Many institutions still use “natal sex” to biologically identify trans people. But medical bodies are recognizing the offering of gender-affirming surgeries in support of trans people as *medically necessary.* This memo flies in the face of that momentum-gaining precedent.
-
Show this thread
-
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the US Department of Veterans Affairs have all made statements refuting the idea that hormones and surgeries are “cosmetic” or “experimental,” esp. in response to insurance companies refusing to cover care.
1 reply 45 retweets 141 likesShow this thread -
Not only is the administration’s move going to roll back federal protections, it’s going to make transition resources even more inaccessible to many trans people desiring them.
1 reply 35 retweets 93 likesShow this thread -
I projected the rationale for insurance coverage in a paper predicting how trans identity would be treated if the ACA was repealed and they made “transsexualism” and “sex reassignment” pre-existing conditions as they planned to. This move by 45 might still achieve the same thing.
1 reply 24 retweets 75 likesShow this thread -
This flies in the face of CONTEMPORARY genetic science which increasingly refuted a existence sex binary, and it’s in opposition to emerging medical guidelines. Researchers and medical providers, we’ve got to advocate for trans community with the work 45 is choosing to ignore.
1 reply 54 retweets 145 likesShow this thread -
This is also not just going to be about directly harming trans community, though. I reckon this is also going to start impacting federal research funding for work around trans health-specific care, treatment, and interventions.
1 reply 32 retweets 109 likesShow this thread -
This is anti-trans, anti-human rights, anti-science, anti-everything. We cis people, especially in spaces of knowledge & policy production where these conversations are being had, urgently have to stand against this institutional & STATE violence against trans communities.
3 replies 185 retweets 406 likesShow this thread -
One last thing. The way they’re defining sex and gender identity by “genitalia at birth” as a means of erasing identity beyond the sex or gender binary reads as though they’re in support of performing surgeries on intersex babies without their consent. Which is bad.
5 replies 52 retweets 130 likesShow this thread -
Last year, the 15th, 16th, and 17th Surgeon Generals recommended an end to the practice based on 3 major rationales, critically that there’s “evidence that the surgery itself can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress” https://www.intersexequality.com/former-surgeon-generals-call-for-mor-unnec-intersex-infant-surgeries/ …
1 reply 25 retweets 81 likesShow this thread -
In conclusion, forcing someone to be a particular sex through surgical procedure when they’re an infant or young child can be harmful to their health AND not allowing someone to be and actualize their own gender can also be harmful to their health.
1 reply 30 retweets 121 likesShow this thread
Re: surgery on infants - aren't these usually the same fucks who get all up in arms over circumcision?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.