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?”
Viagra is gender affirming care.
So are the T injections conservatives are all taking these days…
Hell, when that one idiot told them to tan their but holes to increase testosterone, that was technically gender affirming care, just not actually effective.
Viagra is gender affirming care.
Isn’t viagra gender affirming care?
That’s what I thought.
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
I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.
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.
If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.
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.
However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.
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 & incorrectly pushing toward “perfect”
We must all be allies in defense of human rights.
I love seeing comments like yours where people change some of their thinking as a result of online discussion.
I was starting to feel like no one listens to understand and only listen to respond, and comments like this help lift me out of that perspective.
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.
Isn’t bottom surgery gender affirming care?
Is not bottom surgery gender affirming care?
Is bottom surgery not gender affirming care?
Same idea, grammatically
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. 🤣
If God wants you to have a limp dick that is his plan for you!!! How dare you go against God!!! 😆
Dick pills (and hair plugs) are gender affirming, you twats…
100%! If your dick don’t work, God doesn’t want you using it!!!
That is what viagra is.
Ummm…that IS “gender affirming care”, though.
Doesn’t this make sense though, statistically? Aren’t men with ED a much larger portion of the population than people trying to transition?
I would say that yes, this is expected, but goes to show how much the cost of gender affirming care is being blown out of proportion by the right.
That’s true for sure
Yeah. Too bad the party of Facts and Logic® isn’t too keen on facts and logic
deleted by creator
I don’t think the taxpayers should subsidize male erections… call me crazy.
Our taxes should be used to pay for universal health care that covers ALL medical issues, including erectile distribution, gender affirming care, abortions, IVF, etc.
Everything. For everyone.
that I’m fine with, I just don’t like the idea of curving out niches for certain groups versus universal health care
The DoD knows how to make a soldier happy; blue pills and hummers ;)
It was never about the money being spent. It is about othering fellow Americans and creating a Boogeyman for the Fox/OAN/etc. crowd.
I was under the impression that sex had no place in our military. Why’re they helping service members get boners if they aren’t supposed to be fucking in the first place?
On the contrary, the military is very pro getting soldiers to have kids. They incentivize it pretty heavily because a lot of people who serve end up having kids who serve, so they get the generational recommitment out of it
That and people literally get to where they feel trapped in the military by their kids. Can’t afford to separate and lose that Tricare or on-base daycare.
Does the DoD pay for medical treatment of those that have retired? Ive seen some news that viagra also helps treat some problems that arise when the prostate grows too much, like having trouble peeing and some pains.
Retired or separated with a disability rating. IIRC all meds are covered at a rating of 50% or higher, even if the med in question has nothing to do with what’s on the claim.
Makes sense. How can we expect our troops to drop bombs on middle-eastern children if they can’t get it up?
they could have gotten generic boner pills for much less money.
have they not seen those commercials?
even a gas station poner pill would cost less.
It very likely is generic.
All my meds from the VA are generic.
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.
Its not a small figure, either
Yeah, headline should have said care for gender dysphoria. Viagra is gender affirming care too…
Nah, thats a “fuck you” to asexual folks.
