The_Piper wrote:(I also didn't think a lawsuit lobbying for a particular god's will could be filed. I don't think this would have a prayer of becoming law.)

Our State legislators seem to have a fixation with wasting vast sums of money on message bills that are blatantly unconstitutional and doomed to fail. I guess voters really lap that shit up or something.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Evolving wrote:So presumably they have the same objection to any kind of cosmetic surgery.

Probably, although that's less radical than changing your sex.

Amputating a leg is a lot more radical than amputating a penis. Just saying.

Nah, amputating your legs is peanuts. Amputating your nose is all the rage right now.

The_Piper wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I could see a surgeon refuse to do it on the basis that it's an irreversible surgery and if they doubt the patient has fully thought the transition through then the doctor would hesitate until the patient was more definite.

But most transgender people are acutely aware of their gender identity and therefore are usually pretty certain when it comes to this issue.

More-over in many cases they are required to at least have a talk with their GP, a psychiatrist if not a series conversations to determine whether it's not a temporary feeling.

I thought that was standard for all cases in the US, to talk with a psychiatrist. (I also didn't think a lawsuit lobbying for a particular god's will could be filed. I don't think this would have a prayer of becoming law.)

I wasn't sure about the US as a whole, I know it's a requirement in the Netherlands as well as many states in the US.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Evolving wrote:So presumably they have the same objection to any kind of cosmetic surgery.

Probably, although that's less radical than changing your sex.

Most surgical operations undergone at least by male-to-female transsexuals are also requested by cis women: breast implants, facial feminisation, voice feminisation. It's only the actual gender reassignment that - obviously - isn't, and many trans women elect not to have that op.

It's almost as if it was the motivation for the surgery that made it evil; but that would make their argument circular, so that can't be right, can it.

Evolving wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Evolving wrote:So presumably they have the same objection to any kind of cosmetic surgery.

Probably, although that's less radical than changing your sex.

Most surgical operations undergone at least by male-to-female transsexuals are also requested by cis women: breast implants, facial feminisation, voice feminisation. It's only the actual gender reassignment that - obviously - isn't, and many trans women elect not to have that op.

It's almost as if it was the motivation for the surgery that made it evil; but that would make their argument circular, so that can't be right, can it.

Indeed, theists never employ circular reasoning after all.

scott1328 wrote:

aban57 wrote:In a new low, Texas (is it really necessary to precise this) filed a lawsuit, along with other states (Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty), to make sure that transgender people don't get any treatment related to the transition.

These organizations object to providing services (or even referrals) for transition-related care or providing insurance that covers such care because it violates their religious beliefs.

Fuck that shit-hole Texas is. Fuck them all.

Fucking asshole hypocrites. They should be hauling the perverts and sickos to the edge of town and stoning them, and definitely not whining over whether or not to given them health care.

How do you expect them to stone themselves ?

Could always throw the stones vertically upwards and stand underneath them.