Johns Hopkins Chief of Psychiatry: Being transgender is a "mental" disorder

[Silhouette]

That's bad enough. When that cult demands it become a matter of enforceable-law to embrace and promote that insanity, that's when judges need to grow a pair and draw a line in the sand. I guess Canada is now struggling with the dissolving of their citizen guarantees of freedom of opinions now that the rainbow-gestapo has hold of their governing documents.

Indeed and THAT is the point being made by the author of the article A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Public Discourse, which is the OP reference citation of the thread:

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights in the Politics section of this very site.

Wherein the same cranks who've come to embrace the deceit, fraud and ignorance of Delusion, here... did the same thing THERE.

You know, even though the case set to have a Decision announced this month on gay marriage is supposedly just about gay marriage; it isn't. It's about freedom of speech since LGBT are behaviors. And Americans up until this month of 2015 have always been able to speak out against and refuse to enable behaviors they found objectionable. That's why I kept harping all along about how this was bigger than just "gay marriage". It's about a brand new concept to the 14th Amendment where minority behaviors objecitonable to the majority are no longer subject to majority rule. And that is the end of our type of goverment. What behaviors in the minority objectionable to the majority will next have their day in court and force everyone to play along?

This is how Nazi Germany rose to power and did so much hurt to the world. This exact type of thinking and legal-bullying. It's how in their early days they slipped the anesthetic under the skin of the German citizenry who should have otherwise risen up against them.

 

[hangover]

Psychiatrists are more psycho than those they treat.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's bad enough. When that cult demands it become a matter of enforceable-law to embrace and promote that insanity, that's when judges need to grow a pair and draw a line in the sand. I guess Canada is now struggling with the dissolving of their citizen guarantees of freedom of opinions now that the rainbow-gestapo has hold of their governing documents.

Indeed and THAT is the point being made by the author of the article A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Public Discourse, which is the OP reference citation of the thread:

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights in the Politics section of this very site.

Wherein the same cranks who've come to embrace the deceit, fraud and ignorance of Delusion, here... did the same thing THERE.

You know, even though the case set to have a Decision announced this month on gay marriage is supposedly just about gay marriage; it isn't. It's about freedom of speech since LGBT are behaviors. And Americans up until this month of 2015 have always been able to speak out against and refuse to enable behaviors they found objectionable. That's why I kept harping all along about how this was bigger than just "gay marriage". It's about a brand new concept to the 14th Amendment where minority behaviors objecitonable to the majority are no longer subject to majority rule. And that is the end of our type of goverment. What behaviors in the minority objectionable to the majority will next have their day in court and force everyone to play along?

This is how Nazi Germany rose to power and did so much hurt to the world. This exact type of thinking and legal-bullying. It's how in their early days they slipped the anesthetic under the skin of the German citizenry who should have otherwise risen up against them.

You are absolutely correct... And therein rests the purpose of the Ideological Left's adoration for the homosexuals.

Such has been the case in every communist movement... .

They include all would-be disenfranchised, use them to show the anti-democratic tendencies of their opposition, typically setting them up throughout their oppositional government and, upon securing power, erasing the degenerates in a long planned, efficiently orchestrated campaign of mass-murder.

It turns out that getting into bed with those who reject objectivity, can be mighty hard on ya, when circumstances come about where mouthy revolutionaries become inconvenient, thus are no longer useful.

 

[EverCurious]

^^ Maybe there's some truth there, look at how swimmingly black/white relations are after 50 years of attempting to get rid of systematic racism.

Of course what's the other solution? Just let the haters hate and discriminate? Did the "wrong" side win the civil war?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

^^ Maybe there's some truth there, look at how swimmingly black/white relations are after 50 years of attempting to get rid of systematic racism.

Of course what's the other solution? Just let the haters hate and discriminate? Did the "wrong" side win the civil war?

The Haters, will always hate. Law does not change that.

There is no great disdain of the sexually deviant, as long as they keep the source of any disdain... which is their degeneracy to themselves. You see, black folks were incapable of doing, because the source of disdain for them was genetic, making it impossible for them to keep such to themselves.

The disdain for the Sexual Deviant is purely a function of their BEHAVIOR. Behavior which their claim to a right for such, rests ENTIRELY IN SUCH BEING PRIVATE BEHAVIOR.

The lifting of the Sodomy Laws was based ENTIRELY upon such being a PRIVATE MATTER...

