Does the Portland Mercury cover sex change operations for its employees?

This guy is a whiner. Just because you're not born with the ideal body doesn't mean other people should pay to transform you. That's like me saying I have anxiety and can't sleep at night because I am ugly, and now if my insurance doesn't cover my plastic surgery I am going to sue the state costing shitloads of tax money and wasting a lot of people's time. This guy should be thankful he was born with a healthy body. Maybe he should start doing yoga, search for some peace and stop wasting other people's time and money with his ironically un-manly tears.

Well said both Reasonablist and agayman!!
I just love how Esquivel paints herself a martyr. Or was that Sarah?

this guy has no base for complaint sex change is a voluntary body augmentation. If he is covered them boob jobs and piercings should be covered.

Why get sucked into the right or wrong debate about gender identity disorder (GID) and associated rights? There are so many unsubstantiated claims that obscure, simply, and outright distort the reality of the situation.

Regardless of what folks think about the disorder, does anyone find the stand-alone claims “mainstream-doctor-recognized disorder” and “doctor-prescribed treatments” persuasive? The only thing that backs up these claims is that the AMA recommended insurers cover the disorder in 2007. The AMA isn’t a dispassionate scientific research organization. It credentials doctors and lobbies for their interests. Ask the AMA if they would recommend coverage under a universal healthcare scheme with negotiated rates. My guess is nay.

Also, apparently the denial of coverage constitutes a clear violation of Oregon’s state constitution, in section ORS 659A. Look up that section online. It’s not a brief paragraph, it is a dense clause with multiple stipulations that span many pages. Without precedent or a favorable cultural climate, I’d put good money on the defense if they go all out. Either way, the inner workings of the legal system should be the focus, not a lay person’s unqualified interpretation of Oregon law without support or context.

But what about those prudish insurance companies that balk at GID coverage because it deals with “icky parts’? They seem work well enough with entire disciplines of medicine (Proctologist, urologist, gynecologist, etc.) that deal with “icky parts”. Doesn’t seem like an excuse they’d put forth, although they probably will deftly channel GID bigotry and confusion to avoid unacceptable liabilities they don’t want to cover. Anybody who thinks that’s because of the “Ickiness” of GID is flattering themselves. Insurers attempt limit all forms of mental health coverage because it’s unpredictably expensive, period.

Finally, what about the brave, quixotic lawsuit? If it succeeded would it be a big victory for the transgendered community at large. Maybe. Or it might encourage other state legislative bodies tighten state constitutional language to protect against future lawsuits, legal fees and higher premiums. In the process they could reverse other codified gains for the LGBQT community.

In an ideal world this article would do more than skim the surface. In the real world, this article should have been a empathetic narrative that softly disarms readers instead of a condescending, poorly warranted lecture that puts undecideds on the defensive.

Boo Mercury. You can do better. Not for the petulant critics. For the children ... or something sentimental.

The debate IS about what the rights / coverage of transgender people.
Exactly which part of ORS 659a do you see as a clear violation of the State Constitution?
Be specific, as I couldn't find it.
In my mind, the 'inner workings' of the legal system should serve to administer fairness of our system, not be the focus itself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul…

Alec gets my respect for taking this issue and running with it. Just because there is a social stigma around something do we deny treatment? In that case, we would deny treatment for alcohol or drug addiction, or vasectomies or anything having to do with "dirty parts." I applaud Alec for what he is doing.

Anyone who has met him would never think of him as anything other than a man.

Hell, I used to work for a transgender (m-f) as a teen.
This isn't about people being bigots, or 'equal rights'.
Here is some facts for you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul…

And, Alec may be a great individual, but from what I gather men don't have ovaries.