(07-12-2014 11:57 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Tom, ....are Trannies mentally ill?

Strike 2.

Answer the question....because you were so adamant about "medical" reasons or classifications before...

(07-12-2014 12:59 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Answer the question....because you were so adamant about "medical" reasons or classifications before...

Gender Dysphoria is considered a medical condition. Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

It is not considered to be a case of insanity

By the way, one of the two Doctors saying that it is a dysfunction, was later discredited for putting out 'junk science'. To his credit, he did say...'yea I was wrong'. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health...d=all&_r=0

The other person mentioned in the article is deceased.

So I'm not aware of any reputable medical professional willing to call it a dysfunction.

So back to the OP.

So what WV is doing is demanding that persons not comply with the medical science.

If you hear a word offends a population it refers to and use it anyway just because, you're probably a schmuck irl.

(07-12-2014 04:19 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  If you hear a word offends a population it refers to and use it anyway just because, you're probably a schmuck irl.

So blacks are going to stop using the N word?

(07-11-2014 06:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

Kindly show how they aren't interested in fixing the problem.

As I pointed out to you (and you characteristically ignored) even far left leaning California had a similar law that was only changes in June 2014...and rather than invalidate the law, it merely did as you suggested and made them provide a doctor's statement AND pay a $23 fee.

Where are the Constitutional arguments there, Tom? Charging a fee to transgendered people that isn't charged to anyone else? Making them have a physicians statement? OH THE HORRORS In California! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA. Where are your complaints a year ago that California had this exact same law on the books?

The transgendered community will take that fee and simply pay in any other state with little if any complaints. There were lots of complaints about the situation last year in California. Now we are complaining everywhere.

Its West Virginia. There isn't any elected official that is willing to introduce such a solution, much less vote for it in WV.

Tom. Are you intentionally not even TRYING to respond to the points I am making?

California had the same law W Va does. So if W Va is a bunch of religious nuts, so is Cali.

Cali just recently realized there was a problem and has only recently addressed it... and they DIDN'T eliminate the law you say is an attack on transgendered people... they merely allowed a solution that I'm confident you would say was unconstitutional if a republican state had proposed it... because it sounds just like voter id arguments

W Va isn't exactly a 'haven' for sexual differences like cali so the fact that they are slower than cali to address the issues for such a small segment of the population.

YOU claimed this was evidence of an expansion of the attacks by the religious right, but every single ACTUAL fact shows that it is merely an expansion of the rights/accommodations for sexually different people (sorry... can't think of a better description)

Does it REALLY surprise you that if Cali just made this accommodation, that it might not have hit W Va's 'top 50' things to accomplish?

(07-12-2014 05:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 06:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

Kindly show how they aren't interested in fixing the problem.
As I pointed out to you (and you characteristically ignored) even far left leaning California had a similar law that was only changes in June 2014...and rather than invalidate the law, it merely did as you suggested and made them provide a doctor's statement AND pay a $23 fee.
Where are the Constitutional arguments there, Tom? Charging a fee to transgendered people that isn't charged to anyone else? Making them have a physicians statement? OH THE HORRORS In California! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA. Where are your complaints a year ago that California had this exact same law on the books?

The transgendered community will take that fee and simply pay in any other state with little if any complaints. There were lots of complaints about the situation last year in California. Now we are complaining everywhere.
Its West Virginia. There isn't any elected official that is willing to introduce such a solution, much less vote for it in WV.

Tom. Are you intentionally not even TRYING to respond to the points I am making?
California had the same law W Va does. So if W Va is a bunch of religious nuts, so is Cali.
Cali just recently realized there was a problem and has only recently addressed it... and they DIDN'T eliminate the law you say is an attack on transgendered people... they merely allowed a solution that I'm confident you would say was unconstitutional if a republican state had proposed it... because it sounds just like voter id arguments
W Va isn't exactly a 'haven' for sexual differences like cali so the fact that they are slower than cali to address the issues for such a small segment of the population.
YOU claimed this was evidence of an expansion of the attacks by the religious right, but every single ACTUAL fact shows that it is merely an expansion of the rights/accommodations for sexually different people (sorry... can't think of a better description)
Does it REALLY surprise you that if Cali just made this accommodation, that it might not have hit W Va's 'top 50' things to accomplish?

