feature image photo by Heather Diehl / Staff via Getty Images
Usually on Trans News Tracker, I highlight one major story concerning trans rights alongside a number of positive and negative news for our community. This week, though, there are some rather large developments for trans people across the U.S. that I think should be highlighted together. But don’t worry, there is still some good news on the horizon, which I’ll include here as well.
West Virginia can ban Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery, US court rules.
The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia — an all-Republican, mostly Trump-appointed Federal appeals court — ruled last week to uphold West Virginia’s ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgeries for trans adults. The unanimous decision “overturned a judge’s decision that the 2004 statute violated anti-discrimination protections under two federal laws as well as the U.S. Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.” The three-judges on the panel — Paul Victor Niemeyer, Julius Ness Richardson, and Allison Jones Rushing — who presided over the appeal claimed the law (as it stands) was written to apply to “specific procedures” and has nothing to do with the identities of the individuals pursuing these procedures.
In their joint decision, Richardson wrote on behalf of the other members of the panel: “It is not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens to appreciate their sex and not become disdainful of their sex by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
As we know from years of research — which is also constantly expanded upon — the claim that preventing trans people, whether they are adolescents or adults, from pursuing gender-affirming care will somehow discourage them from being trans is not only wildly irrational but also entirely unscientific. And even if it wasn’t, the idea that anyone should place a barrier between what someone can and cannot do with their body has implications that extend far beyond gender-affirming care and trans people.
On top of that, the ramifications of this decision go far beyond West Virginia and how Medicaid funds can be applied. As Erin Reed writes:
“…the precedent in this decision can be weaponized far beyond Medicaid. If it is not unconstitutional to ‘encourage citizens to appreciate their sex,’ the implications extend to virtually every area of transgender life. Are gender marker bans on IDs legal because carrying correct documents could ‘discourage’ transgender people from ‘appreciating their sex?’ Are drag bans and bans on cross-gender clothing legal because the state has an interest in encouraging the appreciation of sex? Could a state compel transgender people into conversion therapy, reasoning that it is not discriminatory because it targets a medical diagnosis rather than transgender status—and that the goal is simply to ‘encourage them to appreciate their sex?’ The implications are terrifying for transgender people, and the court’s language provides no limiting principle to prevent any of these outcomes.”
We are sure to see this ruling used and cited throughout the country as anti-trans laws are being pushed from nearly every corner of the U.S.
Iowa bans cities and towns from protecting transgender citizens’ civil rights.
A year ago, the third state ever in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage before it became Federal law also became one of the first to completely strip gender identity protections from its civil rights code. Last week, it also became one of the first states to enshrine a law prohibiting local municipalities and their governments in the state of Iowa from protecting trans rights on the local level in any capacity.
In a press conference following the signing of the bill into state law, Iowa’s Republican Governor, Kim Reynolds, very vaguely and as seemingly diplomatically as possible tried to make excuses for the escalation in anti-trans legislation at first: “We just believe that locals should follow the state laws, especially when it comes to civil rights. Otherwise, we have a mismatch of rights out there, and we felt that it was the right thing to do.”
But as she continued, it became clear her concerns were centered around the “panic” in regards to trans women participating in women’s sports. She said: “One of the reasons that we did that is it does have an impact on protecting girls’ sports and making sure that we’re protecting girls in safe spaces, in restrooms and in lockers. So, that was at jeopardy if we have a hodgepodge of mixed laws within our state. We thought that it was important that they be consistent, and so did the Legislature.”
Here again, we have a group of far-right losers performing legislative tyranny simply because they believe in a bogeyman that doesn’t and has never existed. What’s more is that this will likely have far-reaching consequences as conservative state legislatures try to figure out what to do with the more progressive municipal governments in their states. As Coralville (Iowa) City Council Member Katie Freeman told Iowa Public Radio in an interview after the passing of the law: “The state can now take away any civil rights, and no city has a recourse for that. And unfortunately, I think there are too many people that still believe it will never happen to them, and we don’t have the luxury to believe that any longer.”
Federal prisons are beginning to force trans inmates off hormone therapy.
While this issue might not have the same wide-reaching implications as the previous two, I do think it’s important this story is included in this special feature on Trans New Tracker this week simply because it’s not being widely reported on at all.
In this column, I previously reported that a new Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy barring trans people from accessing gender-affirming care in prisons was signed into effect on February 19 of this year by BOP Director Billy Marshall. The policy prohibits all Federal prisons overseen by the bureau from providing any access at all to gender-affirming surgeries or hormone replacement therapies needed by incarcerated trans people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As of last week, the BOP and the Trump administration have ordered doctors in Federal prisons to now also begin “tapering” incarcerated trans people off of hormone replacement therapy in an attempt to be “in compliance” with the new policy.
However, taking people off of hormone replacement therapy isn’t an easy medical feat, as hormone replacement therapy impacts more than just cosmetic changes to the body. In an interview with The Advocate, Dr. Carl Streed, a Boston primary care physician and one of the country’s leading researchers on transgender health, explains: “People are going to have changes in cognition. They’re going to experience mood changes. They’re going to see brain fog issues, difficulty concentrating.”
The article goes on to report, “Such symptoms can arise quickly when hormone levels suddenly drop, because those hormones help regulate mood, cognition, metabolism, and cardiovascular health. Over time, the consequences may become more serious.”
Aside from the debilitating physical impacts of being forced off hormone therapy, it is easy to argue that this move is completely unconstitutional, as incarcerated people technically have a right to adequate medical care while they are in the custody of the State. There are sure to be developments on this story as more and more Federal prison medical centers begin to capitulate to the BOP and the Trump administration, and we will continue to report on them as they arise.
