Medicine, health and gender ideology

 

I hadn't realized how endemic the gender apocalypse had become in the health care (?) industry until I read this article.

In Minton v. Dignity Health, Evan Minton, who was born female but masqueraded as a male, was scheduled by her doctor for a hysterectomy at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic hospital near Sacramento, in August 2016. Two days before the procedure, the doctor informed the hospital that she was transgender, and the hospital canceled the surgery. The hospital’s position was that the surgery was elective, part of a “transition,” and that, as a Catholic hospital, they could not participate in sex change operations.

The ACLU filed suit under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The California Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that Minton had standing to proceed, and in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Dignity Health’s appeal, leaving that ruling intact.

In the end, the San Francisco County Superior Court entered the following judgment: “It is adjudged that plaintiff Minton, Evan take nothing from defendant Dignity Health dba Mercy San Juan Medical Center.” Minton lost. She was awarded nothing.

In Hammons v. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, the ruling went the other way when a federal court subsequently ruled that the hospital’s refusal to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who dressed as a man violated the Affordable Care Act.

. . .

Jessica Simpson, a Canadian transgender activist who retains male genitalia, filed a complaint against a gynecologist who refused to treat her, claiming discrimination. The complaint was filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia in 2019, though no resolution has been publicly reported.

A report by Advocates for Trans Equality states, “If a transgender woman’s health care provider decides she needs a prostate exam, an insurance company can’t deny it because she is listed as female in her records. If her provider recommends gynecological care, coverage can’t be denied simply because she was identified as male at birth.”

There's more at the link.

Verily, the mind doth boggle.  How on earth is an insurance company to assess the likely costs to be incurred by a prospective member if they can't be sure whether he/she is male or female?  Women have gynecological expenses that men don't have;  men have male-specific illnesses that women don't have.  It makes a difference to risks, premiums, etc.  For that matter, how about life insurance when life expectancy is affected by biological sex?  All other things being equal, women live several years longer than men, and insurance companies take that into account when deciding on the premium for life insurance policies.  What if they can't be sure of the biological sex (and hence natural life expectancy) of the person applying for insurance?

I've got a simple proposal.  Whenever anyone applies for health insurance, life insurance, or anything else where biological sex makes a difference, insist that they have to undergo a chromosome check.  If it comes back XX, they're female, no matter what they say they are.  If it comes back XY, they're male, ditto.  Only in the vanishingly small number of so-called "intersex" cases (generally accepted by authoritative medical sources as being far less than 1%) would further testing be required.  The insurance or medical procedures the individual seeks should be awarded on the basis of this chromosome test.  If it's not appropriate for their chromosomal (i.e. biological) sex, they can't have it unless they pay for it out of their own pockets and the provider is willing to provide it.  Period (you should pardon the expression).  Biologically female?  No subsidized prostate or testicular cancer exam for you.  Biologically male?  No subsidized birth control pills or cervical cancer test for you.  Is the examination or procedure you want against the moral or ethical code of the provider?  Then you don't get it from them.  End of story.

I think that would eliminate most of the legal problems facing the health care industry, exclude a great deal of the political correctness and "wokeness" involved, and save insurers a lot of money into the bargain.  What say you, readers?

Peter