HRC sucks

Sadly, I don't get paid to do analysis of this sort*, so I can't spend a lot of time digging up and calling attention to every problem with the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, but I stumbled on this one while researching potential employers*, and I just had to share with my readers (a broad constituency, to be sure.)

It's no secret that the HRC doesn't mind throwing standing on the heads of T's to raise up the L's, G's, and B's, but I thought that maybe their Corporate Equality Index could be of use (since, by its express methodology, it ought to be of at least limited use.) However, now it seems that trans persons are so invisible to the HRC that they don't even take notice when a corporation they are evaluating moves in a big way against our interests. What I am about to point out is not going to surprise anyone here, but no one is rubbing their nose in it, so I guess it's up to me.

The HRC's CEI rates each corporation out of 100 points, a composite of various criteria of LGBT-friendliness such as domestic partner benefits, express non-discrimination policy in place for both sexual orientation and gender identity, and seemingly a big one, "Employer exhibits responsible behavior toward the GLBT community; does not engage in action that would undermine GLBT equality." (page 9 of this report - PDF link) For this final criterion, the following note is included: "Employers found engaging in activities that would undermine GLBT equality will have 15 points removed from their scores."

Aetna Inc. is rated 100% by the HRC Corporate Equality Index, and apparently has been for six years! (page 22 of this report - PDF link) However, Aetna Inc., an insurance provider, consistently engages in an activity that seriously undermines LGBT equality, at least as far as the "T" is concerned. Here is a line, not uncharacteristic, from an Aetna health insurance policy: "The Plan neither covers nor provides benefits for the following: ... 25. Expenses incurred for, or related to, sex change surgery, or to any treatment of gender identity disorder."**

Now the actual SRS, I can almost, kinda, sorta, (but not really) see the justification for exclusion. It's definitely elective (evidenced by the fact that many trans women and men decide against genital surgery, and yet live very successfully presenting as their target gender.) However, it's also (in most locales) a requirement for legal recognition as one's target sex, so it seems that it should be covered by SOMEONE... but I can at least see that there's room for argument, there. However, this language also excludes expenses related to sex change surgery, and any treatment of gender identity disorder. So, you can have therapy for your depression if it's a product of marital troubles, a new physical disability, or even unexplained... but if you're depressed because you've somehow received the wrong set of gonads (surely, a mix-up that would ruin anyone's day)? Toughen the fuck up, Sally. The exclusion of expenses "related to" sex change surgery is even more troubling. If I have complications from my SRS (even months or years later), I'm out of luck. If a natal woman has a vaginal tear that gets infected (perhaps after a brutal rape), she can expect the insurance company to pony up the dough for treating that infection. However, if a trans woman has a vaginal tear (perhaps also after a brutal rape), I hope she likes medical debt, because that's what she's getting! After all, if she hadn't had that vagina in the first place, it wouldn't be torn and infected now, would it?

Surely, this sort of thing undermines LGBT equality. Of course, perhaps they got a pass on this one because they also exclude other perfectly reasonable and necessary procedures, including breast reduction, gynecal mastea (male breasts), tobacco cessation (you'd think an insurance company might like to encourage this sort of thing), and gastric bypass.

Goodness, I talk a lot. The point is, Aetna is batting 85%, at best.

* If you've a tranny-friendly job for me, please let me know! Especially if I can telecommute or you can make it worth my while to move! (I is edumacated!)
** I would love to provide a link to this document. Unfortunately, it would be devastatingly stupid for me to do so, as it would make obvious the identity of my present employer, which has very recently and explicitly opted NOT to include gender identity protection in its employment policy. Fear not, for I shall rub their noses in it quite vigorously the moment I have secured alternative employment!