This is horrifying. I am at a loss of words here. I don't believe it will hold up in court, but this is absolutely monstrous, hopefully it fails in the senate.
This is horrifying. I am at a loss of words here. I don't believe it will hold up in court, but this is absolutely monstrous, hopefully it fails in the senate.
You might look here, just a bit further up in the comments - as a side-effect of explaining the language in the measure and why it's a problem, it explains how courts enforce orders (and why you...
You might look here, just a bit further up in the comments - as a side-effect of explaining the language in the measure and why it's a problem, it explains how courts enforce orders (and why you might not see it) on the rest of the government if other measures don't suffice.
It may or may not survive judicial review. There are multiple long-running cases over whether employers are legally required to cover transgender healthcare. Even some large, public universities...
It may or may not survive judicial review. There are multiple long-running cases over whether employers are legally required to cover transgender healthcare. Even some large, public universities have healthcare plans that don't cover essential medical care.
The current supreme court keeps whipsawing on LGBTQ issues. They ruled that "transgender" is a protected class for employment discrimination, but they also ruled that a baker can't be required to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding since it's compelled speech that violates the first amendment. They don't respect precedent, so who knows.
God, it's exhausting being the political boogeyman. Dooming a vulnerable group to an incredibly painful and easily treatable condition is just malice for the sake of malice. My heart hurts for my...
God, it's exhausting being the political boogeyman.
Dooming a vulnerable group to an incredibly painful and easily treatable condition is just malice for the sake of malice. My heart hurts for my siblings who simply can't afford meds without help.
This is bad, but it's not as bad as the article's headline suggests. This is not a blanket ban on insurance coverage for transgender healthcare. This prevents federally-funded insurance like...
Exemplary
This is bad, but it's not as bad as the article's headline suggests. This is not a blanket ban on insurance coverage for transgender healthcare.
One strips all Medicaid and CHIP (the Children’s Health Insurance Program) funding for gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, not just for youth but for trans people of any age.
This prevents federally-funded insurance like Medicaid and CHIP from covering transgender healthcare for impoverished Americans. This is bad, but it will not directly affect most trans people.
A second bans coverage for those same services under the Affordable Care Act by excluding them from the definition of “essential health benefits.”
This one is worse for the average trans person.
What this means is that ACA insurance plans are no longer required to cover transgender care, and they can institute things like lifetime maximum benefits if they want to.
Many big employers will almost certainly still provide insurance plans that cover transgender healthcare, and many states also mandate coverage. State laws mandating coverage for transgender healthcare expenses are not superseded by this bill, so this is yet another reason for transgender Americans to move to safer, friendlier states.
Approximately 1 in 4 transgender Americans are on medicaid. It will directly affect a huge number of transgender people. Self-funded healthcare plans (most employers provide self-funded) are not...
This is bad, but it will not directly affect most trans people.
Approximately 1 in 4 transgender Americans are on medicaid. It will directly affect a huge number of transgender people.
State laws mandating coverage for transgender healthcare expenses are not superseded by this bill, so this is yet another reason for transgender Americans to move to safer, friendlier states.
Self-funded healthcare plans (most employers provide self-funded) are not subject to state law per ERISA. Being in a safer, friendlier state is not enough and a lot of transgender healthcare was already subject to very high rates of denials. Surely these numbers will go up and coverage will continue to drop.
But perhaps more importantly this is not their end goal, this is merely a step on the way to their end goal. More rights will be eroded in the future.
As an aside, this really isn't the thread to be having this kind of discussion minimizing the impact. A group of people are clearly and methodically being targeted for persecution. Treat it with the seriousness and respect it deserves.
u/DefinitelyNotAFae I'm not speaking from ignorance. [Redacted]. I was on Medicaid insurance due to one of my parents becoming disabled. [Redacted]. From my research, about 10% of transgender...
What I don't think people realize is how many people identify as transgender in surveys yet never seek out any kind of transgender healthcare. As a quick example, less than 0.1% of US teenagers have any transgender related medical records; that's massively lower than the 3.3% of teenagers that identify as transgender in surveys.
Most of the data we have says that, at most, only 1/20 or 1/10 people that identify as transgender actually seek any kind of transition related healthcare.
Don't misunderstand me. I deeply abhor everything the Republicans are doing here, and I'm angry that transgender people are going to lose coverage for essential medical care. I'm furious that Republicans refuse to understand gender dysphoria is a medical condition that deserves the same level of respect and care as any other medical condition.
My point is, I don't want to overblow things that are already bad. There are more than enough terrible things in the world to doom and gloom about without making things out to be even worse than they already are.
