Susan's Place Transgender Resources

THINK PROGRESS- LGBT


Obama Administration Announces Health Grants To Help Transgender Population

By Kellan Baker on Feb 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/22/429709/obama-administration-announces-health-grants-to-help-transgender-population/ (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/02/22/429709/obama-administration-announces-health-grants-to-help-transgender-population/)

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has announced two new grant competitions focusing on connecting HIV-positive transgender women of color with health care services, including primary care and HIV-related care.

... HIV-positive transgender women of color ...

is not "the population."  It is an extremely small, focused subset.

I wonder how many individuals would qualify for those grants?

This sort of reverse discrimination should be illegal. I'm excluded from this program because I'm not "of color"? Can you IMAGINE the backlash if this was "focused on white transgendered women"??

I can understand if this is focused on HIV positive Transpeople but race should have NO determination on who can get these. And neither should gender, why only trans women?

"Also in 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention awarded $55 million over five years to 34 community-based organizations to expand HIV prevention services for transgender youth of color, as well as young gay and bisexual men of color. "

  AARGH!  I'm too young and healthy to be on Medicare/Medicade.  The health care changes will not help me either due to the shortage of doctors.  And now this!  HIV/AIDS and the other disease care should be on a much broader spectrum, not just the group mentioned.  This will not help Mr. Obama in his pursuit of reelection. 
  Joelene

America, please get over this whole racial thing.  Do the First Nations get a look in I wonder?

Yeah right, I don't have HIV, but I'm wondering what particular color does someone have to be to receive decent care? Definitely not a very nationally proactive announcement  :P  Some folks just can't seem to move forward from the racial crap

What is the definition of colour?

more political rubbish

What is the definition of colour?
Not 100% white.  A person who was 1/16 African blood was still considered 'black' under slave laws.  BTW the entire notion of slavery in the US was a British Imperial concept, started and run by the British Empire.  It took us a while to get rid of the institution, but it was a transplant, not a native custom.  Racism, as a social-political American construct - is wholly British.

And...the British abolished it over 30 years before we did.

Amazing Grace...the article isn't about slavery...so enough on that subject.

Bad and sad really. But inevitable probably. Easy pickings for a politician looking to pick up votes.

I wonder how long it's going to be before the black people in the US, view the highlighting of black problems, when those problems affect people regardless of race, is actually patronising, demeaning and prevents black people from seeing the colour of their skin as the type of irrelevance it actually is?

I see it as nothing more than a politcial ploy to gain a few more votes.

Or maybe the Administration is reading Transgriot.

Robyn

Wow.  just wow


OK, you have an infectious disease.  You know how it's spread.  You know that the rate of this disease varies wildly among certain population groups.  So your answer would be to distribute the money evenly across the entire population?  If I had say $300 million to spend on AIDS prevention I should buy everyone in the US 2 1/2 rubbers and call it done?

Or --- should I (I know this is cheating, using reason and all) use math and science to target that money into the population groups most at risk?  African-American TGs have a very high rate of AIDS infection.  Much higher than the general population.  In part that's because African-Americans get much less health care than the general population, and TG persons get even less than that.  Moreover, it's an infection rate that has not seemed to reduce as fast as other groups - like affluent white gay men who once had the highest rate, and now have one of the lowest AIDS rates.

Really, all federal health money is basically block-granted out to specific target groups for prevention or research. 





BTW, pretty much the last thing Barrack Obama needs to do is sew up the African-American vote.  Hell, at the rate this is going he isn't going to have to do anything to sew up the election because the longer the Republicans run, the lower the number of people who support them is.  "Generic Republican" isn't even winning anymore.  Really, those people have had 20 debates and as far as the polling goes, Barrack Obama has won every single one of them.  I'm not even sure they care, as they are running a bunch of wealthy religious-fringe lunatics who know nothing of life in the real world and Ron Paul.  All the "A Team" people declined, as did most of the B+ team.  This is truly the bottom of their barrel.  Out of the 4 on stage last night, only one currently has a real job.  Ron Paul.