Yet, all of that is no wholly irrelevant as we are being told that we most accept such, in public law and that expressing a refusal to be affiliated with such, is a crime in and of itself... bringing substantial civil penalties, with evidence of a number of homosexuals in government having attempted to use the power of their office to preclude speech which criticized such policy. As the Author of the Article in the OP has noted has long ago been set upon the Canadians.

 

[Silhouette]

I think the Supreme Court is going to correct that quagmire in the next couple of weeks. They're going to describe "LGBT"s etc. as behaviors and legally unqualified therefore to dictate to the majority. They don't make the cut on race, gender or country of origin as a singular identifier of a permanent or born state.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Supreme Court will legalize same sex marriage. Don't be surprised if the decision is unanimous.

Which will set up the same generational conflict that abortion did.

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court will legalize same sex marriage. Don't be surprised if the decision is unanimous.

Which will set up the same generational conflict that abortion did.

You are completely wrong about that. Have you read the transcripts? The Court was worried about the slippery slope, the definition's thousands-years-old meaning being "too brand new for just 9 in DC to decide upon" (a fatherless or motherless redaction). It's important to read the transcripts of the Hearing.

I'll bet the house they'll Uphold their 56 conclusions in Windsor 2013 of just two years ago and reaffirm that the question belongs to the states.

The 56 quotes from Windsor are here at this link: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Katzndogz]

The Supreme Court will legalize same sex marriage. Don't be surprised if the decision is unanimous.

Which will set up the same generational conflict that abortion did.

You are completely wrong about that. Have you read the transcripts? The Court was worried about the slippery slope, the definition's thousands-years-old meaning being "too brand new for just 9 in DC to decide upon" (a fatherless or motherless redaction). It's important to read the transcripts of the Hearing.

I'll bet the house they'll Uphold their 56 conclusions in Windsor 2013 of just two years ago and reaffirm that the question belongs to the states.

The 56 quotes from Windsor are here at this link: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I hope you are right. All that will mean though is that ssm will be imposed state by state exactly as it has been. I think they will settle the matter finally and afford federal rights too. They see this as the eternal tantrum.

Of course it won't be over. It will shift to religious rights and the right that individuals have to opt out of gay marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Supreme Court will legalize same sex marriage. Don't be surprised if the decision is unanimous.

Which will set up the same generational conflict that abortion did.

You are completely wrong about that. Have you read the transcripts? The Court was worried about the slippery slope, the definition's thousands-years-old meaning being "too brand new for just 9 in DC to decide upon" (a fatherless or motherless redaction). It's important to read the transcripts of the Hearing.

I'll bet the house they'll Uphold their 56 conclusions in Windsor 2013 of just two years ago and reaffirm that the question belongs to the states.

The 56 quotes from Windsor are here at this link: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I hope you are right. All that will mean though is that ssm will be imposed state by state exactly as it has been. I think they will settle the matter finally and afford federal rights too. They see this as the eternal tantrum.

Of course it won't be over. It will shift to religious rights and the right that individuals have to opt out of gay marriage.

Except that the vaunted '37 States Support..." will fall to a minor handful of debauched states, as the illicit judicial overturning of Legislative Majorities, will be removed once and for all.

 

[Skylar]

I think the Supreme Court is going to correct that quagmire in the next couple of weeks. They're going to describe "LGBT"s etc. as behaviors and legally unqualified therefore to dictate to the majority. They don't make the cut on race, gender or country of origin as a singular identifier of a permanent or born state.

I think you're describing what you believe. And what you hope the court will agree with.

But that's a position that the court has never advocated and instead, explicitly rejected. As the court has cited race based cases 4 times in recent rulings on why gays can't be discriminated against. With each of these rulings and citations written by Justice Kennedy himself. You insist that gays aren't qualitifed for protection from discrimination. Kennedy has explicitly rejected that conclusion in Romer v. Evans. And defined the legal harm caused to gays and their children when marriage is denied them in Windsor.

Its unlikely that Kennedy is going to ignore himself and instead believe what you do.

 

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court will legalize same sex marriage. Don't be surprised if the decision is unanimous.

Which will set up the same generational conflict that abortion did.

You are completely wrong about that. Have you read the transcripts? The Court was worried about the slippery slope, the definition's thousands-years-old meaning being "too brand new for just 9 in DC to decide upon" (a fatherless or motherless redaction). It's important to read the transcripts of the Hearing.