From the linked article, the percentage of Medicaid coverage is currently closer to 20% for trans adults, and around 13% for all LGBTQ+ adults, double that if they have kids. I think numbers for...
From the linked article, the percentage of Medicaid coverage is currently closer to 20% for trans adults, and around 13% for all LGBTQ+ adults, double that if they have kids. I think numbers for teens are probably skewed by families (fuck I wish queer kids got the benefit of growing up in queer families like so many minority cultures, I see so much pain by college...) but your point is taken. I'm not sure what transition coverage would be accessible in many of those red states today after the recent flurry of bans. It's been hard to keep up.
I do think your article is using older on the stats, but I do also always consider queer and explicitly trans folks getting undercounted.
I did misread the tone of your post as "it's being overblown" but mostly was more annoyed at the post I replied to, if that makes sense. I appreciate the intent, sorry our wires got crossed on the impact.
There's more areas of concern too:
The proposed work requirements will actively kick even more trans people off Medicaid - especially as they've been targeting single men, which means they'll target trans women, probably especially trans women of color.
Losing access to basic healthcare coverage will mean not seeing doctors or therapists, not even being able to start the medical transition process if they want, and with trans youth disproportionately homeless, they'll likely lose access at greater rates, and be at higher risk of violence, suicide, disease, etc. than they already are.
I get not wanting to overstate, but this whole bill will be a tragedy for many people and poor trans folks will be high on the list. I think it's ok to try to frame it with the data but I don't want to understate it either.
Anyway I appreciate what you were doing (and you as a poster)
A quick note - this research letter is not available to me and I can't seem to access it through my institution. There's nothing mentioned in the abstract which explains anything of methodology. I...
What I don't think people realize is how many people identify as transgender in surveys yet never seek out any kind of transgender healthcare. As a quick example, less than 0.1% of US teenagers have any transgender related medical records; that's massively lower than the 3.3% of teenagers that identify as transgender in surveys.
A quick note - this research letter is not available to me and I can't seem to access it through my institution. There's nothing mentioned in the abstract which explains anything of methodology. I find it circumspect at best. Do you happen to have the full text so I can review it appropriately?
With that being said - there's several factors at play here. We really shouldn't focus on teenagers for a whole slew of reasons. First off, young people are less likely to seek medical intervention outside of puberty blockers or hormones. Secondly, teenagers are often deathly afraid of seeking any medical intervention because for many of them their parents do not approve and they have no route of seeking medical intervention. Third, a lot of transgender healthcare is done in a way to minimize medical records because of stigma and laws - at the healthcare organization I work at, there's a ton of custom workflow both out of necessity and because we don't want other states or the government to be able to easily request records on things that are potentially legally compromising. Fourth, and something that doesn't just apply to youth, is that transgender people tend to have high medical aversion and report high levels of medical discrimination. This will mean lower rates than expected for things like basic care and hormones because they may be turning to community for support.
I don't want to overblow things that are already bad
Is it overblowing things? Very early in the term (Jan 28, 2025) they directed HSS and OMB departments to prevent any provider who receives Medicaid and Medicare funding, or who receives federal research or education funding, from offering gender-affirming care to any individuals under 19 (including private insurance and out of pocket payments). That means completely cutting off ALL medicare and medicaid funding for healthcare PROVIDERS if they provide gender affirming care to people under 19 (including legal adults of age 18). This made most health care companies go "underground" so to speak on their gender care or start difficult long court battles.
The fact that they just pulled the minors part out of this bill, almost certainly telegraphs what they already laid out in project 2025 which is to remove gender affirming care from existence. Do you really think they aren't going to push this lever again but now for gender affirming care for adults since we potentially have new legislation which removes any clauses about minors? I would argue that this is not making things out to be worse than they already are - many health care providers closed up gender clinics in January and February. This is absolutely going to accelerate the removal of access to care for transgender individuals.
I agree things are bad in the US under Trump and there are reasons to be fearful, but I haven't seen much evidence that transgender adults in safe blue states are losing access to essential...
I agree things are bad in the US under Trump and there are reasons to be fearful, but I haven't seen much evidence that transgender adults in safe blue states are losing access to essential healthcare. At least not yet. It's obviously something that many Republicans would like to do. For now, minors are still getting the worst of it, and I hate it because all the evidence shows that treating teenagers leads to the best mental health outcomes.
On incidence rates and how many trans people seek care, I agree that using youth isn't ideal, but I have a hard time believing only 5% of parents would take their transgender child to a doctor. Even if the doctor is transphobic, it's common to get a gender dysphoria diagnosis (speaking from experience).
