Transgender is a load of bollocks.Or not.
amicus21.pdf
136.01 KB
Transgender is a load of bollocks.Or not.
Cut that out.
Think that’s the problem.
your anti vaccine?
disgusting
You’re about two months in the womb before your gender starts to develop, pal. You are concieved neutral with the potential to be either - that’s why you’ve nipples, and @HBV’s wife has a cock for a clit… Of course there is going to be situations where the process goes wrong - that’s a natural part of the human condition - Are there some mentalists out there who think they should be the opposite sex, a cat, a fish? Yes, of course. But that doesn’t mean you get to label all transgender people as mentally ill. The fact is, not enough is know.
What the difference between some bloke who thinks he’s a woman and some bloke who thinks he’s a sheep or something? Fuck all. That’s what. Two nutcases
surely to God we must play the cards Mother Nature has dealt us, and get on with it?
if you want to be a cat unfortunately we cannot turn a perfectly fine human being into a cat, so you will be deemed mentally ill because thats what you are.
if you are born a man then yes sure we have surgical ways of cutting your cock off and disposing of it and we also have man made pharmaceuticals to make your tits grow bigger but you will still never be a woman and you will never feel like one, because you are a man.
I’d largely agree, mate. But if someone wants to cut off their bits, or stick some on, that’s their business. I can’t see how they will ever be really happy, unfortunately for them, but if they feel an operation will give them a shot at it, that’s their call.
im the same, if you want to cut your ears off then go for it, same for you tool or if you want your fanny stitched up. but if thats what you want unfortunately its not normal and you will be labelled.
its the gays and the lesbos i feel sorry for, having this crowd added to the end of their acronym.
Not at all. I love them. Can’t get enough of them. Then again, I’m lucky that I sit bang smack in the middle of the bell-curve and show no signs of contraindication to vaccines.
Bullet point summary:
People should be able to do what they want, except where they’re mentally ill.
A typically well thought out comment from Tim.
I couldn’t agree more, I just don’t think it should be paid for by a health service.
So, in a few decades we have gone from it not being recognized as a medical condition at all by the medical industry, to now being recognized to the extent that genitals are being cut off or added, but the condition necessitating this extreme treatment cannot be called a disorder or in the spectrum of mental illness (even though gender dysphoria symptoms are anxiety and depression).
Gender dysphoria is recognised as a medical condition and not as a mental illness. That anxiety and depression are often a by product of it does not make it a mental illness. Cystic fibrosis sufferers have higher than normal rates of depression. Does that make cystic fibrosis a mental illness?
It’s the classic tactic of extremists (on both sides) to throw as much mud as they can at their opponents.
There’s a difference between throwing mud at somebody and identifying serious biases which can affect the integrity of their professional work. I haven’t said anything about him that isn’t true or twisted anything he’s said.
His argument to the supreme court is here, see if you can find where he said homosexuality was a choice.
McHugh himself uses the word choice in a case to the United States Court of Appeals. 136.01 KB
amicus21.pdf
From a scientific perspective, homosexuality is not analogous to race or gender since it is not an accident of birth and because it often changes over time through conscious choice.
I don’t think you can ever be 100% categorical about the causes of sexuality but the vast majority of the scientific evidence suggests a strong link between biology and sexuality, and that it is not a choice.
To say “it is not an accident of birth” is pretty categorical that be believes it is not biological - the scientific evidence says otherwise.
Where knowledge of the subject of transgenderism seems to be lacking is that there is a severe lack of studies (I couldn’t find one) comparing psychological outcomes in those who had had gender reassignment surgery versus those who hadn’t.
But there are studies that show that the more supportive an environment experienced by transgender people, the better the psychological outcome will be for the person. That’s kind of a statement of the obvious but no less important for that. Denying gender reassignment surgery in all cases as McHugh did contributes to a distinctly non-supportive environment and it’s a pretty logical follow on to suggest that psychological outcomes for those who have gender reassignment surgery will be better than for those who have not had it.
Ultimately the problem for McHugh is that it’s clear he is repulsed by the idea of both homosexuality and transgenderism. And that’s a big problem in terms of taking him seriously.
surely to God we must play the cards Mother Nature has dealt us, and get on with it?
By that logic, taking two Panadol when you have a headache is going against “Mother Nature”.
Homosexuals and ‘transgenders’ are completely different areas. It’s mad that they are lumped together really, as it looks like they have been added to the ticket as another’oddity’ that needs a bandwagon to drive it along and the homosexual crowd have theirs up and running.
Unless all transgenders are gay ?
Is that not reason enough to stay open to both sides of the argument? Society changes. Ideas change. Practices change. Remaining rigid in a belief system leads to conflict (and rows on the internet).
By that logic, you could surmise that views on slavery might once again change and that it could become acceptable again.
Taking a panadol for a headache is not the same as taking pharmaceuticals to make your titties grow bigger your a gas young fella
Taking a panadol for a headache is not the same as taking pharmaceuticals to make your titties grow bigger your a gas young fella
Are life-saving organ transplants interfering with nature, mate?
Presumably you’d tell somebody in need of one to “play the cards Mother Nature has dealt them”?
By that logic, you could surmise that views on slavery might once again change and that it could become acceptable again.
Slavery wasn’t an illness which society is looking to treat.
Slavery wasn’t an illness which society is looking to treat.
@ironmoth referred to remaining rigid in a “belief system” as being a bad thing.
I’m saying that is sometimes true, sometimes not. If it’s always true, it’s actually a carte blanche for the moral relativism which @anon7035031 and many others despise, and yes, I am taking an extreme example to demonstrate.
Was there a belief system amongst people in previous centuries that slavery was right and proper, or was there not?
Should we remain rigid in our belief that slavery is no longer considered acceptable, or should we not?