Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Trans Women Must Pay for their Breasts
Womanist Musings (progressive blog)
by Renee
April 15, 2010
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2010/04/trans-women-must-pay-for-their-breasts.html (http://www.womanist-musings.com/2010/04/trans-women-must-pay-for-their-breasts.html)

How about acknowledging the radical notion that trans women are REAL WOMEN.  I honestly don't know why this concept remains so difficult to understand.  There is no such thing as a fake woman and people can identify as whatever gender that best suits them without being fraudulent.

I am further disgusted with the idea that it constitutes preferential treatment to pay for breast implants for trans women.  These procedures are not undertaken from a position of vanity, but to affirm their status as women.  The idea that somehow cisgender women are being oppressed because trans women are having their medical treatment covered is ridiculous and it is biased.

Well, don't cisgender women have to pay for their implants too? I don't see why this would be an issue.

Quote from: SilverFang on April 16, 2010, 04:36:26 AM
Well, don't cisgender women have to pay for their implants too? I don't see why this would be an issue.

Quite. Personally I think SRS should be covered, but breast implants not necessarily. Ok I will admit I'm one the lucky ones. HRT alone got me to an F cup size so implants would have been ridiculous, but the fact remains lot's of natal females have small boobs. So you either allow free implants for all of them too, which would get very costly, or you allow them for no one!

i have to agree with jenny and silver on this point too
jessica

Quote from: SilverFang on April 16, 2010, 04:36:26 AM
Well, don't cisgender women have to pay for their implants too? I don't see why this would be an issue.

Do women who have had a mastectomy (such as for cancer treatment) have to pay for reconstructive surgery?  How would society react if all women lost their breasts?  We're not talking about enhancing female breasts, we're talking about creating female breasts.

A 5'-1" natal female with a 32" chest and an A cup will have noticeable breasts.  A 6'-1" trans woman with a 48" chest and an A cup will look completely flat.   

Society views breasts in women essential to womanhood.  Unless you begin HRT at a very early age, breast growth in a trans woman can be insufficient in being recognized as female.  Consideration has to be made in minimizing male markers and breasts go a long way in that area.  I know.

Like many things, maybe there can be a middle ground. If a percentage isn't gained in 2 years or something.

Should a mastectomy be covered for FTMs?

You don't lose breasts on T so probably.

Considering that HRT can result in quite satisfactory results over time, I think this is a rather sticky topic. Who gets to decide what is satisfactory, and how long should the woman wait before the HRT-induced results are deemed "final"?

If decisions are made case by case, you can bet that the bottom line will kick in and some women will be left with results that health care providers consider ample but the woman in question, and perhaps many other people, consider to be quite inadequate.

I've heard a few stories, perhaps apocryphal, about trans women who got breast augmentation surgery almost immediately and then made unexpected size gains on HRT. I figured that they were jumping the gun by getting surgery so quickly, but as long as they paid for it themselves...

For the same reason that trans men are advised to be on HRT a few years before they get meta, I don't think it's reasonable to expect insurance or national health care to cover breast augmentation when a woman has just started HRT. But I can't really say how long she should have to wait.

Agreed with Arch.

If HRT produces acceptable results for a woman's frame, then good. That outcome is highly preferable to surgery. But if the results are not within the range of acceptability within a reasonable timeframe, then covering implants is reasonable.

That being said, the equivalent for trans men wouldn't be our chest reconstructions - nobody aside from the boys who get puberty blockers is going to get acceptable chest results without surgery. Our equivalent would be something like liposuction for guys whose fat doesn't redistribute adequately on T. And I seriously doubt something like that would be covered.

Not every small busted woman wants an augmentation.  And not every woman who has lost one or both wants them ether.

Those that do pay for them.  But there are cases where it become medically necessary because of the mental distress the person has.  Then insurances will cover them.  And mastectomies are covered because of a medical necessity.  So why not do the same for the Transwoman and Transmen?

Because we are still in the DSM as have a mental disorder.

Breasts are a female identifying part of the body.  The guys want them gone so they can lose that female marker.  We girls want them so we can gain that female marker.

HRT is not going to do, in later transitioning women, what early hormone introduction can do in either cis-girls or trans girls.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for insurance companies to cover BA.  I also think bottom surgery (for both), hormones (for both) and even facial work (in some cases) should be covered.  If there is a great deal of distress because your birth gender markers impair your ability to function, then corrective measures should be covered.

As far as cost, there was an estimate I read that said GRS would create an increase of about .3%.  Hardly anything to worry about.  And if we preached healthy lifestyles, we'd more than recoup and deficit created by covering trans related treatments.

Just think of all the happy campers we'd have out there!

Quote from: Julie Marie on April 16, 2010, 07:04:15 PM
Breasts are a female identifying part of the body.  The guys want them gone so they can lose that female marker.  We girls want them so we can gain that female marker.

HRT is not going to do, in later transitioning women, what early hormone introduction can do in either cis-girls or trans girls.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for insurance companies to cover BA.  I also think bottom surgery (for both), hormones (for both) and even facial work (in some cases) should be covered.  If there is a great deal of distress because your birth gender markers impair your ability to function, then corrective measures should be covered.

As far as cost, there was an estimate I read that said GRS would create an increase of about .3%.  Hardly anything to worry about.  And if we preached healthy lifestyles, we'd more than recoup and deficit created by covering trans related treatments.

Just think of all the happy campers we'd have out there!

I fully agree Julie.  And if the ones who don't think it should be covered, they need to really look at the true facts, not what they want to make up.

If you use the price times the number of Transpeople in the US alone, yes it sounds like a lot of money.  But when it compared to the total costs of healthcare it is well within reason.

One thing I don't get is why electrolysis is considered cosmetic. I mean, how many bearded women do you know? (I've only heard of one recently, and I'll bet SHE could get the hair removal covered by her insurance if she really wanted to!) Not to mention that if you want to wear a dress or skirt or shorts, do you really want to have to deal with male stubble on your legs? That stuff has got to GO.

There are some transsexual women who have more to overcome in their pursuit to fit in as females (presentation) in society. Some women are very tall have certain features where they must enhance other areas just to look like a female. Breasts could be one of those areas. If hormones don't give the 'needed' results then BA might be mandatory.

I can't believe there are a lot here that compare this to the same as cisgender women. It is bizarre. Transsexual women often MUST have BA.

I really don't want to hear from people who say that their insurance dollars shouldn't be used for my BA. I have a medical condition that requires surgery.

My insurance dollars are going to fund the healthcare needs of those who gobble down fast food, get obese and have diabetic related issues. Those same premium  dollars pay for those who smoke, knowingly injecting carcinogens into their bodies which later turn cancerous. We get care for our "mistakes". My mistake was one a genetic one which I could not help.

From what I've read 99% of those who have gender corrective surgery are happy. The APA even now says in the DSM that once we have gender corrective surgery that we no longer belong in the DSM, as we are cured. Having recognizable breasts are a part of gender corrective surgery!

It is cheaper for the health insurance companies to pay for my surgeries, then keep me in perpetual mental health therapy at $150 per hour! The companies should be a little less penny wise and pound foolish.

Quote from: Joandelynn on April 17, 2010, 03:34:15 PM
Note that the article is wrong about electrolysis not being covered in the Netherlands. It is covered, but only for the face and the genital area, not for the rest of the body.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I wasn't actually responding to the article (which, you point out, appears to be incorrect). I meant electrolysis in the U.S. Sorry about the confusion. I was just venting a bit at the unfairness of it all.

Arch, I know several women who can grow a beard better than I can or even better than their hubbies. They just shave.