Another data source we have is the UK. The caveat is that more trans people are using private clinics nowadays, but that's a relatively small number of privileged people as far as I know. Surveys put the rate of trans people at ~0.5% of the UK's population with some variance by age group. However, the rate of transgender identity from NHS medical records is only 0.03%. Any way you slice it, that's a huge gap that implies far more people identify as transgender than seek out medical care.
Choosing stats from probably the most infamously bad country in the West when it comes to preventing trans people from accessing healthcare is not the argument you think it is.
However, the rate of transgender identity from NHS medical records is only 0.03%. Any way you slice it, that's a huge gap that implies far more people identify as transgender than seek out medical care.
Choosing stats from probably the most infamously bad country in the West when it comes to preventing trans people from accessing healthcare is not the argument you think it is.
The UK study wasn't tracking gender clinic visits. I'm well aware of how garbage terf island is for trans healthcare. If a trans person sees a GP, they likely have a medical code in their records...
The UK study wasn't tracking gender clinic visits. I'm well aware of how garbage terf island is for trans healthcare.
If a trans person sees a GP, they likely have a medical code in their records indicating they're transgender. It's medically relevant information.
I don't think the data is fake or a massive undercount of medical transitions. I doubt many trans people completely avoid the NHS for basic healthcare or emergency care.
Gaywallet pointed out that the previous poster was inaccurately minimizing the impact of this, and your response frames that as "understanding what the bill actually does." I'm going to add on...
Gaywallet pointed out that the previous poster was inaccurately minimizing the impact of this, and your response frames that as "understanding what the bill actually does."
I'm going to add on that trans folks that rely on Medicaid are going to be among the least capable of moving to another state without major assistance. Perhaps it was intended as reassuring, it was not. Trans folks are being targeted not just for persecution but for removal from society, both in access to/ existing in public spaces and by the intentional destruction of their mental health.
As ever, this is exactly what Gaywallet just said is not helpful in this group/thread.
It was helpful, though. Sometimes people post information that’s only partially accurate, and other people have better information. I think that’s a positive result. If there were no conversation...
It was helpful, though. Sometimes people post information that’s only partially accurate, and other people have better information. I think that’s a positive result. If there were no conversation then nobody would learn anything.
I have such a hard time giving posts like this a vote. I want it to get visibility but I also don't want people to think the vote is in support of something so appalling.
I have such a hard time giving posts like this a vote. I want it to get visibility but I also don't want people to think the vote is in support of something so appalling.
It's obvious in your post, but I'd like to echo that a "Vote" on Tildes holds a very different connotation that an Upvote on Reddit or god forbid, a Like on Facebook. I presume that here, a vote...
It's obvious in your post, but I'd like to echo that a "Vote" on Tildes holds a very different connotation that an Upvote on Reddit or god forbid, a Like on Facebook.
I presume that here, a vote indicates the importance of a subject to members of the community rather far more than the confirmation bias of headline-only readers on the other two platforms.
A small thing, but you made me think a little deeper about how people use the tool across platforms.
That is a misinterpretation of the vote mechanic. Votes are (to simplify) how pertinent or informational posts are. It has nothing to do with your agreement on the subject manner. You'd want more...
That is a misinterpretation of the vote mechanic. Votes are (to simplify) how pertinent or informational posts are. It has nothing to do with your agreement on the subject manner. You'd want more people to hear about this bad news, right? If you have any trans friends or for other trans people on this site? Then you vote it up.
Like OP said. Plus, I doubt people would assume votes for anti-lgbt news posted to a site's lgbt page are supportive. Worst comes to worst you can leave a comment clarifying you don't support it...
Like OP said. Plus, I doubt people would assume votes for anti-lgbt news posted to a site's lgbt page are supportive. Worst comes to worst you can leave a comment clarifying you don't support it (as you did).
This is horrifying. I am at a loss of words here. I don't believe it will hold up in court, but this is absolutely monstrous, hopefully it fails in the senate.
Sadly the current administration seems perfectly happy to just ignore court rulings since no one is enforcing them.
You might look here, just a bit further up in the comments - as a side-effect of explaining the language in the measure and why it's a problem, it explains how courts enforce orders (and why you might not see it) on the rest of the government if other measures don't suffice.
It may or may not survive judicial review. There are multiple long-running cases over whether employers are legally required to cover transgender healthcare. Even some large, public universities have healthcare plans that don't cover essential medical care.
The current supreme court keeps whipsawing on LGBTQ issues. They ruled that "transgender" is a protected class for employment discrimination, but they also ruled that a baker can't be required to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding since it's compelled speech that violates the first amendment. They don't respect precedent, so who knows.
God, it's exhausting being the political boogeyman.
