Transphobic World

[Mia Marie]

If we don't pay attention, we will be hunted down and murdered just for being transgender. From what I have read there are 100s of anti-trans laws being pushed through state and federal governments that are created to make us guilty for things we are not guilty of. Most insurances are excluding trans care and gender affirmation. I actually heard that Medicaid has also begun to exclude gender affirmation and I am sure Medicare is also following suit. Why won't the politicians just leave us alone and focus on real crime in this country? I have already had to cancel my bottom surgery last year because my insurance (BCBSTX) said no. The airline I work for put a gender affirmation exclusion clause in the insurance contract but claims they are not breaking any laws, although, I proved them wrong quoting federal laws of non-discrimination. The worst part is they also celebrate pride month. It is just the beginning of trying to ban or existence. 

[Carolyn Marie]

Some of what you cite, @Mia Marie is true, some are rumors, and some are untrue.  Let's take them one at a time:

 

1.  No one in positions of authority are (yet) advocating for the killing of trans people.  There are some fringe types doing so, but there have always been those types out there.

 

2.  The proliferation of anti-trans youth and a few anti-trans adult legislative bills is real, and getting worse by the week.  Most of the language is copy cat, out of just a handful of ultra-right wing "think tanks" and organizations.

 

3.  I can't say whether the number of insurance companies routinely denying coverage for trans health is "most of" them, or just a few, but yes, there are many.  A very few states such as California have laws making that practice illegal.

 

4.  Medicare includes coverage currently, which will likely change if Congress and the President are both Republican.  Medicaid is run by the States, and so many R-run states deny coverage, may soon do so or are thinking about it.

 

We have to be careful about exaggeration, but I agree that things are looking far more grim these days than they were 5-10 years ago.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Charlize]

I have to only look back a few years to see how far we have come.  More trans folks are out, living and expressing themselves than ever.  It really isn't surprising that conservative cis folks are reacting.  Hopefully time will bring peace and understanding rather than the attempt to make us somehow disappear.  

I am fortunate to be in NJ.  Here and in most of the blue states acceptance is the norm.

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

[Ivy]

6 hours ago, Charlize said:

Hopefully time will bring peace and understanding rather than the attempt to make us somehow disappear.

That would be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[VickySGV]

14 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

3.  I can't say whether the number of insurance companies routinely denying coverage for trans health is "most of" them, or just a few, but yes, there are many.  A very few states such as California have laws making that practice illegal.

 

It will depend on the state they are operating in.  Anthem / Blue Cross's operations here in my State require that it cover LGBT medicine, but in other states it is not required to do so, even though it is proven to be a better money deal to provice the care.  The employers do not pay more for the plan of coverage here so that contract issue does not work as it did in the Hobby Lobby case. 

14 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

We have to be careful about exaggeration, but I agree that things are looking far more grim these days than they were 5-10 years ago

 

The folks bankrolling the bills that go to the states (and it is significant campaign contributions money wise) want us to be panicking and want the H8ers to be feeling empowered and thus sending them more money even though they are probably not the ones with real money.  We do seem to be overwhelming things just now, and do not have the ability to provide education and reassurance to the ignorant rumor believers that we are decent and loving members of society that are no threat tho them or heaven help it, their children. 

[Mia Marie]

I know none of what I wrote is a fabrication. I have a friend in Oregon who is trans and medicaid denied coverage for gender affirmation. Today I saw a video of Trump saying if he is re-elected, he will push all the federal anti-trans bills into law to put an end to us. Who do you think control the thoughts of politicians on the subject but the religious groups who regard us as evil and who also are the main culprits of the misinformation being stated. Here in TX the governor has been pushing for the arrest of parents who allow for their children to start transitioning and receiving gender affirming care. Most red states also have been working to make it illegal for trans people of any age to transition and receive gender affirming care. It wasn't that long ago that baptist and new age christian churches began calling for the states to arrest trans people and put them on trial and convict us for treason and put us to death. On my work side, BCBSTX does have gender affirming care yet, the company put in place the gender affirmation exclusion in the contract. From what was told to me, it didn't used to be there and trans people could receive gender affirming care. I have been fighting this injustice since the company does celebrate pride month and it is a necessary care we need. So, pretty much everything I wrote earlier is true from my research and frrom what I have experienced.  

