Interesting article with interesting questions. My answers so far:
1. It’s definitely transphobic.
2. It’s probably sexist. And racist. Telling all women that they need to conform to unrealistic standards of beauty and then taxing them for doing it seems a lot like bullshit.
3. As pointed out by many commenters on that thread, in order to be an even potentially palatable part of the law, it would need a number of exemptions, first and foremost an acknowledgment of the medical necessity of sex reassignment surgery (see #1).
3. HOWEVER. If we agree for a moment that some cosmetic surgical procedures are not medically necessary (and I understand that defining “medically necessary” is thorny as fuck—but also central to any system of health insurance, even a reformed one), there is the issue that some of those medically unnecessary cosmetic procedures will result in complications. Legit medical complications. That will require medical attention. Some of it very expensive. And while I suspect that most people undergoing cosmetic surgery have health insurance, not all do, and not all will (in the future, in theory) have private health insurance. And it kind of does make sense to me to require a deposit on future, essentially self-inflicted medical costs. (Though I recognize this line of reasoning might have odd implications for other behaviors, not all of which [or even most of which] I’ve considered yet.)
Any bioethicists or public health types out there? I am in the dark on this one.
DISCLAIMER: I have just started to think about this, and it is severely possible that after five more minutes of reflection, I will see how what I just said (#3) is awful policy or misogynistic or both. If you see that, please do point it out to me but maybe don’t hate me? Thanks.
