Insurance Exclusions Against Transgender Persons Should Be Eliminated

Con accepts my definitions and does not directly dispute the science behind the medical condition of Gender Dysphoria. I quoted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-V put out by the American Psychological Association. I referenced the WPATH standards of care approved by the AMA. I provide historical examples and was prepared to provide more. Con does not dispute the miserable impacts of GD if left untreated. He finds anecdotal evidence of some people who have regretted transition. This is a fraction of the total who transition and Con does not even claim that the number of those who regret transition outweighs those who benefit. For example, a 2002 paper in the International Journal of Transgenderism citing a 1992 study, observed that "the incidence of postoperative regret is generally extremely low...less than 1% in female-to-males and 1"1.5% in male-to-females." Even if a contrary study is presented, we need to know the cause of the regret. It may be that society treats trans people so shabbily, e.g. by denying insurance exclusions, that this fosters regret. They may regret the $20k-$80k in debt they had to take to get the work done. In any event, certainly WPATH, AMA and the APA based on the latest data agree that treatment, including surgery, is effective in treating dysphoria. The web site provided by Con on this issue is a hack advocacy rag. I give the leading medical and physiological organizations along with the entity which puts more study into this issue than any other. Con gives you a web site which is obviously slanted and gives no mention to the credentials of those who put together these anecdotes. The author does not even know the proper terminology, calling us "transgenders." There are few source materials to back up the claims. Anonymous posts pepper the site. In fact, the person providing these "facts" admits his own extreme bias, saying he has regret for his operation. Maybe he had an operation or maybe he didn"t. As another example, one study (i) is dated, (ii) contravenes current medical views as evidenced by the recent scientific data submitted to Medicare and (iii) the authors admit, their "researchers lost track of more than half of the participants." The bias of the researcher was illustrated by his excuse for losing his research subjects: "Dr Hyde said the high drop out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals." No evidence just an excuse with a baseless assumption that surgeries cause suicide. Not very credible, certainly not when compared to the organizations who with the most recent evidence are lining up to support the coverage of transition related care. Even if a small minority regret the transition, that is a challenge to counselors to do a better job in their diagnosis, not to ban treatment for all. I once had heart surgery due to a congenital defect. If I had stroked out on the table, I would have regretted the surgery. This does not prove that heart surgery is not indicated or, more importantly, should not have been covered by my insurance. Con asks, "How is it any different if a person felt like they were supposed to be a different skin color?" Allow me to answer that question, although the answer should be obvious by now. There is no medical diagnosis of Skin Color Dysphoria ("SKD"). There is no etiology as to how Skin Color Dysphoria might come to exist. I provided a study from UCLA"s William Institute from 2011 showing that .3% of the U.S. population self identifies as trans. This is just the number of those who are out to themselves and willing to identify themselves as trans in a survey. Even using this most conservative number, we are talking about roughly a million Americans. The differences between GD and SCD are: 1. GD exists whereas SCD does not. 2.GD is a medically recognized condition whereas SCD is not. 3.People with GD suffer increased suicide attempts, violence, discrimination of all kinds and are, generally speaking, impoverished, no such data exists for SCD. Racism causes such things, although not the suicide rates but not the dysphoria between a person"s racial self identity and actual race. 4.Considerable research has been conducted on GD whereas none, that Con cites, has been conducted on SCD. In 1981, when Medicare first provided a National Coverage Determination banning surgery coverage, only nine studies were presented in that hearing. This year, over a hundred studies were considered - the latest science - and Medicare determined that the 1981 National Coverage Determination banning surgical coverage should be reversed. No such research exists for SCD because SCD does not exist . Con"s other examples " body weight, pimples, lack of muscles " (i) trivializes the suffering of transgender persons and (ii) fails to provide the weight of authority to back up that any of these conditions come with an adverse dysphoric impact. Do people really believe in their deepest recesses that they were meant to have pimples. I quoted the American Pediatrics Association which shows how gender identity forms from ages 1-4. Does Con provide any similar causation mechanism for pimple dysphoria? Con fails to consider that treatment for pimples is covered by most insurance policies. I know this is getting silly but that is Con's analogy taken to its absurd conclusion. I cited several adverse impacts to society in addition to those of the person suffering with GD. Just one example is that Transgender people may forgo insurance at all if they do not get their primary need (and it is THE primary need) met with insurance. Other societal impacts were ignored by Con. There is a basic point of fairness raised by Con. Why should he have to pay for my gender confirmation surgery? Why should I have to pay for a person who needs counseling for a variety of conditions in the DSM-V? This argument proves too much and ignores the dire need I proved in the opening post. Con does not argue that on balance providing coverage would increase premiums. Had he made such an argument, there is plenty of counter evidence. His argument seems to be "it"s just not fair" that he has to pay for correction of a recognized condition whereas I don"t pay for to help insurance to pay for a teenager to get rid of pimples (even though I really do). As Con says plenty of people with GD do live without treatment. This manifests in the impacts on my community which I described and which Con does not bother to dispute. His own advocacy web page source accepts the 41% suicide figure. At the end of his argument, Con finally makes a half hearted attempt to deny the existence of transgenderism or GD. He says that the brain has a condition called neuroplasticity. He cites to examples dealing with depression. What he doesn"t do, except for the non-credible site to anecdotal evidence of surgery regret, is provide information or studies re transgenderism. The American Pediatrics Association says Gender Identity is fixed at age four but this doesn"t mean that gender expression cannot change as children experiment. Con confuses gender identity with malleable gender expressions. Con"s confident statement that if he were suddenly morphed into a woman, he would "just get used to it" is easy to say when he has not experienced this mental state. Would Con embrace his new gender identity? I doubt most non-TG men or women would be so sanguine. Would con "just get used to it" by conforming to female roles, wearing dresses, conforming to societal expectations? People with GD are pushed in childhood to conform to the roles of their biological sex. Even if Con were able to magically become a female, this is not analogous to a person who has felt dysphoric since the age of 3 or 4. The "just get used to it" approach has led to many harms. Con's "just get used to it" position should be rejected.