HHS Reverses Transgender Health Protections

[Houseman]

Then you're naive and innocent, because medical staff do impede services that patients are entitled to have.

The word "that" in my post referred to checkups, which is what the article said. "...a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office..."

I recognize that medical staff do impede services that patients are entitled to have. But these are specific services, like abortions. Not any and all services, like regular checkups. I could understand controversial services, like abortions and HRT, but checkups? I find that a little ridiculous.

Again, I might just be naive and innocent, but I don't see that ever happening. And let me be clear: when I say "that", it means "refusing checkups to transgender people".

 

[Silvanus]

Same.

The article says "Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office..."

So how does that work?

Alice: "I'm here for my yearly physical"
Bob: "No, sorry, you're transgender, get out".

???

Now I might just be naive and innocent, but I don't see that ever happening.

It'll be based on religious objections, i imagine.

People do deny service on the basis of sexuality and gender identity, when it's not explicitly outlawed. It happened before that specific regulation was expanded under the ACA in the first place.

 

[Worgen]

Same.

The article says "Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office..."

So how does that work?

Alice: "I'm here for my yearly physical"
Bob: "No, sorry, you're transgender, get out".

???

Now I might just be naive and innocent, but I don't see that ever happening.

Well, you would be unlikely to see it in most cities, but smaller communities could certainly have issues with it and people saying their religious beliefs allow them to not treat certain people. Especially when there is a limited number of doctors around, that can cause issues.

 

[Buyetyen]

Isn't that the same as those pharmacists denying the pill based on religious objections and wasn't that over-ruled like 12 years ago?

At heart? Yes. It's a fight that the religious right have never left the field of, they just seek out new targets.

Or or does it mean, like I wondered earlier, about denying a trans-person ovarian cancer treatment when they don't have ovaries.

No. I had my gall bladder out a couple years ago, so if I go to a doctor and postulate that I have a gall bladder disease, they would be right to ask some different questions. However, non-discrimination protections are in place because bigots in positions of power often use their own specious logic to justify treating other people as lesser, inferior, or even worthy of suffering. They simply want to give legal loopholes to shitty people to say, "I refuse to do my job for this person, because I hate that they were born different."

and then in the later category how does that not break their Oath and how is that not immediately sue-able?

Not as easy to win as you might think. Medical lawsuits are costly and take forever. And if you're part of a marginalized group, the odds that you have the resources to fight that battle are not optimistic. By removing protections for trans people, the whole intent is to make any anti-discrimination laws still on the books unenforceable piece by piece.

I get the intent - Trump and his ilk are trying to be dicks. But what's the practical effect? You said insurance claim, fine. Who? The agent? The CEO of the insurance company? The nurse taking the info? The accountant running it through payroll? The doctor doing the actual medical stuff? The ambulance driver? Paramedic? 9-1-1 phone operator?
Im not trying to be a dick, I really am curious. Who does this empower to discriminate and how does this effect the overall chain of payments in a medical procedure?

Literally anyone in that process could be the asshole in the equation if they chose.

For example if Mike the nurse refuses to run a trans-persons health care insurance, sure. Just get Beth to do it instead. Likewise doctor, just go to the next one.

How much interaction have you had with the US healthcare system?

 

[Houseman]

Well, you would be unlikely to see it in most cities, but smaller communities could certainly have issues with it and people saying their religious beliefs allow them to not treat certain people. Especially when there is a limited number of doctors around, that can cause issues.

Yeah, I can see that.

That's as ridiculous as not giving someone a burger from McDonalds because of their gender-identity, but okay, now at least it seems plausible. Thanks.

 

[Buyetyen]

You can identify as a woman but that won't make you female. You know, the gender roles vs biological sex thing. Being trans doesn't change you being male or female, just being a man or a woman based on the gender roles of the society around you.

