Drich, understand that medical disorder is not license for you to exercise your perceived privilege to discriminate against people, you ignorant slut.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:02 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 11:20 am)Drich Wrote: That's not true, there are some examples in the case study I posted of successful treatments that did not result in a sex change. it depends on the individual. Some transexuals want to be however they were born, they just need help.

The difficulty is in determining who is transsexual and who isn't. If you truly are a transsexual then the only effective treatment is to transition. Absolutely everything else has been tried. And believe me, the medical establishment did try. They have historically been extremely hostile to transsexuals.

That's not true according to the study i posted a few pages back. "distress" is alleviated when the patient is comfortable with whatever sexual assignment he or she wishes to obtain. For some that means varying degrees of gender reassignment while other seek to be comfortable in their own bodies.

Or are you saying all GID people should be forced to under go gender reassignment even if the want to learn to live how they were born?

(April 12, 2016 at 2:52 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 1:14 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Instead of repeating this page after page, why don't you substantiate this ridiculous claim that those with mental disorders make or dictate the rules for society, as opposed to -- oh, I don't know -- duly elected lawmakers? 

Because as I've already pointed out 'law makers' are influenced by the GLBT vote, or at the very least by their buying power, and those they buy from.

Quote:North Carolina and Mississippi have enacted legislation that I assume you approve of. There's been some blowback as a result of this legislation, and both states may suffer mild economic consequences as a result of their decisions -- something Indiana learned about last year when they tried to implement laws that much of society (including several major corporations, concerned about their PR images) deemed discriminatory and unacceptable. Indiana walked that shit back in a New York minute when they realized that they don't exist in a vacuum, that they weren't in step with current mores concerning the treatment of gay people, and that their decision had real consequences.

My example was with georgia they were due to loose 6 billion dollars in revenue when the film industry threatened to pull out if their version of the Miss/Nc. Law passed.

Which demonstrates that it is not the law makers with the power. Clearly the people of Georgia wanted this law to pass, but the 'law makers' freted over cut funding and folded the will of the people to the will of the corporations. This more than anything should scare ALL of US! If a company like Disney or Film actors guild can threaten and change policy/law what else can they manipulate?

Quote:Your nattering about political correctness and the insanity of letting mentally ill people make the rules for everyone else is nothing more than a smokescreen for your personal disapproval of our society's evolving standards of acceptance for gay and transgender people. As for the business end of this issue, yes, states are free to enact legislation that does not run afoul of the federal Constitution and that state's constitution. What they're not free from is the disapproval of society. If they want to take the hit, fine. If not, then they might have to re-evaluate their stance, as Indiana did. But they can't have it both ways.

Again My concern is not with the 1%ers. its with the those looking to exploit those laws

In response to the bolded section, so what else is new? Again, a state always has the option of taking the revenue hit if they enact laws that others disapprove of. The governor and congress of Georgia apparently believe they have bigger fish to fry. If the citizens of Georgia are truly aggrieved and motivated to act as a result of their representatives folding in the face of corporate pressure, then they can protest the decision and eventually vote the lawmakers out of office. But let's not be Pollyannas about this. Corporate pressure is a fixture of our political landscape, and its influence has resulted in far more damaging and sinister things than the film industry threatening to pull out of Georgia over LGBT legislation.

It's interesting to me that this particular instance of corporate interests overriding the will of the voters is what gets you in a twist, especially given the myriad examples of truly pernicious corporate meddling one could adduce. Perhaps your concern over corporate influence is a long-standing thing with you, but I can't recall ever seeing you mention it before.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 1:19 pm)LastPoet Wrote: What if Christianity is a mental disorder? Or any other religion? Mirror mirror on the wall

According to revelation it will be outlawed right before the end. So you have that to look forward to.

Well, fuck Revelation.

One of the reasons you needn't worry about religion being outlawed is that there is a substantial number of people (religious folks and atheists alike) who understand the value of secularism in government and a vigorously defended 1st Amendment.

No need to thank me. But when the shit hits the fan, this atheist will join millions of other atheists to defend your religious freedom.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:12 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 12:14 pm)Drich Wrote: No mentally Ill people by clinical definition have a impediment in how they think and or interact with others.

Excellent. I am glad that you have admitted this. Now will you please answer the following question with this in mind:

(April 11, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Mathilda Wrote: If someone transitions and can as a consequent function perfectly well in society. If they are accepted as such in their chosen gender and no one knows their medical history, which becomes less and less relevant to their daily lives. If they are happy and contended with their lives and able to achieve great things, then how can they be considered mentally ill?

Because accomplishing 'great things' and contentment have nothing to do with identifying mental illness in a person.

Ever watch a beautiful mind with Russel crow?

Dude accomplish astounding things, and in time learned to be content. However he was literally in a functional state of perpetual delusion. He saw things and people who literally not there till he died a few years back.

Like it or not mathy, dude was mentally ill by all clinical definition and reasoning, even if he was able to manage it and find contentment.

Now just because he won a nobel prize does not mean this man was suitable or of sound mind to dictate unrestricted policy for the rest of humanity.

That is no different that allowing a functional drunk get behind the wheel and drive.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 1:30 pm)Drich Wrote: You do understand that you are a minority with in a minority, with in yet another minority? Meaning the first minority is that trans gendered people represent less than 1% of the total population. That is minority 1, Minority 2 is the fact that the Mayo Clinic cites the a fraction of the Transsexual community actually receives help. That is minority 2. Of those who do seek or receive help, a very small minority are stable. that is minority 3. Figuritivly speaking you and people like you are but a handful compared to the millions who suffer from GID and are not mentallly stable.

Bullshit. You're talking about your arse. I bet you have met transsexuals and not even known about their medical history and just assumed that they were stable cisgendered people.

What I did was cite a mayo clinic document which I posted a link to to formulate my response.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:32 pm)Evie Wrote: Trangender people are just people who are born with a different gender mentally to their biological sex.

It's not a health problem, Drich.

No, according to modern psychology it is a mental health disorder.

(April 12, 2016 at 3:23 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Bullshit. You're talking about your arse. I bet you have met transsexuals and not even known about their medical history and just assumed that they were stable cisgendered people.

What I did was cite a mayo clinic document which I posted a link to to formulate my response.

And I guarantee that the Mayo Clinic will be amending their stance in light of DSM V.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:39 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 2:35 pm)Drich Wrote: I did just to show 'you people' how it is not related.

Okay...let's try another angle here.  Open-ended question:  Drich, do you think that transgendered individuals should be allowed to use which ever bathroom they feel most comfortable in?  Why or why not?  Please, no answers about politics or law-making.  I want you to express how you PERSONALLY feel...and why.

No. People should be made to use the bathroom the are 'plumbed' to use. If a transsexual had a sex change then he/she can not use the bathroom of their previous sex.

why? because it opens the door to sexual predators looking to exploit those of the opposite sex via rape or recording devise.

(April 12, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Evie Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Mathilda Wrote: They already have

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42551-po...pid1246265

Maybe you should get off the forum and start preparing instead.

That shit deserves its own thread. Where's Min when you need him?

probably trying to find his way home from the mail box.