TexasCHLforum.com

Dadtodabone wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: I understand the genetics (I've had a university level genetics class at TAMU as part of my major)

Would attending a class at TAMU make one a "former student"(Aggie)? Should I now address you as TAM-U ? What level of class privileges would obtain? Shirley you wouldn't be a fish forever?

And DON'T call me Shirley!

VoiceofReason wrote:Well stated TAM but “Gender reassignment” does not exist. Even after the hormones, surgery, name change and everything else that can be done, a genetic test would still indicate the person’s gender at birth.

I would like to know what happened to those children that were allowed by the parents to adopt the identity of the opposite gender at three or four years old.

I understand the genetics (I've had a university level genetics class at TAMU as part of my major), and I understand that whatever is done surgically, the person's genome does not change. I used the term "gender reassignment" because that is the commonly used term for the surgery which alters one's external gender appearance, including the alteration in appearance of their genitalia. You and I both know what I mean when I use the term - as does anybody else who hears my use of it.

You and I might both consider such surgery to be a form of mutilation, but so is body piercing and scarification. I am fundamentally repulsed by the thought of it, but it is none of my business.......and I have ZERO intention of ever examining someone else closely for "genital authenticity" before I will feel comfortable with them in a mens' room. If someone comes in, and has to stand to urinate, that's all I care about. Similarly, if a transsexual woman goes in the ladies room and sits, how would anyone know? But if someone goes into a women's room and stands to urinate, we have a problem.

There have ALWAYS been sexual predators in public restrooms. When I was driving from College Station to NYC, I stopped at a rest area in Tennessee to use the facilities, and as I was "standing" there, I heard a noise and looked to my right, where I saw that a hole had been drilled in the partition for the toilet, and there was an eyeball in that hole intently watching "me". If I had had a sharp stick in hand at the moment, that guy would have come out missing an eyeball. As it was, as I was walking out, a father and his little boy were walking in, and I warned them loud enough to be clearly heard to keep an eye out for the pervert in the first stall. He thanked me, and I left.

I don't say this to mean that sexual predation in public restrooms is OK (or in ANY kind of restroom, for that matter), but it gets down to whether or not something is enforceable. It is easy to enforce a law that requires someone to stay out of any restroom which is not intended for their assigned gender - whether it is assigned at birth or post-operatively. Otherwise, I totally agree that what Target has done is a mongolian group hug. I have signed the petition against it. I am withholding my dollars from their cash registers until they come to their senses.

remington79 wrote:I just read that as of 4pn eastern Target's stock dropped again to $79 and change and they have now lost $2 billion in value.

And all for the sake of a few trannies......... I'm sure it was worth it to their shareholders......

ScottDLS wrote:Since I currently identify as male...I have less of a hangup with Target Corp.'s new LGBTQIA friendly bathroom policy. However, I am encouraging my life partner (who currently identifies as female) to get her LTC, should she need to use the restroom at Target or escort any of our offspring (who birth gender indicated as female). I wonder how other womyn members of of the forum are considering handling necessary biological activities while shopping at Target?

We just stopped doing business with Target. There are alternatives.

My personal philosophy is this: if someone has completed gender reassignment surgery, then I guess I don't have a problem with them using the restroom appropriate to their gender assignment. But this whole self-identification business is bovine manure.

This is the opinion of Paul McHugh, MD, the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is the author of The Mind Has Mountains: "Reflections on Society and Psychiatry".
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

What is needed now is public clamor for coherent science—biological and therapeutic science—examining the real effects of these efforts to “support” transgendering. Although much is made of a rare “intersex” individual, no evidence supports the claim that people such as Bruce Jenner have a biological source for their transgender assumptions. Plenty of evidence demonstrates that with him and most others, transgendering is a psychological rather than a biological matter.

In fact, gender dysphoria—the official psychiatric term for feeling oneself to be of the opposite sex—belongs in the family of similarly disordered assumptions about the body, such as anorexia nervosa and body dysmorphic disorder. Its treatment should not be directed at the body as with surgery and hormones any more than one treats obesity-fearing anorexic patients with liposuction. The treatment should strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it. With youngsters, this is best done in family therapy.

This article is the single most coherent thing I've ever read on the topic - and by the way, it absolutely confirms everything I've said about it all along. I'll take the scientific opinion of an MD in psychiatry who uses science instead of feelings to underpin his conclusions all day long before I'll accept the intellectually barren drivel that permeates the rest of the national discussion.