I'll bet the house they'll Uphold their 56 conclusions in Windsor 2013 of just two years ago and reaffirm that the question belongs to the states.

The 56 quotes from Windsor are here at this link: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout State Authority vs Federal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I hope you are right. All that will mean though is that ssm will be imposed state by state exactly as it has been. I think they will settle the matter finally and afford federal rights too. They see this as the eternal tantrum.

Of course it won't be over. It will shift to religious rights and the right that individuals have to opt out of gay marriage.

Its virtually a dead lock that same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, as there's is essentially zero chance that the court will side against gay marriage in question 2. Which means that even in the unlikely case that the court finds that a state can ban gay marriages from being performed in that state, there aren't going to rule that a state can ignore gay marriages conducted in OTHER states where they are legal. The reciprocity of contracts clause of the constitution could very well make this a 9-0 ruling on question 2.

Making gay marriage defacto legal in every state.

 

[Skylar]

That's bad enough. When that cult demands it become a matter of enforceable-law to embrace and promote that insanity, that's when judges need to grow a pair and draw a line in the sand. I guess Canada is now struggling with the dissolving of their citizen guarantees of freedom of opinions now that the rainbow-gestapo has hold of their governing documents.

Indeed and THAT is the point being made by the author of the article A Warning from Canada Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights Public Discourse, which is the OP reference citation of the thread:

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights in the Politics section of this very site.

Wherein the same cranks who've come to embrace the deceit, fraud and ignorance of Delusion, here... did the same thing THERE.

You know, even though the case set to have a Decision announced this month on gay marriage is supposedly just about gay marriage; it isn't. It's about freedom of speech since LGBT are behaviors.

No, its about gay marriage. You're trying to attach legal significance to your feelings on the matter. And there is none. Remember, those folks that ran afoul of PA laws.....ran afoul of STATE PA laws. There are no such federal protections. And the USSC has already found that such state PA laws are fully constitutional.

Meaning that even hypothetically, your emotional argument is pristinely irrelevant to the issue the court is deciding. And won't be effected in the slightest regardless of the court's ruling. As the court's ruling has nothing to do with PA laws, nor do any of the legal questions being addressed even mention them.

Just you do. Which is irrelevant.

And Americans up until this month of 2015 have always been able to speak out against and refuse to enable behaviors they found objectionable.

Except when they couldn't. Like when 80% of the country opposed interracial marriage...and the court overturned interracial marriage bans anyway. Or like when State like Texas criminalized sodomy. And the court overturned that law too.

I don't think 'always' means what you think it means. You're allowing your emotions to flavor your perception a little too heavily. And your feelings have nothing to do with the outcome of any of these cases. No matter how strong those feelings might be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning? HYSTERICAL!

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw, a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Humanity exists in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar's and by extension, the homo-cult's concession to the reality that in point of unassailable fact, Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them so.

And with that said, Skylar's 6th Concession in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

And THAT Reader is how THAT is done.

This post will be repeated about a million times everyday, until the SCOTUS scuttles the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality.

 

[orogenicman]

Transgenderism is a mental illness, and anyone who says otherwise is equally mentally disturbed.

Paul McHugh Transgender Surgery Isn t the Solution - WSJ

Psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital is pouring rain on the Bruce Jenner “Call Me Caitlyn” parade that’s sure to have the former Olympic athlete’s cheerleaders steaming.

Not only does Dr. Paul R. McHugh consider changing sexes “biologically impossible,” he thinks being what is popularly called “transgender” these days is actually a “mental disorder.”

McHugh, who has authored six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles, made the statements in a piece he penned for the Wall Street Journal that argued surgery is not the solution for patients who want to live life as the opposite sex.

Such people, he wrote, suffer from a “disorder of assumption” in believing they can choose their sex.

...

He also cited a study that said transgendered people who have reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non-transgendered people,

...

While the Obama administration, Hollywood and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as “normal,” McHugh wrote, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality,” McHugh wrote. “The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”
Such action is "child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

According to the Wikepdia article on this guy:

Paul R. McHugh - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"they (transgenders) expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests)".

That certainly doesn't apply to someone like Bruce Jenner, since he not only has children that he loves, but also step-children that he loves and has been involved in raising.

However, I agree with his assessment that doctors should not be administering sex changing or puberty delaying hormones to children.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

The conclusion is that you made up the 'natural law of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, based on your own relativistic assumptions. And you've offered us nothing but your own relativistic assumptions to back up your made up 'natural law of marriage'.