[Lineally Swing]

Things look pretty bleak. I'm hoping it's just lip service because I know Trump has no principals, but he's acting as a mouth piece for the republican platform. I'm no organizer, but if this blatant erosion of rights comes to pass and results in protests, riots, etc. I'll treat these bigots and fascists as well as they deserve.

[MiraF]

The US republican party is currently running in its entirety on a platform of anti-trans rhetoric.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 11:10 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

1.  No one in positions of authority are (yet) advocating for the killing of trans people.  There are some fringe types doing so, but there have always been those types out there.

 

They are calling for the eradication of trans people from day-to-day life by excluding us from being able to exist in public as ourselves. This will directly cause deaths amongst trans youth who can't figure themselves out without being exposed to other trans people. I think it's fair to say this is advocating for the death of trans people, and I believe that fact should not be dismissed as exaggeration.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 11:10 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

2.  The proliferation of anti-trans youth and a few anti-trans adult legislative bills is real, and getting worse by the week.  Most of the language is copy cat, out of just a handful of ultra-right wing "think tanks" and organizations.

 

All anti trans-laws are anti-trans in general, anti-trans youth is just a way for them to say "protect the youth" and are just used to try to normalize anti-trans legislation.

 

There is no denying it: their ultimate goal is genocide, not with death camps, but by denying us the ability to publicly exist.

The definition of genocide according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is:

"

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

"

Admittedly, we aren't a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group", but this is from 1948 and the exclusion of political and social groups is acknowledged to be a problem.

 

 

 

On the bright side, that was their strategy for the midterms and that did not go well for them, so maybe we'll be fine.

 

 

PS, if I seem confrontational, it's just because I am sick of US politicians referring to this as "anti-trans sentiment" and other such mild phrases. It's genocide and saying otherwise is harmful.

PPS, yes, I'm from Canada, but I like to stay informed.

[MiraF]

4 minutes ago, MiraF said:

The US republican party is currently running in its entirety on a platform of anti-trans rhetoric.

By anti-trans rhetoric I mean trans genocide.

[Ivy]

.. any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

✓(a) Killing members of the group;

✓(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

✓(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

✓(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (prohibiting gender affirming care)

✓(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  ("child abuse" laws)

[KathyLauren]

10 hours ago, MiraF said:

By anti-trans rhetoric I mean trans genocide.

 

The Lemkin Institude considers anti-trans rhetoric to be genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice

[KathyLauren]

13 minutes ago, Katie23 said:

We need to turn this around nationally.

 

It is not going to turn around until people start calling out his sponsors.  He and other politicians of the same ilk are introducing the anti-trans legislation because they are paid to.  The sponsors need to be identified and shut down.  And there needs to be legislation severely limiting campaign donations, so that those who would purchase politicians lose their main weapon.  It is going to be like turning around a loaded oil tanker.

[Ivy]

24 minutes ago, KathyLauren said:

And there needs to be legislation severely limiting campaign donations, so that those who would purchase politicians lose their main weapon.

I'm thinking the SCOTUS already messed this up with the "Citizens United" decision.  (hope I got the name right)

[KathyLauren]

13 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I'm thinking the SCOTUS already messed this up with the "Citizens United" decision.  (hope I got the name right)

 

Bummer!

[Mia Marie]

3 hours ago, KathyLauren said:

He and other politicians of the same ilk are introducing the anti-trans legislation because they are paid to.  The sponsors need to be identified and shut down.

We all know who pays the politicians. To shut the sponsors down means the taking down and mostly dismantling of the church, sorry to say but it is the truth.