Tom's an ideologue. He doesn't give a damn about facts.

(07-11-2014 09:44 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  After reading the thread title, I thought I was gonna open it up to read they were forced to take off their make up and OKIE and S.C. Duke were exposed!!

I'm so glad you didn't go to college to become a cop. Exposed ? Ha you're the one that plays dress up.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-12-2014 05:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 06:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

Kindly show how they aren't interested in fixing the problem.
As I pointed out to you (and you characteristically ignored) even far left leaning California had a similar law that was only changes in June 2014...and rather than invalidate the law, it merely did as you suggested and made them provide a doctor's statement AND pay a $23 fee.
Where are the Constitutional arguments there, Tom? Charging a fee to transgendered people that isn't charged to anyone else? Making them have a physicians statement? OH THE HORRORS In California! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA. Where are your complaints a year ago that California had this exact same law on the books?

The transgendered community will take that fee and simply pay in any other state with little if any complaints. There were lots of complaints about the situation last year in California. Now we are complaining everywhere.
Its West Virginia. There isn't any elected official that is willing to introduce such a solution, much less vote for it in WV.

Tom. Are you intentionally not even TRYING to respond to the points I am making?
California had the same law W Va does. So if W Va is a bunch of religious nuts, so is Cali.
Cali just recently realized there was a problem and has only recently addressed it... and they DIDN'T eliminate the law you say is an attack on transgendered people... they merely allowed a solution that I'm confident you would say was unconstitutional if a republican state had proposed it... because it sounds just like voter id arguments
W Va isn't exactly a 'haven' for sexual differences like cali so the fact that they are slower than cali to address the issues for such a small segment of the population.
YOU claimed this was evidence of an expansion of the attacks by the religious right, but every single ACTUAL fact shows that it is merely an expansion of the rights/accommodations for sexually different people (sorry... can't think of a better description)
Does it REALLY surprise you that if Cali just made this accommodation, that it might not have hit W Va's 'top 50' things to accomplish?

Tom's an ideologue. He doesn't give a damn about facts.

Youre at least as much of an ideologue as I am. Orthodox Libertarians are the most rigid people I've ever met.

(07-12-2014 05:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 06:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 04:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  WV isn't interested in fixing the problem, as was shown in the article.

Kindly show how they aren't interested in fixing the problem.

As I pointed out to you (and you characteristically ignored) even far left leaning California had a similar law that was only changes in June 2014...and rather than invalidate the law, it merely did as you suggested and made them provide a doctor's statement AND pay a $23 fee.

Where are the Constitutional arguments there, Tom? Charging a fee to transgendered people that isn't charged to anyone else? Making them have a physicians statement? OH THE HORRORS In California! THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS OUT OF CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA. Where are your complaints a year ago that California had this exact same law on the books?

The transgendered community will take that fee and simply pay in any other state with little if any complaints. There were lots of complaints about the situation last year in California. Now we are complaining everywhere.

Its West Virginia. There isn't any elected official that is willing to introduce such a solution, much less vote for it in WV.

Tom. Are you intentionally not even TRYING to respond to the points I am making?

California had the same law W Va does. So if W Va is a bunch of religious nuts, so is Cali.

Cali just recently realized there was a problem and has only recently addressed it... and they DIDN'T eliminate the law you say is an attack on transgendered people... they merely allowed a solution that I'm confident you would say was unconstitutional if a republican state had proposed it... because it sounds just like voter id arguments

W Va isn't exactly a 'haven' for sexual differences like cali so the fact that they are slower than cali to address the issues for such a small segment of the population.

YOU claimed this was evidence of an expansion of the attacks by the religious right, but every single ACTUAL fact shows that it is merely an expansion of the rights/accommodations for sexually different people (sorry... can't think of a better description)

Does it REALLY surprise you that if Cali just made this accommodation, that it might not have hit W Va's 'top 50' things to accomplish?

Oh its not that I think the California solution is perfect. But the situation for trans persons is so dire that they'd take that inperfect solution in WV.

The real situation is that the solution in California is not happening anytime soon in WV. The religious right is opposed to it. Its WV. 'Nuff said. There's no point of waiting for WV to come to their senses because its unlikely the will without outside pressure.

