So I was looking at HRC's Corporate Equality Index, because I'm shopping for an insurance company.  I saw Allstate had a score of 100, and then saw that it earned that perfect score by failing to cover most trans-related healthcare.  No hormones, no sexual reassignment surgery (SRS).  I was disgusted.  I sent in a nastygram, or what passes for one in my book: very positive and polite, very pointed.  

Then I read more.

I'd opened lots of browser tabs trying to figure out where to direct my complaint.  As I was closing them, I followed some links and ended up at the revised criteria for 2012.  The first thing I saw was, “Equal health coverage for transgender individuals without exclusion for medically necessary care.”

This was already one step up, because they were valuing trans healthcare at 10 points out of 100 rather than 5.  I followed a link for more info and was really pleasantly surprised.  I'm not an expert on trans healthcare – maybe someone can weigh in who knows more than I do – but this looks comprehensive to me.

I'm sure this was news when HRC adopted the new criteria, but somehow I missed it.  So I figured I'd post a diary for anyone else who may have missed it. 

Also, I'm outspoken enough with my criticism of HRC that I wanted to give them props this time for doing something right.  I mean, I'm sure they do lots right, but this time it's in an area where I'm perpetually dissatisfied with them: inclusion of the more marginalized, whether it's trans, lower SES, POC, etc.

I sent in a little note telling them I'd found the revision and was happy to see it.

 ————–

In other news, as I was exploring this, I found HRC's entry on Wikipedia.  The part about ENDA 2007 looked like it was written by HRC as damage control.  So I submitted an edit to make it clearer what happened and why it caused so much conflict.  I'd like the record to be clear.  Hopefully they'll accept the edit. 

Before my edit:

Transgender activists have criticized the HRC for not opposing, though not supporting,^[30] the 2007 version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which enumerated sexual orientation as a protected category but not gender identity and expression.^[31] HRC defended itself by saying it neither opposed nor actively supported the 2007 version precisely because it did not cover gender expression and identity. [citation needed] HRC supports the version of ENDA submitted in the Congress in July 2009, which contains protections for gender identity and expression as well as sexual orientation.

 After my edit:

Transgender people and allies have criticized the HRC for its stance on the 2007 version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which enumerated sexual orientation as a protected category but not gender identity and expression.^[8] Once the legislation was submitted by U.S. Representative Barney Frank, HRC officially neither opposed nor supported it.^[9] This followed a speech by HRC President Joe Solomonese at the transgender Southern Comfort Conference the previous month, where he said that HRC “oppose[d] any legislation that is not absolutely inclusive.”^[10] (He later claimed to have misspoken.) HRC later explained it could not actively support a non-inclusive bill, but did not oppose it because the legislation would strategically advance long-term efforts to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA. [citation needed] The strategic value of this approach was disputed within the LGBT community, and many also objected to the symbolic value of excluding transgender people from the bill's protections. HRC's position was considered a betrayal of the transgender community by many, including HRC's first and only openly trans board member, Donna Rose, who resigned in protest.^[11] It also separated HRC from other high-profile advocacy groups for LGBT people (e.g., PFLAG, Equality Federation, National Stonewall Democrats), who worked together under the banner of United ENDA to protest the bill. ^[12]