doesn't even make sense== I could easily change any of my identities just by doing it. I could decide from now on to introduce myself as a black man, I could decide from now on to introduce myself as a hyena. More realistically I could change my identity and introduce myself as an expert on fashion which could either be counterproductive if I don't actually have the knowledge and I get called out on it or could be justified if I had actually learned about it. I could introduce myself as a "proud resident of such and such a city" and tomorrow I could change the identity to "I hate living in such and such a city". Likewise I could tomorrow just decide to start identifying as "female". Given that I have a male body and have no plans to surgically alter myself it wouldn't make any sense, but I could do it. ==Men and Women Can Do What ever We Want, No Need to Conform== A person can identify as "female" without having to wear dresses, lipstick, or to generally conform to gender expectations. What about a woman with a butch haircut, who wears clothes from the men's aisle, and has generally stereotypically masculine interests BUT who considers herself "female". Are you going to go to her and say that she is wrong, that because of her behavior she must really be a man deep down and that she should get treatment for "gender dysphoria". That's the problem with the whole idea of gender identity it promotes gender essentialism and rigid gender roles. Why not just stay in the body you have but behave the way that you want? If people were allowed to do as they want with their bodies then the whole diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" probably would've never came to be, because it would've been politically unnecessary. It was pushed as a 'valid' diagnosis so people would even be allowed to get the surgery. I support the right of people to have their bodies molded as they please. It is your body and it should belong to you, not to the state. But it doesn't mean you have a disorder, you have a preference for how you want your body to look. That they find brain correlations means nothing because every preference people have has brain correlations or they wouldn't have the preference. ==One last thing== Pro brings up that transsexuals are pushed into conforming to gender norms as children. I bet this reflects her experience and the experience of other transsexuals. And I bet this has to do with wanting to transition. If you naturally tend to have behavioral and personality traits of the opposite sex and you are taught that those are only appropriate for the opposite sex then it makes sense you might come to think you should be the opposite sex. Perhaps in an environment with no gender norms, no expectations based upon gender we would see transsexuality disappear or at least greatly shrink. It's interesting that you never hear about transsexuals who act like their birth gender but just wanted to have the body of the opposite sex so they could be a non-conforming member of the opposite sex. If transsexuality were really independent of wanting to transition just to be seen as conforming to gender norms then you'd expect there to be plenty of examples of gender nonconforming (after the transition) transsexuals. And I mean to the point where they'd be considered conformist if they had stayed in their original sex. It is quite possible, if not likely that what gets set by age 4 is most of our personality traits and only because society largely preaches gender norms to children does this then turn into a "gender identity".