#and there is an implicit understanding there of certain kinds of gender-based affirmations that doesn't extend across

[variousqueerthings]

me and my mum were listening to danish news about how rigshospitalet (basically the largest hospital in denmark) was cutting back on costs by no longer covering the costs of tattooing nipples on breast-cancer cis women patients who have had breast re-construction, which is paid by tax payer money/free on the hospital

and that's all a discussion about gender reaffirming care!

whether or not the nipple counts as "distressing enough" is a thing I won't get into (I am personally getting mine removed -- opposite gender affirming care!!! same-but-different) -- what is interesting here to me, is firstly that what is being argued -- the big fascinating hypocrisy at the centre -- is notably not whether or not cis women need to prove a significant amount of psychological distress by speaking to psychiatrists and jumping through segregated healthcare hoops

and yet in denmark trans people do have to do this in order to access care -- not to the same amount as in some countries (notably it is done at the hospitals, but as far as I'm aware it's only the two main hospitals in Denmark that offer it, and it's not legal to go private within the country), but that is still the process and was until not-so-many-years also including forced sterilisation

the idea that a cisgender woman might feel significant gender-based distress at not having breasts was not in question in the discussion my mum and I were listening to

the other thing that is interesting is that the person at the rigshospitalet who was arguing that the nipples was too much cost was a cis dude. and of course cis dudes can have breast-cancer, but I have a feeling this guy was not speaking from that kind of thinking + of course the weight of "being a woman who has breasts that look like people think breasts should look" is an issue that he would never have to deal with, and so there was indeed an example there of a doctor who was not taking cis women's dysphoria seriously and arguing a (partial) rolling back of care on this basis

to what extent do cis women have to contend with looking "enough" like a woman because of misogyny? to what extent can one argue the dysphoria they feel is an innate idea of the self that doesn't match with what they see? to what extent is it a reaction to a different traumatic event (the scars a reminder of having been sick)? to what extent is there a cultural disgust against scarring that ought to be unlearned?

I'd argue that for the particular question of whether they deserve the care right now, those questions aren't going to help. offer the care and we can dismantle harmful notions about "correct" womanhood next to it (putting the ball in the court of a far bigger sandpit of societal work we need to do), and at the same time be cognizant of how that hits trans women 100 times over just for existing and having to perform hyper-femininity or else it doesn't count but is also demonised for being a performance, and in a different-but-similar way hits anyone who is assigned female at birth who is trying to build a space of non-conformity and/or masculinity and being scrutinised for "always" being a female while also being masculine traitors (just look at responses to elliot page) (just look at butches regardless of AGAB full stop)

I am supportive of cis women (and cis men) receiving gender affirming care. now they need to be supportive of me and mine receiving the same