Transgender People and Military Service

[Secular Sanity]

We're not talking about non-active duty. We're talking about active duty transgender members, for which the surgery was approved back in 2016 by the Pentagon based on a doctor's recommendation.

That's what I said.

I’m sorry, MR, but I agree with Trent Franks.

"It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that."

Transitioning is risky and puts constraints on deployment and readiness. The operational needs of the military should be our first priority.

[Magical Realist]

We're not talking about non-active duty. We're talking about active duty transgender members, for which the surgery was approved back in 2016 by the Pentagon based on a doctor's recommendation.

That's what I said.

I’m sorry, MR, but I agree with Trent Franks.

"It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that."

Transitioning is risky and puts constraints on deployment and readiness. The operational needs of the military should be our first priority.

This Trent Franks? lol!

https://thinkprogress.org/rep-trent-fran...2e1e5c05f/

Transitioning is risky and puts constraints on deployment and readiness. The operational needs of the military should be our first priority.

Transitioning is neither risky nor more constraining than say having a baby. The military should take care of the needs of their people. It's a 4 year contract of unconditional loyalty and obedience . It's the least they can do.

[Secular Sanity]

This Trent Franks? lol!

https://thinkprogress.org/rep-trent-fran...2e1e5c05f/

Yikes!

Well, I never said I agreed with everything he says.  Just that one thing.

Transitioning is neither risky nor more constraining than say having a baby. The military should take care of the needs of their people. It's a 4 year contract of unconditional loyalty and obedience . It's the least they can do.

I don’t know, MR.  Maybe I’d feel differently if the private sector lead the the way. Maybe if the state health insurance rules changed.

[Secular Sanity]

I didn’t know this but it looks like it may stem from a lawsuit that was filed by five states and three religiously affiliated health care providers against the United States Department of Health and Human Services.  They want a religious exemption from the new discrimination law.

Section 1557: Federal Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Against HHS Sex Discrimination Rules

In August, five states and three religiously affiliated health care entities filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenging the Final Rule and the interpretation by HHS of the anti-discrimination provisions built into Section 1557. The Plaintiffs argued that the broad interpretation of sex discrimination under the Final Rule would violate their religious freedom, impact their medical judgment and require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans beginning January 1, 2017. HHS argued that the Final Rule does not mandate that providers cover or perform specific procedures but that they provide health services and insurance in a non-discriminatory manner.

The court sided with the Plaintiffs, stating it believes HHS exceeded its authority in utilizing such a broad definition of sex discrimination in the Final Rule. The court concluded that “sex,” as defined when Congress passed Title IX (on which the Section 1557 sex discrimination prohibition rests), meant one’s “biological gender” at birth and that if Congress intended to broaden that when it enacted Section 1557 later, it would have done so. The court also concluded that the Final Rule placed substantial pressure on the religious plaintiffs to abstain from their religious exercise. On December 31, 2016, the court issued a nationwide injunction that prevents HHS from enforcement of the Final Rule that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Section 1557 includes “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.”

[Magical Realist]

I didn’t know this but it looks like it may stem from a lawsuit that was filed by five states and three religiously affiliated health care providers against the United States Department of Health and Human Services.  They want a religious exemption from the new discrimination law.

Section 1557: Federal Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Against HHS Sex Discrimination Rules

In August, five states and three religiously affiliated health care entities filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenging the Final Rule and the interpretation by HHS of the anti-discrimination provisions built into Section 1557. The Plaintiffs argued that the broad interpretation of sex discrimination under the Final Rule would violate their religious freedom, impact their medical judgment and require burdensome changes to their health insurance plans beginning January 1, 2017. HHS argued that the Final Rule does not mandate that providers cover or perform specific procedures but that they provide health services and insurance in a non-discriminatory manner.

The court sided with the Plaintiffs, stating it believes HHS exceeded its authority in utilizing such a broad definition of sex discrimination in the Final Rule. The court concluded that “sex,” as defined when Congress passed Title IX (on which the Section 1557 sex discrimination prohibition rests), meant one’s “biological gender” at birth and that if Congress intended to broaden that when it enacted Section 1557 later, it would have done so. The court also concluded that the Final Rule placed substantial pressure on the religious plaintiffs to abstain from their religious exercise. On December 31, 2016, the court issued a nationwide injunction that prevents HHS from enforcement of the Final Rule that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Section 1557 includes “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy.”

yeah..we all know where the religious kooks stand on LGBT rights..

[Zinjanthropos]

Sounds like the religious wants the gov't to do their discriminating for them. Is Kentucky one of the 5 ?

[Secular Sanity]

But here’s the thing.  I don’t think that many Americans paid attention to the nondiscrimination section 1557 in the Affordable Care Act.  I don’t think that they even noticed the lawsuit brought forth by the five states and three religiously affiliated health care providers.  Trump has brought it to the front by banning all transgenders from the military.  Most Americans feel that it’s wrong to completely ban them from the military, but most of them aren’t so sure when it comes to funding sex-reassignment surgeries.

I think that the key words here are going to be 'subsidy' and 'medically necessary'.  The problem may not be a religious issue, but it might give them the chance to obtain a religious exemption.

When it comes to altering our appearances, I think that most of us think that restoring appearances to what they originally were may be medically necessary.  A mastectomy, for example, but when it comes to reconstructive surgery, even repairing orofacial clefts are considered cosmetic surgery.  Patience are tasked with proving that the procedure is not actually cosmetic but medically necessary.

The health care industry is continually expanding the definition of our medical needs.  Most of us realize that we are subsidizing health care costs in the private sector to some extent by paying higher prices, but when it’s a clear cut subsidy, such as it is with Tricare, Medicaid, or Medicare, more people are going to resist something that they may see as a want rather than a need.

Another dilemma is demonstrating that the surgery itself is going to improve the quality of life for these individuals.  When it comes to plastic surgery, a good candidate is a person who wants to improve one small aspect of their appearance to increase their self-esteem.  A person who has unrealistic expectations on how their new appearance may improve their social life will experience a severe let down.  That’s the sort of thing that we’re seeing in most of these cases.  They’re still struggling with the same social and emotional problems they had before the procedure.

[Magical Realist]

When it comes to altering our appearances, I think that most of us think that restoring appearances to what they originally were may be medically necessary. A mastectomy, for example, but when it comes to reconstructive surgery, even repairing orofacial clefts are considered cosmetic surgery. Patience are tasked with proving that the procedure is not actually cosmetic but medically necessary.

Our corporate insurance overlords will wiggle out of paying one more dollar for coverage of any medical procedure. They even deny lasik eye surgery on the grounds it is cosmetic. Typical bullshit excuses to screw over their customers down to the last penny..

Meanwhile, on the OTHER side of the sanity divide:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/us/trans-m...index.html