So the solution will have to come from the Feds or the Courts.

And yes, we'll challenge the fee in Calif.

Identification is a compelling government interest. You'll lose. Nothing you are saying changes that. That's what I tried to tell you early but you're really fired up trying to play the victim.

(07-12-2014 10:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Identification is a compelling government interest. You'll lose. Nothing you are saying changes that. That's what I tried to tell you early but you're really fired up trying to play the victim.

Again, then make grandmother take a pic with undyed hair, no wig/extension, and no dentures.

Isn't there some legal concept related to uneven application of the law?

Why is this compelling interest applicable to a Trans person but not to a straight woman?

What's a Trans person? Are you referring to a Tranny?

(07-12-2014 10:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Identification is a compelling government interest. You'll lose. Nothing you are saying changes that. That's what I tried to tell you early but you're really fired up trying to play the victim.

Again, then make grandmother take a pic with undyed hair, no wig/extension, and no dentures.

Isn't there some legal concept related to uneven application of the law?

Why is this compelling interest applicable to a Trans person but not to a straight woman?

It's called an as applied challenge as opposed to a challenge on the face.

The two situations are not analogous. The grandma is appearing the same as she actually is, her legal person if you will. The Trans person is not, because they are males.

I have no problem with them changing the ID after the person has finished and is legally a female. However, you must appear as the person you are not who you wish to be.

(07-12-2014 11:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 10:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Identification is a compelling government interest. You'll lose. Nothing you are saying changes that. That's what I tried to tell you early but you're really fired up trying to play the victim.

Again, then make grandmother take a pic with undyed hair, no wig/extension, and no dentures.

Isn't there some legal concept related to uneven application of the law?

Why is this compelling interest applicable to a Trans person but not to a straight woman?

It's called an as applied challenge as opposed to a challenge on the face.

The two situations are not analogous. The grandma is appearing the same as she actually is, her legal person if you will. The Trans person is not, because they are males.

I have no problem with them changing the ID after the person has finished and is legally a female. However, you must appear as the person you are not who you wish to be.

So basically grandma can 'appear' as any female she wishes so long as she appears female.

The ID clearly says "M" on it. I don't see where the 'deception' is.

I just don't see any difference. If you say no changes to appearance then apply it to everyone. No wig for a Trans person? No toupee for a man nor any wig for a female. No makeup? Then the same applies for everyone.

Now obviously they'd never do that to grandma. Because it would humiliate her. You see humiliation is for the Trans people only.

Grandma isn't appearing as she really is. She has no teeth. She has a wig on. And when did we have a legal dress code anyway?

So WV allows men to wear wigs (and I'll bet you any amount of money that I could put on any number of wigs and get a WV ID), but only wigs that appear, in the opinion of some arbitrary person, to be 'male' (e.g., toupees). I suppose we need a wig regulation telling people what kind of wigs are acceptable and which ones aren't. My guess is that wigs that aren't are those worn by people not liked by the capricious and arbitrary decision of the DMV employee
And if the Trans person is female to male, will they make them WEAR a wig to not have a male haircut?

(07-12-2014 11:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  What's a Trans person? Are you referring to a Tranny?

Why? Just why?! I don't get people who wake up and think "Man, can't wait to use insulting terms for populations I disagree with". They don't like the term tranny. So stop using it. You make my skin crawl.

(07-13-2014 12:18 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 11:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  What's a Trans person? Are you referring to a Tranny?

Why? Just why?! I don't get people who wake up and think "Man, can't wait to use insulting terms for populations I disagree with". They don't like the term tranny. So stop using it. You make my skin crawl.

Its called trolling. I have an effective solution for it

Tom, the misinformation is coming from you. You post some of the insanest bs on this board and this thread is some of your biggest whoppers.

JDT, you never fail to amuse. Seriously, I can't do anything but laugh at you. You boast that you agree with his bs. You come on with your word of the day to ban. Someone doesn't want to be called a tranny, don't be a tranny. And then you tell someone who isn't a racist to not whine about being called one. So, calling a tranny a tranny is offensive but calling someone else anything under the sun is ok and they should buck up. Idiot.

