{"id":54980,"date":"2023-12-07T12:03:49","date_gmt":"2023-12-07T17:03:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/?p=54980"},"modified":"2023-12-08T14:05:10","modified_gmt":"2023-12-08T19:05:10","slug":"nlpc-demands-microsoft-give-equal-health-coverage-for-detransitioners","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/featured-news\/nlpc-demands-microsoft-give-equal-health-coverage-for-detransitioners\/","title":{"rendered":"NLPC Demands Microsoft Give Health Coverage for Detransitioners (Updated w\/ Video)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, the National Legal and Policy Center presented a \u201cGender-Based Compensation\/Benefits Gaps and Associated Risks\u201d\u00a0proposal<\/a>\u00a0at the\u00a0Microsoft<\/a> annual shareholder meeting, which would require the company’s board to examine whether it is providing health insurance coverage equally to employees who seek to “de-transition” from “gender affirming” surgeries and treatments they have received in the past, but have come to regret.<\/p>\n

Microsoft\u2019s board of directors opposed our proposal, as explained on pages 69-70 of the firm\u2019s proxy statement<\/a>. NLPC filed a\u00a0Notice of Exempt Solicitation<\/a> report with the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to the board\u2019s opposition statement.<\/p>\n

Speaking at the meeting was\u00a0Paul Chesser<\/a>, director of NLPC\u2019s Corporate Integrity Project<\/a>. You can watch his video presentation here<\/a> (Chesser’s remarks start at 12:10), and a transcript of his three-minute remarks follows ):<\/p>\n

Good morning.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In 2019<\/a> and in 2021<\/a>, Microsoft shareholders considered proposals that asked for reports about the Company\u2019s gaps in pay and benefits \u201cacross\u201d gender.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Those proposals seem so antiquated now, because they were only concerned about compensation gaps between women and men.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I say they are antiquated because as we have been told by LGBTQ<\/a> advocacy groups and the tech industry for many years now, that there are more than two genders.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How ignorant everyone was back then!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I mean, how can you produce a report about pay gaps ACROSS genders when you don\u2019t include ALL the genders??<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In Microsoft\u2019s opposition statement to our proposal, the Company impugns our motives by saying our request \u201cappears to stem from animosity towards certain reproductive and gender-related health benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

ON THE CONTRARY:<\/em> We are only following previous arguments<\/a> about discriminatory gaps<\/a> in pay regarding gender, and LGBTQ definitions of how many genders there are, and how they function, as it pertains to gender fluidity and sex change.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In other words, we are simply following their own arguments \u2013 and Microsoft\u2019s \u2013 to their logical conclusions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

And thanks to the smashing successes of pressure groups like the pro-LGBTQ Human Rights Campaign, we now have protected classifications of \u201cgender identity\u201d and \u201csexual orientation\u201d against pay and benefits discrimination under U.S. Department of Labor<\/a> and EEOC<\/a> codes.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Microsoft proudly boasts<\/a> that it affirms individuals\u2019 ability to change genders, and that its insurance benefits pay for transition surgeries for employees and their dependents \u2013 including their children.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yet considering all these pro-transition arguments by Microsoft and by LGBTQ advocates, there is a gaping discriminatory hole in the Company\u2019s pay and benefits coverage, as designated under EEOC rules.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

And that gap omits care for de-transitioners<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

De-transitioners are real, they\u2019re growing in number, and they are increasingly angry<\/a> that they\u2019ve been told that they can easily change their sex with chemical and surgical procedures without problems.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Unfortunately a lot of them end up stuck with MORE medical problems like chronic pain and sexual dysfunction<\/a>, but then they can\u2019t get treatments or insurance coverage to reverse their decisions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

De-transitioners fit under \u201cgender identity\u201d and \u201csexual orientation\u201d as much as any other EEOC discrimination category, and therefore must be protected.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Yet Microsoft, who apparently doesn\u2019t care for employees and their dependents who have been needlessly mutilated, has the nerve to say that we<\/em> as shareholders have \u201canimosity\u201d over certain gender-related benefits.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Again, we are only following your own arguments<\/em> to their logical conclusions, so we advise Microsoft executives and the Board to look in the mirror when it comes to accusations of animosity.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Please vote FOR Proposal Number 5.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read NLPC\u2019s shareholder proposal for the 2023 Microsoft annual meeting here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Watch Chesser deliver his remarks at the meeting here<\/a> (starts at 12:10).<\/p>\n

NLPC also called upon its fellow shareholders to vote against<\/a> billionaire LinkedIn<\/a> co-founder Reid Hoffman<\/a> for the Microsoft board of directors.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today, the National Legal and Policy Center presented a \u201cGender-Based Compensation\/Benefits Gaps and Associated Risks\u201d\u00a0proposal\u00a0at the\u00a0Microsoft annual shareholder meeting, which would require the company’s board to examine whether it is providing health insurance coverage equally to employees who seek to “de-transition” from “gender affirming” surgeries and treatments they have received in the past, but have […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":53533,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,7],"tags":[530,536,276,225,498,226],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54980"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54980"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54989,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54980\/revisions\/54989"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/53533"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nlpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}