And no I think the questions were very much to the point of figuring out whether this will make it harder to get specific treatment. A guy who is trained to examine your cervix isn't gonna be useful for your medical treatment if you're male, no matter what your feelings on the matter are you still don't actually have a cervix that the guy is trained to check out. Hell, you'll prolly need a specialist depending on what if any surgeries you've undergone anyhow.

These are statements made by someone who knows nothing about trans people and does not wish to be educated. In which case, no one here is obligated to explain things to you that you willfully choose not to understand.

 

[Worgen]

Yeah, I can see that.

That's as ridiculous as not giving someone a burger from McDonalds because of their gender-identity, but okay, now at least it seems plausible. Thanks.

There are also people that even see prescribing hormones to someone as going against their religious beliefs. But then we have the other aspects of health care too, like even having a doc who will prescribe what you need, sometimes pharmacies won't fill the prescription because of beliefs and they tend to jerk you around too with it. Usually we see that happen with birth control but it happens with hormones too.

Can a pharmacist legally deny a patient a prescription? It depends.

Recent cases highlight the gray area around "conscience clauses" that many patients don't even know exist.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Houseman]

These are statements made by someone who knows nothing about trans people and does not wish to be educated. In which case, no one here is obligated to explain things to you that you willfully choose not to understand.

You're not going to gain trans people any allies by assuming bad faith, alienating them and insulting them. Consider this: If it turns out that he does have bad intentions, what do you lose by being nice and explaining the matter? Nothing will change, and the person will walk away with the same opinions he had in the beginning.

If, however, that person does have good intentions, what would happen if you're nice and explain the matter? The person might end up on your side, instead of against you. However, if you rebuff him, he's assuredly going to end up as your enemy.

	You assume bad faith	You assume good faith
Interlocutor acts in bad faith	Enemy	Enemy
Interlocutor acts in good faith	Enemy	Ally

Assuming good faith and giving the benefit of the doubt is the ONLY way that you could possibly end up with an ally. Doing anything else is assuredly going to lead to gaining an enemy. So why not at least try to gain an ally?

 

[Dreiko]

I'm not quite as easy to turn off of entire groups based on just an unproductive interaction thankfully. I think it'd be quite ignorant to go "well, this one person was an ass, fuck all of em!" or something along those lines lol. Though I can see that tendency being out there with some folks.

But yeah, when you have these sorts of things where people are basing their reaction not on what you're saying but on their perception of what you feel inside that is guessed at based on what you're saying you're no longer discussing the actual subject but are just engaging in tribalism and commenting at what the person presumably thinks and not at what they're saying.

These are statements made by someone who knows nothing about trans people and does not wish to be educated. In which case, no one here is obligated to explain things to you that you willfully choose not to understand.

"I will make a post explaining how I don't have to make posts explaining things" is quite the irony indeed haha. You coulda just explained the relevant thing, especially if derailing topics is an issue lol.

 

[Buyetyen]

But yeah, when you have these sorts of things where people are basing their reaction not on what you're saying but on their perception of what you feel inside that is guessed at based on what you're saying you're no longer discussing the actual subject but are just engaging in tribalism and commenting at what the person presumably thinks and not at what they're saying.

If you cause harm unintentionally, your lack of intention does not mean the harm never happened.

 

[Dreiko]

If you cause harm unintentionally, your lack of intention does not mean the harm never happened.

And if you eat before bed you gain weight.

But why are we stating random irrelevant facts?

 

[Agema]

So why not at least try to gain an ally?

Because these conversations have been done with the same people before. If they didn't listen the last half-dozen times, they're not going to now.

 

[JoJo]

Please could we steer the discussion here away from the conduct of other users and back to the topic at hand. Thanks!

 

[Buyetyen]

And if you eat before bed you gain weight.

But why are we stating random irrelevant facts?

Here's the thing. You say that people are being overly sensitive, that there is no harm being done, etc. I'm putting out that none of us get to decide for other people what is hurtful to them, and brushing off harm you cause as unintentional and therefor not real is not going to win a lot of people over to your side of the argument.

