Insurance Exclusions Against Transgender Persons Should Be Eliminated

I wonder if pimple dysphoria works both ways " people believe they were born to have pimples but, sadly, do not and that people believe they were born to not to have pimples but sadly do? More seriously, the analogy denigrates those of us who are transgender. Con ignores the William"s Institute study which found that .3% of the U.S. population self-identify as trans. He ignores historical precedent. Regarding the DSM, transsexuals have been covered since the DSM-III. This is not a new condition which is added due to any political pressure. Con intimates politics were involved but provides no proof. Con suggests that everything gets in the DSM but I sure do not see any reference to pimple dysphoria. If you have even read through the table of contents, it is a well thought out and organized document. Con"s says being transgender is a "minor variant in human thought and behavior." Note how Con does not go back to saying he would be okay with having his gender flipped or that this would be the normal human response. Con likewise ignores that this dysphoria is occurring to children at their most vulnerable and ignores the statistics provided re suicide, discrimination, etc. The notion that gender identity is a "minor variant in human thought" is not true. Cultural expectations are shaped by gender but, wishing you would wake up female every night as a kid, is no small thing. Con shows his unfamiliarity with the issue at best or, worse, an inability to empathize with kids in a confusing and terrible situation. If a child does not receive support for being transgender or, worse, gets slapped down when he or she works does express her true identity, then every action has to be scrutinized before being expressed. Even more damaging, such a person can get quite good at fictionalizing herself and, at times, overcompensates. If you read Kristen Beck"s book, Warrior Princess, you will learn of a Navy Seal who did everything "he" could to fit in but the dysphoria never went away. Finally, after a distinguished career, Kristen is at peace. This is the type of internal struggle which has led 41% of us to attempt suicide. Imagine looking at a girl when you are a teenager and thinking, "I want her almost as much as I want to be her." Without support, how is a teen to process these feelings. Many don"t. Con finally raises the issue of cost of coverage. This is a bit late in the debate and again Con gives no support for his position. The Williams Institute at UCLA studied 34 employers who provided transition related coverage in their insurance plans. The study concluded, "overall, we find that transition-related health care benefits have zero or very low costs, have low utilization by employees, and yet can provide benefits for employers and employees alike." The utilization rate for employers with 10,000-50,000 employees was .005%. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... Factor against these small costs the increased productivity of happier people, the reduced pain from not having suicidal ideations and the productivity of the people who do commit suicide, and any humane cost/benefit analysis will mandate coverage. Con presents a slippery slope argument that if we cover trans benefits we have to cover pimple dysphoria. This is a strange argument without any support. It took over thirty years for Medicare to change its own position on coverage " 1981 to this year. Medicare looked at the most recent research from over 100 studies. If these non-existent conditions described by Con were analogous, e.g. Pimple Dysphoria (I can"t believe we are really arguing if this is analogous), then it will take many years and organized efforts to get movement on those issues. Con says we should use our own money ignoring that this is an impoverished group which either (i) is already paying for insurance which sucks down money we could use for surgery or (ii) takes the penalty for not having coverage. Con says no one will forgo insurance but I know many in my community who don"t, particularly the young. The penalty is not greater than the premium they would have to pay and they want the premium for their trans health issues. I do not understand this sentence of Con: "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." If explained, I will be happy to respond. Con talks about line drawing but the lines he draws are without basis. He compares non-existent dysphoric conditions to Gender Dysphoria. Honestly, I do not know why this argument is being made. Con argues that "fixed gender identity does not make sense." Con confuses sex and gender as I defined the terms in the opening. You can change your sex to be the same as or even different from your gender identity. So what? Please remember Con accepted my definition of gender identity as "an individual's internal sense of being male, female, or something else." Con indicates the sex can be externally changed which has nothing to do with changing Gender Identity. Con raises another entirely new argument. He claims, "Men and Women Can Do Whatever We Want, No Need to Conform." We can pretend we have no gender identity but most do. Those who do not have a gender identity or believe their gender identity is fluid will probably be among the 99.995% of insured people who would not use this coverage. The problem is that without funds we cannot "do whatever we want" or, to be accurate, need. For those who go through the WPATH standards of care, they are doing exactly what they want to do. They are gender non-conforming; therefore I am mystified as to how Con can claim being trans and wanting your body to conform with your internal Gender Identity is an act of conformity to society. We are conforming to our own internal sense of self. When I grew up in an Oklahoma town of 4,000, nothing whatsoever was pushing me to "conform" to be a girl. I, however, always knew my gender identity. Trust me on this one. Con makes more assertions , e.g. that gender dysphoria was pushed for political reasons. Although we are more vocal now, we have not been a potent political force as evidenced by the exclusions which existed even in Medicare as far back as 1981. Con needs to supply some proof . In Con"s "one last thing" argument, Con bets my statement about gender being pushed on kids flow from my own childhood experience. True, that but then Con then makes a wild unproven leap: He thinks my belief when I was 3-4 years old that I was meant to be a girl flows from being forced to act as a boy. Con then speculates that if we had no gender norms, transsexuality might disappear or at least greatly shrink. Con has zilch for authority on this point and would deny coverage on the grounds that society as a whole needs to do something which it shows no sign of doing, i.e. eliminate gender itself. In short, without providing any qualifications for himself, or citing any other person, Con rejects the American Pediatric Association, APA, AMA and WPATH. His social experiment of eliminating gender expectations, (kind of a counterplan) while nice, does not help those of us who have had our gender identity set, for whatever reason, in a manner inconsistent with our sex. The counterplan would only have prospective impact and, if effective, would further reduce the cost of providing coverage. All Con does with this argument is propose a different mechanism for the cause of gender dysphoria. This is not an argument against coverage. Con argues that transsexuals should not conform with their gender identities. We have varied ways of expressing but Con does not explain why he expects us to deny our identities after transition as we express.