Of course I am, you just want to define "normal" as including "wanting to create facsimiles of [opposite sex] organs with the remains of your current sex organs while artificially altering your hormone levels", which I think is a bit unreasonable.

Gender dysphoria does walk and talk and smell like a psychological disorder, though, doesn't it? If I told you that while I have male parts, I feel as though I should have a pair of Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofans, would you build me a runway and surgically attach wings to my body or send me to talk to a mental health professional?

Fair enough. Take that out of the equation.

Let's say someone just wants to dress as a woman, wear makeup, carry a purse, and use the women's bathroom. Is that acceptable and not mental illness?

I probably wouldn't send you to a mental health professional for that. I'd just call you a dumbass.

The idea that they are treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness is that these are the same people that treat homosexuality as a mental illness. I'm not going to pretend to walk in the shoes of either a homosexual or someone who thinks he should be a different gender, but honestly, it's completely reasonable to me that in a world where someone is wired to like the same sex as them, it's not unreasonable for someone to think they should have actually been born the opposite gender. I mean, human DNA has evolved in so many ways, it doesn't seem unreasonable to see this as another evolution in DNA. But I'm not a geneticist, I sell conveyor chain.

Yeah, the mean age of the sample at the beginning was 8.4 years, mean age at the second observation was 18.9 years. It's the weird parenthesis they put in the URL, no idea why the auto link function truncates the URL there.

Of course I am, you just want to define "normal" as including "wanting to create facsimiles of [opposite sex] organs with the remains of your current sex organs while artificially altering your hormone levels", which I think is a bit unreasonable.

We all have disorders then.

For the record, I don't think any physical changes should be allowed either through hormones or other means until they reach the age of consent though that does bring up some liberty issues that in any other case JLN would probably be all over like a high school kid having to apply to a college to get a diploma.

What are you talking about? We place all kinds of personal liberty restrictions on minors, and almost all of it is a really good idea, because consent is a key component of almost every human interaction. How can a minor, even a 15-year old, consent to a nose job or life-altering hormone replacement therapy?

I agree with you. I don't think it should be legal until they are able to legally consent as an adult.

I just find it interesting that you think we should be allowed to restrict minors from making decisions on what to do with their own bodies but it would be "unconstitutional" to require them to apply and gain acceptance to a University that is guaranteed to accept them in order to get a diploma. Now this is where I am told those are completely different things even though both are telling high school age kids what to do.

Stephen Bona, 50, of Chicago was charged March 22, hours after Republican state Rep. Jeanne Ives reported getting a threatening voice mail at her district office.

"Your Tea Party brethren Sarah Palin put up a map that included the names, locations, and faces of Democratic candidates and put them in the cross hairs of a gun," the caller said on the voice mail, a recording of which Ives provided to the Daily Herald at that time.

The caller went on to say "perhaps we should do the same for you. We know where you live. There's no longer a ban on assault weapons. Think about that before you speak next time, (expletive)."

Bona is accused of leaving the message following Ives' February appearance on a Catholic Conference of Illinois radio show. There, she said same-sex marriages are "disordered" and couples are trying to "weasel their way into acceptability."

Bona's attorney, Joanie Rae Wimmer argued during a Wednesday hearing before DuPage Judge Blanche Hill Fawell that the case should be dismissed because Bona did not specifically threaten Ives.

"The law is pretty clear that you only get outside the realm of constitutionally protected speech if you mean to convey an intent on your part to do harm to someone else," Wimmer said. "I don't believe that he did that. There are a number of cases where a speaker suggests to the listener that violence could befall them if they continue their course of action."

Joanie Rae Wimmer also defends people like this:

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2013 ... 712119830/



Equality!

Is there anything inherently wrong about defending an alleged criminal?

You know I don't think there is.

Tell me, does your poor "pedantic, contrarian ass" bit ever get old?

It doesn't get old for me!

If there's not a problem with her doing what she does then what's the point of posting the linked story?

Not over yet.