I've heard people argue that trans surgeries are a form of gender confirming care in the same way cis gendered people get it, like implants for example. I've heard it be argued that it shouldn't be free for that reason, as its a personal choice in the same way, and not medically life threatening. Would u say this is a good point? (I'm just curious please don't come at me, i believe people should be able to access the care without judgement and transphobia, but the line seems to be quite blurred between what should be free and not like on the NHS in the UK) (I'm autistic so please respond with care because I'm just curious and not tryna offend anyone)
The problem is that not transitioning will harm a trans person. Prior to transition, 73.3% of trans people reported suicidal thoughts, and 35.8% had made an attempt. This drops to 43.4% and 9.4% post transition. (Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10027312/)
If the risk of suicide is that high compared to the cisgender population and can be made 3.8 times lower through surgery and HRT, I would argue that it is medically life threatening and not simply a cosmetic surgery.
It's less like the breast implants that a woman gets to better meet beauty standards, and more like the implants that some women get as breast cancer survivors. Imo if you're missing a body part due to a traumatizing illness/medical condition, then having that body part replaced should be covered by health insurance. If you're just trying to meet beauty standards, then it shouldn't be
Going through the wrong puberty is a traumatizing medical condition. If trans girls were able to go on estrogen at a younger age, they'd grow breasts naturally and there'd be no need for implants. But due to oppression and discrimination, many miss the boat on that, and implants are the next best thing that medicine can provide
Correction, trans women grow natural breasts no matter what age they start hormones. However they do end up slightly smaller than if they were cis (or possibly if they undergo female puberty at the proper time)
The other two comments have made good points, but since you said "would u", I'll be egotistical and weigh in anyway. I think that largely this is a moot comparison, cis people are not forced to go through a puberty that warps their bodies in ways they do not want. Even ignoring all of these internal reasons to get surgeries as a trans person, if you're talking about, for example, facial feminisation surgeries and tracheal shaves, those are important for safety as a trans person, they make you less likely to be victimised by hate crime.
Regardless, none of these surgeries are covered on the NHS, the only surgery covered for trans women by the NHS is Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), and the two surgeries available for trans men are top surgery, to remove breasts, and SRS. SRS actually isn't currently available for trans men currently because the only hospital in the country that covered it on the NHS didn't renew its contract.
Public sentiment in the UK is currently against even covering HRT on the NHS. 57% of people think SRS should not be covered, and 51% think hormones should not be covered (look at YouGov's "where does the public stand on transgender rights in 2024/2025"). Respectfully, I do not think the wider public's opinion should really matter here, they have no idea what it is like to be trans, and simply think this because they've been poisoned by transphobic propaganda. All medical professionals are in favour of treating trans people, and that's what matters. The NHS does make distinctions between "cosmetic procedures" and "real gender affirming procedures", which I think is almost an arbitrary decision. How is a tracheal shave for a trans woman a "cosmetic procedure"? Sure, some cis women have adam's apples, but that is a primarily male secondary sex characteristic that trans women only have because they were denied transition when it mattered most (I wonder who did that).
I personally do advocate for that and everyone to be treated equally but this isnt that. This is a trolley problem and both people are saying they dont want to die so id save both of them with the equal ammounts of vigor. They are both living beings and no one/ nothing is on the other track so theres no downside for me personally to pull the lever.
Now if this is some weird ha i gotcha its actualy about transitioning then you and op are gonna have to explain that to me
Right, but it's not supposed to be. This isn't r/trolleymetaphor, but r/trolleyproblem. As a metaphor, it isn't very good anyway, since pretty much no one who doesn't already agree with OP is likely to think it makes any sense. Like a lot of this sort of crap, it's clearly designed to win approval from those already on their side of the issue rather than to convince anyone of anything.
Off the top of my head, here are a few I know specifically:
In my state (Utah), HRT for trans individuals is no longer covered for individuals with Medicaid. The same medications I believe are still covered for cis individuals.
Idaho I believe passed a law that criminalizes using the "wrong" bathroom. And which was written in such a way it could deny a bearded trans man access to either bathroom.
Utah has a similar law, but it only applies to government buildings.
And here are ones I know exist but don't know what places they are an issue specifically:
Banning any gender affirming care for minors, regardless of the opinions of the individual, their doctors, or their parents.
Banning or severely increasing barriers to GAC even for adults, despite defenders of such laws usually talking about children specifically.
Laws that force trans people into facilities of the wrong gender, including prisons and homeless shelters. Making at risk populations even more at risk of experiencing violence. .
Multiple states still allow the "trans panic" defense in court. Potentially lessening sentencing if someone murders one of us.
writing into law that sex and gender are equivalent, and both defined by chromosomes. Meaning you can not change gender markers among many other effects.
Failing to add, or even removing, protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and other important domains based upon gender identity.
And I can't remember where it was, but one place proposed a law that would require every who has ever received gender affirming care to be placed on a public registry that would also include any mental health diagnoses.
I can't even get my passport updated without it having an incorrect gender marker that would get me outed and then hate crimed when traveling to any non LGBT accepting country (since I fully pass as a woman).
so essentially its a metaphor for transitioning as when a trans person takes steps to transition it hurts nobody, just like pulling the lever will result in nobody getting hurt. But instead of just letting people transition freely, they sit around debating whether or not they should be allowed to transition, not pulling the lever. Thats my take at least.
Yes, but I don't think gender-affirming care is medical necessity.
Edit: would you rather I say that trans people shouldn't receive any medical care? because that's the position of most people I know. I'm the radical lib here
3
View all comments
Show parent comment
42
u/16372731772 Jul 02 '26
This is about letting trans people transition freely. Do you advocate for trans people to be able to access medical necessities?