Dooming a vulnerable group to an incredibly painful and easily treatable condition is just malice for the sake of malice. My heart hurts for my siblings who simply can't afford meds without help.
This is bad, but it's not as bad as the article's headline suggests. This is not a blanket ban on insurance coverage for transgender healthcare.
This prevents federally-funded insurance like Medicaid and CHIP from covering transgender healthcare for impoverished Americans. This is bad, but it will not directly affect most trans people.
This one is worse for the average trans person.
What this means is that ACA insurance plans are no longer required to cover transgender care, and they can institute things like lifetime maximum benefits if they want to.
Many big employers will almost certainly still provide insurance plans that cover transgender healthcare, and many states also mandate coverage. State laws mandating coverage for transgender healthcare expenses are not superseded by this bill, so this is yet another reason for transgender Americans to move to safer, friendlier states.
Edit: US legal definition of Essential Health Benefit: https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/essential-health-benefits/
Approximately 1 in 4 transgender Americans are on medicaid. It will directly affect a huge number of transgender people.
Self-funded healthcare plans (most employers provide self-funded) are not subject to state law per ERISA. Being in a safer, friendlier state is not enough and a lot of transgender healthcare was already subject to very high rates of denials. Surely these numbers will go up and coverage will continue to drop.
But perhaps more importantly this is not their end goal, this is merely a step on the way to their end goal. More rights will be eroded in the future.
As an aside, this really isn't the thread to be having this kind of discussion minimizing the impact. A group of people are clearly and methodically being targeted for persecution. Treat it with the seriousness and respect it deserves.
u/DefinitelyNotAFae
I'm not speaking from ignorance. [Redacted]. I was on Medicaid insurance due to one of my parents becoming disabled. [Redacted].
From my research, about 10% of transgender Americans are on Medicaid which isn't much different from the national average for Medicaid coverage.
What I don't think people realize is how many people identify as transgender in surveys yet never seek out any kind of transgender healthcare. As a quick example, less than 0.1% of US teenagers have any transgender related medical records; that's massively lower than the 3.3% of teenagers that identify as transgender in surveys.
Most of the data we have says that, at most, only 1/20 or 1/10 people that identify as transgender actually seek any kind of transition related healthcare.
Don't misunderstand me. I deeply abhor everything the Republicans are doing here, and I'm angry that transgender people are going to lose coverage for essential medical care. I'm furious that Republicans refuse to understand gender dysphoria is a medical condition that deserves the same level of respect and care as any other medical condition.
My point is, I don't want to overblow things that are already bad. There are more than enough terrible things in the world to doom and gloom about without making things out to be even worse than they already are.
From the linked article, the percentage of Medicaid coverage is currently closer to 20% for trans adults, and around 13% for all LGBTQ+ adults, double that if they have kids. I think numbers for teens are probably skewed by families (fuck I wish queer kids got the benefit of growing up in queer families like so many minority cultures, I see so much pain by college...) but your point is taken. I'm not sure what transition coverage would be accessible in many of those red states today after the recent flurry of bans. It's been hard to keep up.
I do think your article is using older on the stats, but I do also always consider queer and explicitly trans folks getting undercounted.
I did misread the tone of your post as "it's being overblown" but mostly was more annoyed at the post I replied to, if that makes sense. I appreciate the intent, sorry our wires got crossed on the impact.
There's more areas of concern too:
The proposed work requirements will actively kick even more trans people off Medicaid - especially as they've been targeting single men, which means they'll target trans women, probably especially trans women of color.
Losing access to basic healthcare coverage will mean not seeing doctors or therapists, not even being able to start the medical transition process if they want, and with trans youth disproportionately homeless, they'll likely lose access at greater rates, and be at higher risk of violence, suicide, disease, etc. than they already are.
I get not wanting to overstate, but this whole bill will be a tragedy for many people and poor trans folks will be high on the list. I think it's ok to try to frame it with the data but I don't want to understate it either.
Anyway I appreciate what you were doing (and you as a poster)
A quick note - this research letter is not available to me and I can't seem to access it through my institution. There's nothing mentioned in the abstract which explains anything of methodology. I find it circumspect at best. Do you happen to have the full text so I can review it appropriately?
With that being said - there's several factors at play here. We really shouldn't focus on teenagers for a whole slew of reasons. First off, young people are less likely to seek medical intervention outside of puberty blockers or hormones. Secondly, teenagers are often deathly afraid of seeking any medical intervention because for many of them their parents do not approve and they have no route of seeking medical intervention. Third, a lot of transgender healthcare is done in a way to minimize medical records because of stigma and laws - at the healthcare organization I work at, there's a ton of custom workflow both out of necessity and because we don't want other states or the government to be able to easily request records on things that are potentially legally compromising. Fourth, and something that doesn't just apply to youth, is that transgender people tend to have high medical aversion and report high levels of medical discrimination. This will mean lower rates than expected for things like basic care and hormones because they may be turning to community for support.
