Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Culture

Even More ‘Health’ Treatments Coming for Trans Employees at Starbucks

Published

on

Starbucks has just announced an expansion to their benefits package that will now offer hair transplants, voice therapy, face feminisation, augmentation surgery, breast reduction, and more.

Health insurance plans for the coffee giant have included gender reassignment surgery since 2012, but now surgeries that were not previously covered under the plans will be made available to all employees.

After teaming with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to expand benefits under the plan, an array of new options are available that were once considered to be cosmetic, and therefore not covered.

According to a news release, WPATH immediate past president Jamison Green says Starbucks is the first company in the world to reach out to WPATH for help translating their recommended standards into a medical benefits policy. “Starbucks was not afraid to ask all the right questions and demand that people get the best possible care,” said Green. “We produced a list of the most crucial benefits and those that are deemed problematic to insurance companies, such as facial feminization and electrolysis.”

Trending: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan’s Envoy To Iranian Regime

Green went on to claim that procedures like electrolysis can be “a life-saving procedure for trans women,” and that some procedures most would consider cosmetic are not an option for trans people.

Starbucks helps their trans employees to navigate the process of finding health providers and assist in making sure their claims are met. They also have advocates who are trained to specifically work with partners who are transitioning. (Starbucks refers to its employees as partners.)

Vice president of benefits at Starbucks said: “The approach was driven not just by the company’s desire to provide truly inclusive coverage, and by powerful conversations with transgender partners about how those benefits would allow them to truly be who they are.” He added: “Nobody else is doing this. We would love to see more employers doing this.”

In 2013, during the annual shareholders meeting that was held in Seattle, Washington, CEO Howard Schultz told investor Tom Strobhar, that if he didn’t agree with their support of the LGBTQ agenda, he could take his shares elsewhere. Strobhar is the founder of the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage Corporate Morality Action Center as well as the chairman of Life Decisions International, a Virginia-based non-profit that’s been fighting to oppose Planned Parenthood since 1992. One could see how the two opposing sides may come to a bit of a heated exchange.

It’s no secret that Starbucks has been a long time of the LGBTQ agenda. In 2014, the company raised a 38-foot wide by 19-foot tall rainbow flag on top of their Seattle Headquarters, where it remained throughout the weekend of Seattle’s Pride Parade. It was such a hit, they decided to make it an annual event and raise the flag each year during Pride Week.

In 2017, Starbucks scored a perfect 100 out of 100 on The Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s 2018 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), a survey recognizing support for LGBTQ equality among the nation’s top employers.

Starbucks released their first LGBTQ-themed commercial in 2016, starring two top contenders from ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race” season six, Bianca Del Rio and Adore Delano:

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Culture

Lesbian Activist Trashes Trans Fad: ‘Biology is Not a Social Construct’

Published

on

Some of the letters in the LGBT community are not feeling so communal if a prominent lesbian activist and Army Staff Sergeant is to be believed.

“I have spent every day of my life since that time advocating for the marginalized and oppressed, especially sexual minorities,” wrote Miriam Ben-Shalom in The Federalist. “I’ve organized rallies, shown up and stood up wherever injustice was allowed to flourish. I’ve twice chained myself to the White House fence and engaged in non-violent civil disobedience to protest the ban on LGB people in the military. I’ve risked jail time and criminal charges on behalf of my brothers and sisters in the LGB community.”

Ben-Shalom was originally honorably discharged from the Army for homosexuality, but was the first person re-instated after such a discharge in 1988, which she describes as one of the proudest moments of her life.

But things aren’t completely hunky-dory for the lesbian activist right now. Though she believes that transgender people deserve respect and ought not to be discriminated against, it is clear that Ben-Shalom thinks the movement has gone too far.

“[I] ought not to be expected to believe that by some magic and lots of surgeries and chemicals that a man can be a woman and a woman a man,” she wrote. “I, and all woman and children, should not have to put up with the shenanigans of those who insist that biology is ‘a social construct’ but gender ‘is innate in a person’ when the exact opposite is true.”

Ironically, Ben-Shalom’s views on the subject are so controversial that she was forced to publish her op-ed in the socially conservative Federalist. 

She also knocked the growing trend of parents forcing transgenderism on their children.

“Children should not be experimented upon by infusing them with puberty blockers to keep them from growing up,” she said. “Children should not be operated upon and have body parts removed because they ‘feel’ they are something other than what they are, should not be subjected to a lifetime of ill health because of Big Pharma’s chemicals.”

Ben-Shalom said that lesbian women should not be accused of “transphobia” for refusing to sleep with biological males who “identify” as transgender females, and that the law should not protect transgender females who want to use men’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

“Do you understand now why this is not about trans humans being discriminated against, but is about something much more horrible and revolting: the chemical sterilization of children, the denial of basic human rights to women and children, and the erasure of women? Do you still wonder why we do not want the law to allow such people in our spaces?”

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend