But transphobes aren’t against plastic surgery; they’re against transgender people. They’re okay with it in the sense that they want everyone conforming to their assigned gender. If they actually supported the men who need this kind of surgery they’d be pushing to have it covered by Medicare/Medicaid.
I don’t need to explain why this is an awful thing to say, do I?
A cis man getting breast reduction surgy is a form of gender affirming care. Tranphobes won’t acknowledge that fact because cis people get surgeries and it’s normal. When trans people get surgeries, it should be made illegal.
But the thing is, the transphobes never come right out and say they’re doing it because they hate trans people. It’s always that they have “reasonable concerns” about “safety” and “quality of life” and whatever else. It is absolutely worth pointing out that these “concerns” evaporate when we are talking about cis people, not because I think it will change their mind (it won’t, these people know they are hypocrites and don’t care), but for the sake of any onlookers who might take them at face value.
But they’re saying those things in relation to 1) children and 2) being paid for by federal health insurance.
I agree that children should have limited access to non-emergency surgical procedures and other permanent body alterations. Where we disagree is access to puberty blockers, but this article isn’t about that. If the article were about cis children getting gynecomastia corrections, that would be one thing, but cis kids face similar restrictions to trans ones in that regard.
Gynecomastia corrections aren’t covered by federal or most private insurance policies outside of direct medical concerns. Dysmorphia/dysphoria (I can’t decide which word is correct here) doesn’t cause physical pain or impair physical function, so it’s considered a cosmetic procedure. If it’s gender-affirming you have to pay for it yourself.
So the difference is actually that trans people have our dysphoria respected and treated on the taxpayer’s dime while cis men do not. (Personally, I would have everyone’s health covered by a socialized healthcare system, but I’m not King of the Universe.)
What they want is for gender-affirming treatments for trans people to be seen as cosmetic the way they are for cis people, which unfortunately is completely fair rather than hypocritical.
I’m not aware of any attempts to make it illegal for trans adults to seek private care with their own money, and I feel like the article would have mentioned that.
I think a better response is to suggest that federal insurance be expanded to cover gender-affirming care for everyone regardless of AGAB.
Your link says exactly what I’ve been saying, that they’re not trying to make gender-affirming care for adults illegal; they’re trying to make it not covered by Medicaid, which is the current reality for the men in the original article who had to pay out-of-pocket for their very necessary gender-confirming surgeries.
I’m not saying that isn’t evil or that it doesn’t functionally prevent trans people in the US from receiving care. I’m not saying transphobes aren’t hypocrites in general. And I also understand that they will move the goal posts at the earliest opportunity to make things even worse. But cis men paying for their own gynecomastia treatments doesn’t really have anything to do with it. There’s no reason to campaign for them to not receive care via government funds because it’s already the case that they can’t.
If McKenzie Beard or anyone in her article were transphobes then the charge of hypocrisy would make sense, but as it stands I just see people getting mad about men going into medical debt to treat their own dysphoria. Like cis men are a monolith who all hate trans people and these aren’t likely to be the exact men who can most understand what some trans people are go through.
Regarding them coming out and saying they hate trans people:
“The truth is there’s only male and female, and there is no way that either can transition to the other,” said Calloway.
“This is what is best: men, women, having a family, having babies, procreating,” said Calloway. “Those aspects of our society are under attack through many different avenues. This is just one of those avenues – promote confusion. Cause kids to be confused. They become unstable. They become adults, and before you know it, our society is totally disrupted.”
I feel like they’ve been mask-off for a long time now. They don’t want any kind of transitioning to be happening, full stop.
But transphobes aren’t against plastic surgery; they’re against transgender people. They’re okay with it in the sense that they want everyone conforming to their assigned gender. If they actually supported the men who need this kind of surgery they’d be pushing to have it covered by Medicare/Medicaid.
I don’t need to explain why this is an awful thing to say, do I?
That doesn’t logically follow. That’s a separate argument entirely.
A cis man getting breast reduction surgy is a form of gender affirming care. Tranphobes won’t acknowledge that fact because cis people get surgeries and it’s normal. When trans people get surgeries, it should be made illegal.
The author isn’t a transphobe though*, so her framing of cis men getting “popular plastic surgery” isn’t hypocritical.
* To my knowledge. I browsed her previous work and nothing sus jumped out.
But the thing is, the transphobes never come right out and say they’re doing it because they hate trans people. It’s always that they have “reasonable concerns” about “safety” and “quality of life” and whatever else. It is absolutely worth pointing out that these “concerns” evaporate when we are talking about cis people, not because I think it will change their mind (it won’t, these people know they are hypocrites and don’t care), but for the sake of any onlookers who might take them at face value.
But they’re saying those things in relation to 1) children and 2) being paid for by federal health insurance.
I agree that children should have limited access to non-emergency surgical procedures and other permanent body alterations. Where we disagree is access to puberty blockers, but this article isn’t about that. If the article were about cis children getting gynecomastia corrections, that would be one thing, but cis kids face similar restrictions to trans ones in that regard.
Gynecomastia corrections aren’t covered by federal or most private insurance policies outside of direct medical concerns. Dysmorphia/dysphoria (I can’t decide which word is correct here) doesn’t cause physical pain or impair physical function, so it’s considered a cosmetic procedure. If it’s gender-affirming you have to pay for it yourself.
So the difference is actually that trans people have our dysphoria respected and treated on the taxpayer’s dime while cis men do not. (Personally, I would have everyone’s health covered by a socialized healthcare system, but I’m not King of the Universe.)
What they want is for gender-affirming treatments for trans people to be seen as cosmetic the way they are for cis people, which unfortunately is completely fair rather than hypocritical.
I’m not aware of any attempts to make it illegal for trans adults to seek private care with their own money, and I feel like the article would have mentioned that.
I think a better response is to suggest that federal insurance be expanded to cover gender-affirming care for everyone regardless of AGAB.
See, this is what I’m talking about. You are taking their arguments on good faith when they have repeatedly shown anything but. Surgeries for kids have just been their wedge; they really want to ban it all for everyone. https://abcnews.go.com/US/states-move-restrict-transgender-adult-care-amid-gender/story?id=118733720
Your link says exactly what I’ve been saying, that they’re not trying to make gender-affirming care for adults illegal; they’re trying to make it not covered by Medicaid, which is the current reality for the men in the original article who had to pay out-of-pocket for their very necessary gender-confirming surgeries.
I’m not saying that isn’t evil or that it doesn’t functionally prevent trans people in the US from receiving care. I’m not saying transphobes aren’t hypocrites in general. And I also understand that they will move the goal posts at the earliest opportunity to make things even worse. But cis men paying for their own gynecomastia treatments doesn’t really have anything to do with it. There’s no reason to campaign for them to not receive care via government funds because it’s already the case that they can’t.
If McKenzie Beard or anyone in her article were transphobes then the charge of hypocrisy would make sense, but as it stands I just see people getting mad about men going into medical debt to treat their own dysphoria. Like cis men are a monolith who all hate trans people and these aren’t likely to be the exact men who can most understand what some trans people are go through.
Regarding them coming out and saying they hate trans people:
I feel like they’ve been mask-off for a long time now. They don’t want any kind of transitioning to be happening, full stop.