Is it overblowing things? Very early in the term (Jan 28, 2025) they directed HSS and OMB departments to prevent any provider who receives Medicaid and Medicare funding, or who receives federal research or education funding, from offering gender-affirming care to any individuals under 19 (including private insurance and out of pocket payments). That means completely cutting off ALL medicare and medicaid funding for healthcare PROVIDERS if they provide gender affirming care to people under 19 (including legal adults of age 18). This made most health care companies go "underground" so to speak on their gender care or start difficult long court battles.
The fact that they just pulled the minors part out of this bill, almost certainly telegraphs what they already laid out in project 2025 which is to remove gender affirming care from existence. Do you really think they aren't going to push this lever again but now for gender affirming care for adults since we potentially have new legislation which removes any clauses about minors? I would argue that this is not making things out to be worse than they already are - many health care providers closed up gender clinics in January and February. This is absolutely going to accelerate the removal of access to care for transgender individuals.
I agree things are bad in the US under Trump and there are reasons to be fearful, but I haven't seen much evidence that transgender adults in safe blue states are losing access to essential healthcare. At least not yet. It's obviously something that many Republicans would like to do. For now, minors are still getting the worst of it, and I hate it because all the evidence shows that treating teenagers leads to the best mental health outcomes.
On incidence rates and how many trans people seek care, I agree that using youth isn't ideal, but I have a hard time believing only 5% of parents would take their transgender child to a doctor. Even if the doctor is transphobic, it's common to get a gender dysphoria diagnosis (speaking from experience).
Another data source we have is the UK. The caveat is that more trans people are using private clinics nowadays, but that's a relatively small number of privileged people as far as I know. Surveys put the rate of trans people at ~0.5% of the UK's population with some variance by age group. However, the rate of transgender identity from NHS medical records is only 0.03%. Any way you slice it, that's a huge gap that implies far more people identify as transgender than seek out medical care.
Choosing stats from probably the most infamously bad country in the West when it comes to preventing trans people from accessing healthcare is not the argument you think it is.
The UK study wasn't tracking gender clinic visits. I'm well aware of how garbage terf island is for trans healthcare.
If a trans person sees a GP, they likely have a medical code in their records indicating they're transgender. It's medically relevant information.
I don't think the data is fake or a massive undercount of medical transitions. I doubt many trans people completely avoid the NHS for basic healthcare or emergency care.
Doesn't treating it with seriousness mean understanding what the bill actually does? Both Minori's post and your reply have useful information.
Gaywallet pointed out that the previous poster was inaccurately minimizing the impact of this, and your response frames that as "understanding what the bill actually does."
I'm going to add on that trans folks that rely on Medicaid are going to be among the least capable of moving to another state without major assistance. Perhaps it was intended as reassuring, it was not. Trans folks are being targeted not just for persecution but for removal from society, both in access to/ existing in public spaces and by the intentional destruction of their mental health.
As ever, this is exactly what Gaywallet just said is not helpful in this group/thread.
It was helpful, though. Sometimes people post information that’s only partially accurate, and other people have better information. I think that’s a positive result. If there were no conversation then nobody would learn anything.
Really hoping the Senate kills this.
I'm doubtful that they will, but I need some sort of hope to hold on to right now.
I don't know yet if this particular grotesque addendum was in the final bill, but if it was, we're collectively fucked.
Edit: updated incorrect link.
I have such a hard time giving posts like this a vote. I want it to get visibility but I also don't want people to think the vote is in support of something so appalling.
I don't view votes as people liking something, it's just saying this is an important link to view
It's obvious in your post, but I'd like to echo that a "Vote" on Tildes holds a very different connotation that an Upvote on Reddit or god forbid, a Like on Facebook.
I presume that here, a vote indicates the importance of a subject to members of the community rather far more than the confirmation bias of headline-only readers on the other two platforms.
A small thing, but you made me think a little deeper about how people use the tool across platforms.
That is a misinterpretation of the vote mechanic. Votes are (to simplify) how pertinent or informational posts are. It has nothing to do with your agreement on the subject manner. You'd want more people to hear about this bad news, right? If you have any trans friends or for other trans people on this site? Then you vote it up.
Like OP said. Plus, I doubt people would assume votes for anti-lgbt news posted to a site's lgbt page are supportive. Worst comes to worst you can leave a comment clarifying you don't support it (as you did).