Warren “stands against trans rights?”

So there is considerable backlash in the LGBT community against Elizabeth Warren for her comment on WTKK after Judge Wolf ruled that the state had to pay for sex change surgery:  “I have to say, I don’t think it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars,” she said.

So now we see blog posts like this one on Feministing: How can I vote for Elizabeth Warren when she stands against trans rights?

Do you believe prisoners deserve basic human rights while they are incarcerated, including access to necessary medical care? Kosilek’s doctors have said she needs this surgery. Assuming you do believe prisoners deserve health care, the only reason I can see you thinking it OK for a politician to insert yourself into someone’s process of making medical decisions with her doctors is because you don’t accept this is actually necessary medical care. I frankly don’t understand how a pro-choice politician can think voicing this sort of opinion is OK ever, and the only explanation I can find is ignorance or bigotry about trans people. It seems like you think Kosilek’s surgery is unecessary in some way – that it’s cosmetic is a typical uninformed take. That you think it’s OK for a politician to even weigh in with her medical opinion, though, only seems possible if you think trans women are less deserving of rights.

I shouldn’t have to explain to you that sex reassignment surgery can be necessary surgery. But we’ve got this bizarre attitude that trans women’s bodies are public property, that we don’t deserve bodily autonomy because of our genders, so everybody gets to say whether we even deserve health care. I shouldn’t have to explain that some trans folks experience dissonance between our bodies and identities to such a harsh degree that is has marked negative health outcomes. I shouldn’t have to explain that sex reassignment surgery isn’t cosmetic – it’s health care. Medical professionals have agreed that transition related medical care, including hormone treatment and surgery, is appropriate treatment for extreme gender dissonance experienced by trans people.

I’m glad the Feministing writer tosses aside the lame dodge about “use of taxpayer money” and asks her the pointed questions about whether she believes it is “medically necessary.” That’s the real issue here, not the fact that it’s a prisoner, and a wife-murderer at that. Those grisly facts are what propelled the issue to the news, as previously the fight to have sex-reassignment surgery covered by insurance companies was deemed not newsworthy. But make no mistake, this is not about prisoners or murderers, this is about insurance coverage, mandated insurance coverage, for everyone to be able to change their sex for free. But it’s more than just about whether it should be free, it’s also about what should be allowed, what should be taught to our children, and how we should protect children from being raised with GID.

Is Warren saying that sex-reassignment surgery is never necessary? I doubt it. If anything, she is saying that murderers forfeit some right to optimal medical care. But she probably still thinks it should be covered by ACA.

And now the $64,000 Question: Does she think people have a right to change sex and reproduce as their new sex, or can the public say that would be unethical and bad public policy to allow.

WArren has got a big opportunity here, after that comment. She can “out-reasonable” Brown on this issue, if Brown comes out as a Transhumanist who thinks people have a right to procreate as either sex, or with either sex.

About John Howard