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Katie23 said:

"This campaign brought to you by Kellog's of Battle Creek".

LOL

There is some interesting history behind some of those cereal companies.

[Marcie Jensen]

19 hours ago, Ivy said:

I'm thinking the SCOTUS already messed this up with the "Citizens United" decision.  (hope I got the name right)

They did and you got it right. What's interesting is that the opinion was written by justice ANthony Kennedy; not exactly a conservative and who has been sharply criticized by the right wing. And, if that isn't enough irony, the only dissenter--and that was on the concurrence--was Clarence Thomas regarded as very conservative by most folks. Evfen Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor were on board with the court's decision. Kinda makes you wonder...

[awkward-yet-sweet]

The way I understand it, the reason medical insurance companies are denying surgeries and gender-affirming stuff is because it is not medically necessary.  "You can live a long and healthy life in your original body" is how they see it.  Of course, they don't take into account the mental health aspects or the self-harm-prevention aspects.  But then, they don't want to pay to prevent cancer or diabetes, so that shouldn't be a surprise.

 

For the foreseeable future, transgender surgical procedures and gender-affirming treatments will remain in the realm of cosmetic surgery.  Check if your plan covers nose jobs, breast enhancement, or liposuction to find out how it will go for other procedures.  We may not like it, but that's the world we live in right now. 

 

On 2/3/2023 at 5:33 PM, Mia Marie said:

We all know who pays the politicians. To shut the sponsors down means the taking down and mostly dismantling of the church, sorry to say but it is the truth.

 

"THE" church is kind of a myth at this point.  Too many different flavors.  You've got Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians...and the list goes on.  I've seen a couple of places in the city flying rainbow flags, which seems a bit odd.  And there's folks on this forum who are clergy, not to mention others like me who are part of a faith community.  I don't believe that churches are a problem.  And even if they were, who has the right to "dismantle" them?  Regulating faith and establishing censorship might help one cause for a while, to the long-term detriment of liberty in general.  

 

I agree that it would be lovely to eliminate most of the methods people use to finance campaigns.  You could shut down nearly all sponsorship, rather than attempting to target individual sponsors.  It would be nice to have political office within reach of common people, not just those who can amass billions for advertising and dinners.  We'd get rid of both Democrats and Republicans that way.  And term limits to get rid of perpetual office-holders in the House and Senate.  Nobody should be making politics into a profitable career.  Do a few years of sacrificial public service, then go away and live a quiet life. 

 

 

 

 

 

[MiraF]

3 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

"THE" church is kind of a myth at this point.  Too many different flavors.  You've got Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians...and the list goes on.  I've seen a couple of places in the city flying rainbow flags, which seems a bit odd.  And there's folks on this forum who are clergy, not to mention others like me who are part of a faith community.  I don't believe that churches are a problem.  And even if they were, who has the right to "dismantle" them?  Regulating faith and establishing censorship might help one cause for a while, to the long-term detriment of liberty in general.

True, there isn't a collective "THE" church at this point, but there is a large collection of powerful religious groups who work together to advance their beliefs. Anyone trying to "dismantle the church" is not trying to abolish faith or establish censorship, they're opposing the systemic power religion has on all levels of the US. There is a reason there are so few atheists in power in the US despite atheists not having an innate aversion to politics. There is systemic church power, and it is contributing to bad politics, and it should be stopped, and the difference between this and what you mean when you say "THE" church is that this doesn't include small, local churches and personal faith.

 

Here is a list of all atheist senators, representatives and governors in the US ever with the time they were in power:

 

United States Representatives (3):

Jared Huffman 2013–present

Barney Frank 1981–2013

Pete Stark 1973–2013

 

United States Senators (2):

Kyrsten Sinema 2019–present

Thomas Gore 1907–1921 1931-1937

 

Governors (2):

Jesse Ventura 1999–2003

Culbert Olson 1939–1943

 

Taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_the_United_States#Public_officials

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, MiraF said:

Anyone trying to "dismantle the church" is not trying to abolish faith or establish censorship, they're opposing the systemic power religion has on all levels of the US.

