The judge overseeing the case against the Defense Department’s firing of transgender service members revealed that the military spends 8 times more on erectile dysfunction medication than on gender affirming care.
While discussing military spending with the Defense Department (DoD) attorney for the ongoing Talbott v Trump case, Judge Ana Reyes said the DoD spends approximately $5.2 million annually on medical care for service members with gender dysphoria.
Comparatively, the DoD spends $42 million a year on medication for service members with erectile dysfunction.
The US District Judge asked: “It’s not even a rounding error, right?”
ED meds are gender affirming care, aren’t they? If they are gonna cut it out of military spending, cut all of it out.
(Edit - my thoughts on this may have been incomplete/pedantic. There’s very good arguments below that “functional genitalia” is “affirmation of gender” for a lot of people, cis or trans. Leaving comment unchanged for clarity.)
I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.
Obviously gender and sexuality are deeply intertwined, but it suggests to me that “masculinity” = “functional male genitals”? Which isn’t great for transgender or cisgender men. I might be reading too much into that though.
That being said, none of this is about the cost of the medications, so pointing out that we spend 8x as much on male sexuality than we do on gender care is a good way to drive that point home. They’re not saving money. The cruelty is the point.
I think it can be considered gender affirming care, because I have known a few men who felt like “less of a man” when they struggled with ED. Obviously you’re correct that sexual function does not define a man, but for some men it is a defining part of how they experience life as a man
If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.
Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.
However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.
Hmm. That’s a good point! It’s pretty difficult to argue “functioning male genitals” =/= “gender-affirming care” in that scenario. Thanks for checking me on that, I’ll edit my comment.
Always important to remember the real problem! We should never let “perfect” be the enemy of “good” when it comes to social progress, and comments like mine may be an example of unnecessarily pushing toward “perfect”
We must all be allies in defense of human rights.
Agreed. It’s gender affirming for people with very rigid (heh) views on gender roles.
Is bottom surgery not gender affirming care?
It is. Or at least it can be for some folx.
I don’t really understand what the “not” is doing in your question.
Well, from that logic, it just sounds like you think cis people shouldn’t be able to have the parts they want, but trans people should. How is a trans man getting a working penis different from a cis man getting a working penis, in terms of gender care?
Really confused where you’re getting that from, since I said the exact opposite.
They’re obviously both gender affirming care, even though many cis people I’m sure would balk at that labeling.
EDIT oh is it the part about “cut it all out” in the original comment? I’m taking that as highlighting the double standard, not a serious request to just cut everyone’s care out.
No, it just seems like you saying “it’s gender affirming care for people with very rigid views on gender roles” doesn’t apply to everyone actually seeking a functional penis, but I think I slightly misinterpreted the comment.
If the administration did that, they would have to deal with a coup d’état the next day. 🤣