My favorite (well aside from the debate about contraception, which they really didn't answer, and is a topic from midway though the LAST CENTURY - is that: Syria is Iran's route to the sea   Don't these guys even own a map?  Really, the two countries don't even share a border, not to mention that Iran has ports on both the Indian Ocean as well as on the Persian Gulf.  And their idea of cutting federal spending is to engage in a multi-trillion dollar land war with Iran and build a 2,000 mile security fence along the southern border using state of the art technology while manning it every ten feet with a federal employee.  Brilliant.

And if you were going to 'spend money to buy votes' don't you think you'd spend it on people who are more likely (as opposed to less likely) to vote in the first place.  Or spend the money on a popular target group with a target disease that is also popular?  Like say - extremely cute rich white girls with tennis elbow?

I would be more impressed if the money was targeted towards All Transgendered with aids.

Quote from: tekla on February 23, 2012, 11:28:40 AM
Wow.  just wow


OK, you have an infectious disease.  You know how it's spread.  You know that the rate of this disease varies wildly among certain population groups.  So your answer would be to distribute the money evenly across the entire population?  If I had say $300 million to spend on AIDS prevention I should buy everyone in the US 2 1/2 rubbers and call it done?

Or --- should I (I know this is cheating, using reason and all) use math and science to target that money into the population groups most at risk?  African-American TGs have a very high rate of AIDS infection.  Much higher than the general population.  In part that's because African-Americans get much less health care than the general population, and TG persons get even less than that.  Moreover, it's an infection rate that has not seemed to reduce as fast as other groups - like affluent white gay men who once had the highest rate, and now have one of the lowest AIDS rates.

Really, all federal health money is basically block-granted out to specific target groups for prevention or research. 





BTW, pretty much the last thing Barrack Obama needs to do is sew up the African-American vote.  Hell, at the rate this is going he isn't going to have to do anything to sew up the election because the longer the Republicans run, the lower the number of people who support them is.  "Generic Republican" isn't even winning anymore.  Really, those people have had 20 debates and as far as the polling goes, Barrack Obama has won every single one of them.  I'm not even sure they care, as they are running a bunch of wealthy religious-fringe lunatics who know nothing of life in the real world and Ron Paul.  All the "A Team" people declined, as did most of the B+ team.  This is truly the bottom of their barrel.  Out of the 4 on stage last night, only one currently has a real job.  Ron Paul.

My favorite (well aside from the debate about contraception, which they really didn't answer, and is a topic from midway though the LAST CENTURY - is that: Syria is Iran's route to the sea   Don't these guys even own a map?  Really, the two countries don't even share a border, not to mention that Iran has ports on both the Indian Ocean as well as on the Persian Gulf.  And their idea of cutting federal spending is to engage in a multi-trillion dollar land war with Iran and build a 2,000 mile security fence along the southern border using state of the art technology while manning it every ten feet with a federal employee.  Brilliant.

And if you were going to 'spend money to buy votes' don't you think you'd spend it on people who are more likely (as opposed to less likely) to vote in the first place.  Or spend the money on a popular target group with a target disease that is also popular?  Like say - extremely cute rich white girls with tennis elbow?

Back to my question.  How large is the target population of these grant programs? ("HIV-positive transgender women of color")

According to the recent UCLA study 0.3% pf the population is transgendered.

Of the ~ 1,000,000 HIV+ sufferers no more than half are "female" = 500,000
Of those, 30% are people of "color" = 150,000
Of those 0.3% are transgendered = 450

These are rough estimates, and I am aware that HIV disproportionately infects males, homosexuals, bisexuals, hispanics, and blacks

So maybe 500, or so, persons are targeted by this program. An extremely small group in any case

 My problem with things like this is: race isn't supposed to be a factor in jobs etc but it does become a factor with these types of special programs. I have zero problem with having income limits etc but this should be available to any race of people. I'd love to see any program in the last 20 years that stipulated that the money was only available to a white person. I am NOT a racist person at all, but why do I become a racist because I don't want to be discriminated against because I am white?

"(I know this is cheating, using reason and all)"

Please try to reign in the condescending attitude. And lets not pretend that the reverse of this happens. You are not going to see a "white only" program of any sort sponsored by the government. If there was, I would be equally against that.