The constitution is pretty explicit about protecting freedom of religion.

Supposedly, churches have to stay out of politics to retain their tax-exempt status.

 

The growing "Christian Nationalist" movement seems like it should be unconstitutional.  But one could argue that it is not tied to a specific organized "church" so maybe no?

 

Another question concerns the difference between the religion of Christianity, and the idea of Cultural Christianity.  Is the US (and Canada as well) a "christian country" simply because we have roots in Europe which has been historically dominated by "The Church"?

[Marcie Jensen]

6 minutes ago, Ivy said:

The constitution is pretty explicit about protecting freedom of religion.

Supposedly, churches have to stay out of politics to retain their tax-exempt status.

 

The growing "Christian Nationalist" movement seems like it should be unconstitutional.  But one could argue that it is not tied to a specific organized "church" so maybe no?

 

Another question concerns the difference between the religion of Christianity, and the idea of Cultural Christianity.  Is the US (and Canada as well) a "christian country" simply because we have roots in Europe which has been historically dominated by "The Church"?

Ivy, you raise an interesting couple of points. This came up recently when I defended my dissertation for my DMin--doctorate of Ministry. It won't be conferred until commencement in June, but hey, it's been a journey. And, this is not my specialty; reformation theology is. However, as the roots of your points date to reformation ideas, I'll offer my few thoughts but don't take them as, pardon the pun, "gospel."

 

The whole tax exempt thing was introduced by the senior senator from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1950s to ensure that African American congregations in Texas were prevented from speaking out and endorsing his republican opponent.  In short to assure his reelection. Ironic.

 

The differences between the religion of Christianity and Cultural Christianity are pervasive and manifest themselves mostly around Christmas and Easter, which have IMHO, been perverted into greed fests by  corporate America. Is America a "Christian country?" The answer to that is complicated and far beyond the scope of this thread. The short answer is, "it depends." If you mean is it a theocracy, the answer is a resounding NO! But, if you mean was it founded on Christo-Judaic principles, then the evidence seems to support a firm yes.  For example, the laws of the country are rooted in the Old Testament (Specifically the first five books, or Talmud), congress always opens with prayer, the motto "In God We Trust" is on our currency and congress uses operating rules based on those of the Presbyterian church in the late 18th century; which goes a long way toward explaining their antics.  All of this ties back to the reformation, specifically to Luther's theses, Calvin's Institutes and the writings of Melancton et al. With a good dose of English common law and Scots-Irish desire for freedom stirred in for good measure.

 

And in a bit of trivia, the "Establishment Clause" as it was originally written was included to prevent something similar to a Church of England happening on this continent as many of the original colonies were formed by folks fleeing religious persecution. So is the United States a "Christian country?" I don't have a definitive answer; you be the judge. It's a personal choice with no right or wrong answer.

[_Kira_]

9 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Nobody should be making politics into a profitable career. Do a few years of sacrificial public service, then go away and live a quiet life. 

 

I couldn't agree more, I believe that this is the single greatest problem with our democratic system today. 

This system clearly doesn't attract the best of the best candidates. Only those who are willing to do what ever it takes to get in and stay there for as long as possible. 

George Santos?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carolyn Marie]

Folks, once again this thread, like many others before it, has entered uncharted (and unintended) territory.  The issue of church vs. state is an interesting topic, but this isn't the thread for it.  You're welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.  If this thread continues to stray, I'll lock it.  Thank you.

 

Carolyn Marie

[Ivy]

4 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

the motto "In God We Trust" is on our currency

It is my understanding, that this was only officially adopted in the 1950's.

And "under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

This was the time of the Red Scare, and also the Lavender Scare.  

(Lavender is such a lovely color, but scary, apparently)

 

 

 

[Ivy]

Sorry, I posted this before I saw this last thread….    Ooopsie.