It's real simple but apparently you two don't understand basics. A male/female just are. Doesn't matter if they want/feel/believe they're the other. They aren't. They need help. Their parents failed. Now many in the medical fields are failing them. A doctor issuing orders to "present" what you want/feel/believe is doing a disservice. If they don't understand anatomy, they stole their wallpaper. It's just amazing that anyone in any medical field would aid in these delusions and abuse these people. They need help, not mutilation. Whacking off a wanker is malpractice. Calling one a tranny isn't humiliation or degrading. A man appearing in public wearing a dress is. Seems they need to be told.

Any other medical condition, physical or mental, doctors try to help. Not trannyvism. Guy tells his doc he thinks he's a girl, doc says take two aspirin and stop by the dress shop. The frigging absolute worst doctors orders in the history of quackery. Kick him in the nuts. Explain to the knucklehead a girl wouldn't be experiencing the pain he is.

(07-13-2014 12:38 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Tom, the misinformation is coming from you. You post some of the insanest bs on this board and this thread is some of your biggest whoppers.

JDT, you never fail to amuse. Seriously, I can't do anything but laugh at you. You boast that you agree with his bs. You come on with your word of the day to ban. Someone doesn't want to be called a tranny, don't be a tranny. And then you tell someone who isn't a racist to not whine about being called one. So, calling a tranny a tranny is offensive but calling someone else anything under the sun is ok and they should buck up. Idiot.

It's real simple but apparently you two don't understand basics. A male/female just are. Doesn't matter if they want/feel/believe they're the other. They aren't. They need help. Their parents failed. Now many in the medical fields are failing them. A doctor issuing orders to "present" what you want/feel/believe is doing a disservice. If they don't understand anatomy, they stole their wallpaper. It's just amazing that anyone in any medical field would aid in these delusions and abuse these people. They need help, not mutilation. Whacking off a wanker is malpractice. Calling one a tranny isn't humiliation or degrading. A man appearing in public wearing a dress is. Seems they need to be told.

Any other medical condition, physical or mental, doctors try to help. Not trannyvism. Guy tells his doc he thinks he's a girl, doc says take two aspirin and stop by the dress shop. The frigging absolute worst doctors orders in the history of quackery. Kick him in the nuts. Explain to the knucklehead a girl wouldn't be experiencing the pain he is.

Virtually every medical doctor in the United States disagrees with your assessment of gender dysphoria. On one side we have 99%+ of medical doctors. On the other side, we have 1 dead doctor, 1 disgraced doctor, and Paul M. Where did you get your medical degree from?

You obviously have no understanding of the issues involved.

Again, WV allows men to wear wigs. WV allows women and men to disguise their appearance in their ID pic. WV doesn't allow that, if the person doing so is a M to F pre-op transgendered person only. Its arbitrary. Its capricious. It frustrates the entire purpose of an ID, which is to provide a visual identifier that looks like the person presents in public. Could you imagine the utter chaos at the TSA checkpoint if every person had an ID that didn't look like how they dressed at the checkpoint? And then there's the voting hassle.

If the point of an ID was to simply confirm the gender of the person as defined by their external genatalia, with zero regard for how the person appears, and being completely useless for purposes of visual identification of the person as they appear in public, then I propose having the ID simply contain a picture of the person's pen*s or vag*na. That would make as much sense as the WV policy.

You know, if a Trans person committed a crime and they needed a photo to try and find this person, the WV folks are going to be sh*t out of luck because all they're gonna have is some picture of someone appearing completely different. I guess they'll have to guess how the Trans person looks as a female. I can only imagine how well WV would interpret that. My guess is they'd dress her up as a drag queen.

(07-11-2014 12:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 12:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 09:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And 'trannies' is kind of like using the N word. If you're looking to be credible, you might wish to use the term transgender or transitioning.

Tom, we tend to shorten names. Examples:

San Francisco 49ers = 9ers
Redskins = 'Skins
British = Brits
California = Cali
Washington DC = DC
Chicago = Chi Town
Las Vegas = Vegas
Los Angeles International Airport = LAX


The list is endless.

Yea but the short form is Trans. Tranny is a perjorative, used only to demean or insult someone.

So be it then. I'll still refer to them as trannies and not lose a minutes sleep worrying that I've offended anyone.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.