SUPPORTING STATEMEMT: Compensation and benefits inequities persist across employee gender categories and pose substantial risk to companies and society at large.
Women who choose not to abort their pre-born children, and instead decide to raise them, suffer a pay/benefits inequity compared to their company colleagues who do choose to abort their children and who receive reimbursements for expenses such as travel and lodging, when the procedures are done in a different state from where they reside for legal or other reasons.
There is significant expense both in aborting and in raising children, yet Mastercard Inc. (the “Company”) incentivizes the former with a subsidy1 and discourages the latter with no subsidy.2 In fact, the latter incurs far greater expense and necessity of time out of the workplace than the former, exacerbating the compensation/benefits gap. The 2023 edition of the Viewpoint Diversity Business Index,3 in which Mastercard scored 9%, notes that such policies have significant societal, operational, reputational, and competitive risks, and risks related to recruiting and retaining diverse talent. Furthermore, the Company also indirectly supports4 abortion provider Planned Parenthood—despite the personal nature of the issue, Mastercard seems to have no problem making its corporate loyalties clear.
Similarly, as per the 1792 Exchange’s 2023 report,5 the Company provides health benefits to employees who suffer gender dysphoria/confusion, and who seek medical, chemical, and/or surgical treatments to aid their “transition” to their non-biological sex. The Company reports,6 “Mastercard provides enhanced coverage for gender-affirming procedures recognized as medically necessary by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.”
The Company has staked out a position on gender dysphoria/confusion which affirms that sufferers can transition to a different sex, both psychologically and physically. Yet an increasing body of scientific evidence shows distinct harms actually result from medical and surgical “transition” treatments. Examples include various long-lasting side effects like chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, unwanted hair loss and hair gain, menstrual irregularities, urinary problems, and other complications.7 Rather than resolve mental health problems, such “gender affirming” care instead often exacerbates them. In such instances, patients who desire to “de-transition” cannot find medical or insurance coverage that they need. Many of these sufferers litigate against those who misled or mistreated them regarding the necessity and alleged “success” of “transition” therapies

Filed by Stephen Caton.