With your assumption debunked by one simple fact: there is no marriage in nature.

So for there to be 'no natural laws governing marriage... that you can't get around.', all Relativism needs is for Humanity to NOT BE affiliated with NATURE... .

Let's review:

Just take a moment to examine this exchange, wherein a degenerate claimed that the Natural Standard of Marriage is false; meaning that as demonstrated above, the Homo-cult is wholly denying that nature has any laws governing human behavior and that such includes human physiology and the extension of such which we express through the word Marriage.

They claim that assigning Marriage as governed by Natural Law... is a function of pretense designed to distract you, the observer or "Reader" from reality or the issue at hand. This they advise you is an invalid logical construct known as "straw reasoning".

To which I simply replied by breaking the respective elements of Reality down into their respective components, which requires the opposition to either accept the existence of such, or to deny reality...

For your convenience, I repeat the exercise, below:

So the reasoning is that of straw?

Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts the the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

Now... are you coming to reject that fact?

So... the question now becomes, 'what was the response?'

The first Militant simply conceded to the argument by refusing to even acknowledge the Argument and hasn't been seen in the Thread since.

The Second Militant, desperately wanted to ignore it, but its inability to deny its subjective need, precluded it from being able to ignore it and folded through the following EPIC FAILURE!:

Oh! So Natural Law is straw reasoning. Wouldn't Locke be shocked to learn that?

There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You made that up.

So your conclusion is then, that the argument is straw reasoning, which is to say: "Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

I'll take that concession; noted and accepted.

Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)

Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...

WOW~ So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning?

Wherein you're literally claiming that there are no "readers" observing this discussion through the processing of the written word?

Such is as Delusional as it is... HYSTERICAL! (In every sense of the WORD!)

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; which is now formally noted and accepted.


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw; a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?

Now, the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.

Are you coming to reject that fact?

(The Second member of the Homo-Cult relevant to the discussion) was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus it conceded to this point, through its failure to sustain a valid contest. Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.

There is no marriage in nature.

Given that Reality requires that Humanity does in fact exist in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar, Faun and by extension, the homo-cult's in its entirety, must inevitably concede to the reality that in point of unassailable fact:

Marriage IS, the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who come to claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them inequitable.

And with that said, Skylar, Faun and the entirely of the Homo-Cult's 6th Concession... in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its virtually a dead lock that same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, as there's is essentially zero chance that the court will side against gay marriage in question 2. Which means that even in the unlikely case that the court finds that a state can ban gay marriages from being performed in that state, there aren't going to rule that a state can ignore gay marriages conducted in OTHER states where they are legal. The reciprocity of contracts clause of the constitution could very well make this a 9-0 ruling on question 2.

Making gay marriage defacto legal in every state.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Therefore any contract which falls outside of the natural standard of marriage, is illegitimate... thus unenforcible anywhere. And NO STATE is allowed to adopt contracts which are illegal in other states.

LOL! However, according to the Homo-Cult, all states are obligated to adopt contract law at the behest of any state which finds itself governed by whatever irrational facet of popular whimsy... without regard to the laws present in the majority of states.

Where such were found to be true, such would in effect derail the entire system...

Thus, such is recognized as LUDICROUS and a presentation of nothing short of an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

 

[boedicca]

Transgenderism is a form of Body Dysmorphic Disorder. It shouldn't be treated as the new normal.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, its about gay marriage.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

You're trying to attach legal significance to your feelings on the matter. And there is none. Remember, those folks that ran afoul of PA laws.....ran afoul of STATE PA laws. There are no such federal protections. And the USSC has already found that such state PA laws are fully constitutional.

PA Laws which governed against irrational discrimination against individuals bearing genetic distinctions, or severe physical limitations... NOT individuals who make poor choices regarding THEIR BEHAVIOR.

That you feel that a law which has been found constitutional within one narrow context is therefore 'constitutional' without regard to context is symptomatic of DELUSION. Which FYI: is the mental disorder that also presents through Sexual Deviancy.

 

[Silhouette]

A human rights court in Europe recently found that a transgender dude who whacked off his junk, stayed with his wife and was then calling himself...I guess...a "lesbian"?? didn't have a human right to marry or adopt children. ie: he couldn't launch a lawsuit to force his country to allow him to re-marry or adopt kids.