Some Good Trans News For Once
Moms are risking arrest to protect gender-affirming care for trans youth. Last month, a group of parents and grandparents of trans youth, alongside some of their healthcare providers, protested the Trump administration’s attacks on trans youth by blocking the entrance to the Health and Human Services Department headquarters. Twenty-five of the protesters were arrested, but that’s not deterring them from continuing to show up for the trans young people in their lives. They’re going to continue demanding justice for the young trans people in their lives, and they have the full backing of the Gender Liberation Movement to continue doing this work.
Aetna ordered to reconsider transgender care coverage denials. Two trans women sued their Aetna insurance provider after being denied coverage for gender-affirming care on the basis of unlawful sex discrimination. Last week, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Victor A. Bolden, ordered Aetna to approve the procedures that were originally denied if they were deemed as medically necessary. This sets an interesting precedent for claims made by insurance companies regarding what gender-affirming care is covered and what is not. We’ll have to see where this goes in the coming months.
Zohran Mamdani announces trans director to lead NYC’s first LGBTQIA+ Affairs Office. I think the most exciting part of this is that the city is establishing the first-ever Mayor’s Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs. The fact that a trans woman is in charge of it is really just icing on the cake. Hopefully, this pushes Mamdani and his team to push back against the medical clinics in the city who are capitulating to Trump’s anti-trans executive orders and financial threats.
Two Dem Senate candidates stand up for trans athletes in the face of GOP attacks. Do I trust the Democratic Party? No. Will I still report on some of them having a backbone in the face of increasing anti-trans bigotry? Sure, because maybe it will help cis people see standing up for their trans neighbors is actually extremely easy.
San José State University sues Trump admin over anti-trans threats—refusing to capitulate. In the face of so many different universities, university medical centers, and college sports programs giving into the Trump administration’s anti-trans agenda, “San José State University in California has filed a scathing lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s Department of Education, rejecting the regime’s attempts to use the crisis it manufactured over transgender athletes as a vessel for even more repressive and consequential anti-LGBTQ crackdowns.”
International:
A landmark ruling could protect trans Europeans’ right to correct ID documents. After Bulgaria attempted to ban trans people from changing their gender markers on their birth certificates, the European Court of Justice ruled last week that such bans go directly against European law. This means that no country in the European Union can pass, enact, or enforce such laws legally. Big win for trans people in EU countries!
Last Bits of Trans News
Through the medium of comics, trans artists tell their stories. This is a heartening profile about trans comic artists and authors who are attempting to use the comic and graphic novel as a place to explore trans themes and trans issues.
Dwyane Wade offers message for Trump administration on trans kids. Wade executive produced a new documentary about the parents — specifically the fathers — of trans and gender-expansive kids called “The Dads,” which premiered at SXSW in Austin last week. In an interview following the premiere, he said in response to the Trump administration’s attacks:
“I think everything in our world can be solved with a four-letter word called love. That’s what I lead with. That’s what I try to give to every human being, every person that I meet. We all are in this world trying to figure it out. No one has the answers to it. We got a lot of questions. We don’t have all the answers. I don’t subscribe to anything or anyone trying to treat someone less than.”
Comments
The question of whether public funds should be directed toward gender-affirming surgeries involves a complex debate regarding the definition of medical necessity versus elective cosmetic procedures. From a fiscal and logical perspective, many argue that the primary responsibility of a taxpayer-funded healthcare system is to provide life-saving treatment and essential care for ailments that affect the general population, rather than financing procedures intended to alter physical appearance.
The Distinction Between Essential and Elective Care
Logic dictates that public resources are finite. Therefore, a government must prioritize medical interventions based on physical health outcomes and the immediate preservation of life. When surgeries are performed to align a person’s outward appearance with their internal identity, they often involve procedures that are identical to those sought by individuals for purely aesthetic reasons. For example, if a biological woman desires breast implants simply because she prefers a different aesthetic, this is universally classified as an elective cosmetic surgery. Taxpayers are not expected to subsidize this personal choice. To remain consistent and logical, the same standard should apply to gender-affirming care. If a trans-feminine individual seeks breast augmentation, it is difficult to justify why the public should fund one instance of the surgery but not the other when the physical result and the procedure itself are the same.
The use of the term “gender-affirming care” to describe these surgeries does not change the underlying nature of the medical intervention. If the state begins to fund surgeries based on the emotional or psychological comfort of the citizen, it creates a slippery slope for other cosmetic requests. One could argue that an individual suffering from extreme distress over the shape of their nose or the aging of their skin is also seeking “affirmation” of their self-image. However, providing taxpayer-funded rhinoplasty or facelifts would be viewed as an irresponsible use of public money. By maintaining a strict boundary that excludes all cosmetic-nature surgeries from Medicaid or federal prison budgets, the government ensures that funds are preserved for undisputed medical emergencies, such as cancer treatments, heart surgeries, and emergency trauma care.
Furthermore, the argument for excluding these surgeries from public funding does not equivalent to a ban on the procedures themselves. In a free society, individuals have the right to pursue whatever medical alterations they desire, provided they utilize their own private resources or insurance. Requiring an individual to pay for their own transition-related surgeries respects the autonomy of the taxpayer who may have moral, religious, or fiscal objections to such procedures. It ensures that the collective “pot” of tax money is used for the greatest common good treating sickness and injury rather than fulfilling the specific self-actualization goals of a small subset of the population.
Quiet, nose picker.