Born this way?

[UCFBS]

That's why I said in a different thread that the transexual community is an affront to the homosexual community. The homosexual community, right or wrong, suggest that there's no psychological part of it and that they were born that way. The trans community focuses on the feeling (psychology) that their DNA is wrong. To that end it's kind of surprising that the two embrace one another. The only crossover between the 2 is that both revolve around feelings of attraction but the divergence is much more profound.

Yep.

The difference is that the LGB community isn't asking the state to 'interfere' with a child's physiology by puberty, let alone age 4-5 now. Some in the 'T' are, and even others in the 'T' question that. But anyone who does is called a 'bigot.' My how bad this has become so fast.

BTW, I have the same argument with Manning. Her lawyers argue her health, due to gender reassignment surgery, is too poor to be incarcerated ... like someone on their death bed poor ... but serving 'Ts' in the military are trying to argue that their combat effectiveness is unaffected.

Furthermore, the US Media says 'look to our allies,' but even our NATO allies do not have a 'blanket' policy, and many do not allow surgery while serving. At the same time, several 'Ts' in the US joined to get the American taxpayer to pay for it, because unlike our NATO allies, it's not usually covered by private healthcare in the US. So there's that too.

It's far, far more complicated of an issue than people realize, and we need to stop using 'bigot' any time questions come up. Frankly I"m fine with 'Ts' serving, but feel they should not be allowed to have surgery until they are discharged from the reserves -- at least not in combat roles.

BTW, that leads into the Marines and women in expeditionary units. Even all our NATO allies with equivalents to the USMC expeditionary units do not 'lower the bar' for women. If you gotta be able to carry a 155mm shell, you gotta be able to carry one, period, they have the same requirements.

 

[sk8knight]

Yep.

The difference is that the LGB community isn't asking the state to 'interfere' with a child's physiology by puberty, let alone age 4-5 now. Some in the 'T' are, and even others in the 'T' question that. But anyone who does is called a 'bigot.' My how bad this has become so fast.

BTW, I have the same argument with Manning. Her lawyers argue her health, due to gender reassignment surgery, is too poor to be incarcerated ... like someone on their death bed poor ... but serving 'Ts' in the military are trying to argue that their combat effectiveness is unaffected.

Furthermore, the US Media says 'look to our allies,' but even our NATO allies do not have a 'blanket' policy, and many do not allow surgery while serving. At the same time, several 'Ts' in the US joined to get the American taxpayer to pay for it, because unlike our NATO allies, it's not usually covered by private healthcare in the US. So there's that too.

It's far, far more complicated of an issue than people realize, and we need to stop using 'bigot' any time questions come up. Frankly I"m fine with 'Ts' serving, but feel they should not be allowed to have surgery until they are discharged from the reserves -- at least not in combat roles.

BTW, that leads into the Marines and women in expeditionary units. Even all our NATO allies with equivalents to the USMC expeditionary units do not 'lower the bar' for women. If you gotta be able to carry a 155mm shell, you gotta be able to carry one, period, they have the same requirements.

I would LOVE to look to our allies for some of their policies regarding who receives government money and services.