I swear, you have to be so entrenched in media to understand a headline like this.
this post was submitted on 12 May 2025
741 points (98.9% liked)
politics
23461 readers
3608 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
And that's just the supply for Hegseth's whiskey dick.
That is what viagra is.
I don't think the taxpayers should subsidize male erections.... call me crazy.
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(R) isn’t too keen on facts and logic
The DoD knows how to make a soldier happy; blue pills and hummers ;)
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!!!
Isn't viagra gender affirming care?
That's what I thought.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ummm....that IS "gender affirming care", though.
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.
It was never about the money being spent. It is about othering fellow Americans and creating a Boogeyman for the Fox/OAN/etc. crowd.
Considering how cheap viagra is, this is actually kind of astonishing.
ED can be a long term symptom of traumatic brain injury. TBI is super common for anyone deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan
"Thanks for killing all those middle eastern kids. Here are your allotted dick pills. Oh and, you're not trans are you?"
- Uncle Sam
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"egregiously misquoted" sounds a lot like lying. I'm pretty sure that lying in federal court filings is a felony. These lawyers should be censured at minimum.
False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
The principal federal false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, proscribes false statements, concealment, or false documentation in any matter within the jurisdiction of any of the three branches of the federal government. It applies generally within the executive branch. Within the judicial branch, it applies to all but presentations to the court by parties or their attorneys in judicial proceedings. Within the legislative branch, it applies to administrative matters such as procurement, as well as to "any investigations and reviews, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission, or office of the Congress consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate."
A lot of people read the comments without having read the article, so for them here's the bit you're taking about:
At one point, attorneys had to admit to Reyes that they had never read articles which were included as evidence. Reyes then said they had "cherry picked" and "egregiously misquoted" studies put forward by the Pentagon on transgender people decreasing the lethality of the military.
Thanks. I really should have quoted the whole passage.
Makes sense. How can we expect our troops to drop bombs on middle-eastern children if they can't get it up?
$5.2m? They’re probably gonna spend more than that just arguing this case. It’s never been about the money.
Too Drunk To Fuck
sigh Everything reminds me of her...
view more: next ›