If your argument actually is, and you may correct me, that the discrimination against trans people is an acceptable state of normal, you're going to have to provide a better support for that argument besides just, "I don't think people are actually being hurt by discrimination at all."

 

[SilentPony]

No. I had my gall bladder out a couple years ago, so if I go to a doctor and postulate that I have a gall bladder disease, they would be right to ask some different questions. However, non-discrimination protections are in place because bigots in positions of power often use their own specious logic to justify treating other people as lesser, inferior, or even worthy of suffering. They simply want to give legal loopholes to shitty people to say, "I refuse to do my job for this person, because I hate that they were born different."

Okay so its specifically for a "because I hate them" clause, not a "they aren't X, therefore I can't do X for them" clause?

 

[Buyetyen]

Okay so its specifically for a "because I hate them" clause, not a "they aren't X, therefore I can't do X for them" clause?

Exactly. In fact, dude who announced this decision is a religious lobbyist with a history of anti-queer policies. Which makes his tissue-thin excuses like, "This will save us money," feel all the more specious, no?

 

[Avnger]

You're not going to gain trans people any allies by assuming bad faith, alienating them and insulting them. Consider this: If it turns out that he does have bad intentions, what do you lose by being nice and explaining the matter? Nothing will change, and the person will walk away with the same opinions he had in the beginning.

If, however, that person does have good intentions, what would happen if you're nice and explain the matter? The person might end up on your side, instead of against you. However, if you rebuff him, he's assuredly going to end up as your enemy.

	You assume bad faith	You assume good faith
Interlocutor acts in bad faith	Enemy	Enemy
Interlocutor acts in good faith	Enemy	Ally

Assuming good faith and giving the benefit of the doubt is the ONLY way that you could possibly end up with an ally. Doing anything else is assuredly going to lead to gaining an enemy. So why not at least try to gain an ally?

You do realize that all of us have rather large post histories we can read through, right? Claiming ignorance on basic facts only works the first time. After that, any repeated instances are willful. Playing stupid may work on the chans, but it doesn't almost anywhere else.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm actually surprised it took this long. The orange bastard banned trans people from the military like year 1 or 2.

Wasn't that a medical based rule? I'm fairly certain the reasoning was that trans people who are transitioning or require some kind of medication cannot join the military... just like anyone else that would be a detriment to a military organization if they were unable to fulfill their job if cut off from medication or constant medical treatment.

Wouldn't things like hormone therapy and reassurance surgery be not covered. Then, if your living in a small town, and a doctor denies your request for one of these treatments, you'd have to find one out of town.

What's reassurance surgery?

Gender Dysphoria is a diagnosable medical condition. One of the possible treatments for it is transitioning which can include hormone therapy. Your need (again) to ask leading questions when the answers are easily available is noted.

Not all trans people are considered to have gender dysphoria. I was under the impression that saying they are was considered an insult.

 

[Buyetyen]

Wasn't that a medical based rule? I'm fairly certain the reasoning was that trans people who are transitioning or require some kind of medication cannot join the military... just like anyone else that would be a detriment to a military organization if they were unable to fulfill their job if cut off from medication or constant medical treatment.

Insofar as anything the Trump administration does is based on science. Whatever the excuse, the motive at the root was appeasing the hard-right evangelical base. Numerous trans men and women have served with distinction, but that unfortunately matters little to a bigot. At this point, its safe to say that any policy this administration passes that singles out a marginalized group is being done out of cruelty.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'd argue that neither the former law nor the this new version are good. The law is too vague as to what is considered discrimination. With it like this new version we have the issue of trans people being denied services while with the old version we get things like the Yaniv incident from last year (Yes I know it was in a Canada, the point still stands). I'd also argue that until an actual set of criteria for what makes someone transgender and thus what is considered discrimination towards them is set that isn't "I am this gender because I say so" that we won't be able to make a good law for this kind of situation.