As a trans person, I still get really uneasy when I hear people comparing cis cosmetic treatment to gender-affirming care for trans folks. It always seems trivializing to the struggles trans people face and the deep need trans people often have for these treatments.
The problem with equating cis cosmetic treatments to trans gender-affirming care is that you’re then implicitly arguing that trans treatments are cosmetic. Yet trans rights activists have had to fight for decades to stop insurance companies from considering trans care as “cosmetic” and to recognize it for the life-saving reconstructive treatments that they are. Comparing GAC to cis cosmetic treatments directly hurts trans people’s ability to access medicine.
Comparing SRS to a cis gal getting breast augmentation is implicitly playing into the hands of bigots that have always labeled trans care as cosmetic.
Trans rights advocates have had to argue for decades that trans medical care isn’t like a cis person getting a boob or nose job. They’ve had to argue that trans care is more like the kind of serious reconstructive medicine you get after a severe car crash. If trans care is no different from a cis person getting a nose job, then there’s no reason for trans care to be covered by insurance.
Unless the cisgender “gender affirming care” you’re citing is commonly paid for by insurance, you are directly harming trans interests whenever you make this kind of comparison.
I get what you are saying. Certainly many do treat it as cosmetic. And insurance companies will do anything they can get away with to not pay for care, no matter who you are.
My counterpoint is that these people that are getting elective cosmetic treatments and surgeries to affirm their gender expression see that as important for themselves. But there is no way to justify that importance and not see that it is no where near as important to them as actual gender affirming care is to a trans person. To minimize or reject the later while choosing to seek the former is outrageous. That is the kind of hypocrisy that I’m saying can shine a light on the actual importance of trans healthcare.
As a trans person, I still get really uneasy when I hear people comparing cis cosmetic treatment to gender-affirming care for trans folks. It always seems trivializing to the struggles trans people face and the deep need trans people often have for these treatments.
The problem with equating cis cosmetic treatments to trans gender-affirming care is that you’re then implicitly arguing that trans treatments are cosmetic. Yet trans rights activists have had to fight for decades to stop insurance companies from considering trans care as “cosmetic” and to recognize it for the life-saving reconstructive treatments that they are. Comparing GAC to cis cosmetic treatments directly hurts trans people’s ability to access medicine.
Comparing SRS to a cis gal getting breast augmentation is implicitly playing into the hands of bigots that have always labeled trans care as cosmetic.
Trans rights advocates have had to argue for decades that trans medical care isn’t like a cis person getting a boob or nose job. They’ve had to argue that trans care is more like the kind of serious reconstructive medicine you get after a severe car crash. If trans care is no different from a cis person getting a nose job, then there’s no reason for trans care to be covered by insurance.
Unless the cisgender “gender affirming care” you’re citing is commonly paid for by insurance, you are directly harming trans interests whenever you make this kind of comparison.
I get what you are saying. Certainly many do treat it as cosmetic. And insurance companies will do anything they can get away with to not pay for care, no matter who you are.
My counterpoint is that these people that are getting elective cosmetic treatments and surgeries to affirm their gender expression see that as important for themselves. But there is no way to justify that importance and not see that it is no where near as important to them as actual gender affirming care is to a trans person. To minimize or reject the later while choosing to seek the former is outrageous. That is the kind of hypocrisy that I’m saying can shine a light on the actual importance of trans healthcare.