California judge order sex change to proceed

[TBoneJack]

I think this is silly. No, the state does not have to pay for a snip-tuck, but should allow the inmate to go through with the procedure, so long as they (the patient) can pay for it. Even then, I'm on the fence of even allowing them to have the procedure while incarcerated, no matter who pays for it. Incarceration needs to mean something.

The most sensible post in this thread thus far.

I used to merely see. Now I @see4.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nah, you should punish those who have nothing to do with the situation instead.

oh, so you don't believe in the constitution?

got it.

loser

 

[King Arthur]

I said as long as I don't have to pay for any of it I'm fine with it.

You said a hell of a lot more than that chuckles.

 

[Rob Roy]

why does he deserve to be treated like he's not even a human just because he has a gender identity issue?

He deserves to be treated like a human being. He will when / if he becomes a she. He doesn't have the right to make others pay to make it happen though. If you want to change your body that's your right, if you want others to fund it, that is not your right.

Two separate issues.

 

[TBoneJack]

This fucking judge should be fired.

Making the citizens of California pay for a $100,000 elective surgery. Damn, what an idiot.

And I thought it was bad to hear feminists demand that the federal government (i.e. the taxpayers) pay for elective abortions.

I don't know who I'm more disappointed in: the fucking judge, or the citizens of California who have not yet formed massive public protests over this.

 

[deadgro]

OK, so we have one vote for stripping away all mental health protections for criminals, thereby making prison more dangerous and subjecting these people to cruel and unusual punishment, against the word of the constitution and the principles upon which america was founded.

gender dysphoria is a condition listed in the DSM-V, just like schizophrenia or any other mental health condition which requires treatment.

to single this out and make a thread about it, or to come into this thread with such fierce hostility, is truly an easy way to identify bigots.

So you're using the constitution to defend an argument now? Flip flop!

I used to have a similar view on trans people, but @sunni set me straight and after a lot of research, its clear that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness in the same sense as schizophrenia and not 'treating' it will definitely not lead to violence.

 

[spandy]

I don't give a shit what its for, it isn't life saving and is purely elective.

I'm sure if he wants his dick off bad enough, he can find a way while locked up.

 

[TBoneJack]

It was some philosophical extreme leftist way-out-in-right-field idiot who has lost his way in law much like Tiger Woods has in golf.

This judge is a certifiable idiot.

 

[sunni]

So you're using the constitution to defend an argument now? Flip flop!

I used to have a similar view on trans people, but @sunni set me straight and after a lot of research, its clear that gender dysphoria is not a mental illness in the same sense as schizophrenia and not 'treating' it will definitely not lead to violence.

wow im glad i made an impact that really makes me smile.

 

[UncleBuck]

He doesn't have the right to make others pay to make it happen though.

he sure does, it's called the constitution. prisoners have a right to medical attention, and gender dysphoria is a condition listed right in the DSM-5.

i notice you brought up this issue, but not the issue of treating other medical conditions that prisoners have. this is clearly because you are a bigoted piece of shit.

 

[UncleBuck]

Making the citizens of California pay for a $100,000 elective surgery. Damn, what an idiot.

no, it's not elective. gender dysphoria is a condition listed right in the DSM-5, murdoch.

this is no more elective than insulin shots for a diabetic.

 

[UncleBuck]

gender dysphoria is not a mental illness in the same sense as schizophrenia

actually, it is. both are listed right in the DSM-5.

not 'treating' it will definitely not lead to violence.

how dumb are you? trans people get brutalized in prison.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't give a shit what its for, it isn't life saving and is purely elective.

if this is "purely elective", than do people suffering from pyschosis take medicine on a "purely elective" basis as well, or are you just a bigot?

 

[Rob Roy]

he sure does, it's called the constitution. prisoners have a right to medical attention, and gender dysphoria is a condition listed right in the DSM-5.

i notice you brought up this issue, but not the issue of treating other medical conditions that prisoners have. this is clearly because you are a bigoted piece of shit.

Any prisoner that did not create a harm to another person should be released. Any prisoner that did create a harm should be working on restituting their victim(s) . Forcing people to pay for other peoples "medical conditions" creates more state sponsored victims.

Any person that shits on floors should get some kind of medical treatment for their obvious mental disability. I'll put a voluntary donation change jar in the your favorite stall and we'll get you the help you need Dungmeister.

 

[UncleBuck]

Forcing people to pay for other peoples "medical conditions" creates more state sponsored victims.

what aren't you victimized by?

the only thing i've ever seen you describe as victimless or consensual or voluntary is paying small children for sex.

 

[UncleBuck]

oh, and also denying goods and services to black people. you also call that victimless, although blacks who were around before civil rights would certainly disagree with you, spaMBLA.

 

[Rob Roy]

oh, and also denying goods and services to black people. you also call that victimless, although blacks who were around before civil rights would certainly disagree with you, spaMBLA.

Not interacting with a person is a neutral act. Since all people have the right to be free from a forced interaction, unless you like to use rapist tactics. When girls turned you down in high school (maybe they knew you were a serial floor shitter) did you have the right to stalk them and force them to interact with you? No, I'm afraid you didn't.


Shitting on a floor you don't own is generally an act of aggression, because its a violation of another persons property right.

I think black people have the same right as anybody not to have their property molested by a shit head, don't you?

 

[UncleBuck]

Not interacting with a person is a neutral act.

what is the most peaceful way to kick a black person out of your store because they are black?

 

[Rob Roy]

what is the most peaceful way to kick a black person out of your store because they are black?

I don't have a store. If I did I wouldn't kick a person out based on their race.

Have we done this conversation before....somehow...it seems vaguely familiar?

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't have a store. If I did I wouldn't kick a person out based on their race.

Have we done this conversation before....somehow...it seems vaguely familiar?

so what is the most peaceful way to kick a black person out of your store based on their skin color?