Transsexual's fight for implants lands taxpayer with £18,000 bill

[Catzsy]

I'm saying its a mental condition/a feeling - its not reality.



Confused at that, need to explain better if there's a point in what you said.



Oh the law, yes well modern politically correct law is very differing from reality.

As for the second option, depends on hormones/DNA - but no, if you are born with a vagina and have female DNA/genes then are you a woman and the same for a man only the opposite.



Oh what absolute nonsense, get a grip. I'm annoyed because taxpayers money is being spent on this and the fact that cancer patients are denied life-extending drugs in place for this. I said earlier on if he wanted to undergo gender 'reassignment' then he could do so and I wouldn't blink an eyelid - provided its out of his own pocket and not mine.

Now grow up instead of throwing around silly words, 'phobic this, phobic that' - get a grip over yourself.



We're agreed then, so either you can withdraw the fact i'm 'transphobic' or you are too by your own definition.



And that shouldn't be paid for either, as for liposuction stories - they have been reported.

There is no hatred here, its a matter of priority, common sense and money.



We have been through this, homosexuality is a chemical fact whereas transsexuality is not a chemical fact, it is a feeling/mental condition.

Where on earth do you come up with the idea that homosexuality is a chemical fact? As I said previously your views are the same as some people had twenty/thirty years ago about homosexuality . Just because you don't agree with the law does not make it right - perhaps it was an enlightened decision based on information from people who actually have some knowledge on the subject rather than assuming they do.
Here is some information on the subject:http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu.htm

Here is a moral dilemma for you. There is a man lying on the floor bleeding to death from slashed wrists. In the same room there is a man suffering from cancer waiting for an operatiuon. Who do you deal with first?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was saying that, you said there's a certain factuality about homosexuality because it's limited, for instance, a male getting aroused when he thinks sexually about another male which just simply cannot be helped - thus implying that the processess is isn't subjective because the male has no say in the process.

However by your own logic you've deemed transgendered people's desires to be equally factual because a male transgendered would be aroused if they thought sexually about a male - whilst throughout their sexual thoughts they thought of themself as a female.

A transgendered male will be aroused thinking that they're a female engaging in sexual activity with a male. I suppose that's a "fact".

There's nothing sexual about thinking of yourself as the oppsosite sex you were born as, if there is then thats called a fetish - if its not sexual then its part of their thoughts/feelings, its not chemical whereas homosexuality is chemical.

Where on earth do you come up with the idea that homosexuality is a chemical fact? As I said previously your views are the same as some people had twenty/thirty years ago about homosexuality . Just because you don't agree with the law does not make it right - perhaps it was an enlightened decision based on information from people who actually have some knowledge on the subject rather than assuming they do.

I come up with the idea because put it this way, I don't look at oh I don't know.. Zac Efron and think "now i'll get an erection over him" - it just happens, its my hormones. The difference between now and thirty years ago is that people looked on homosexuality as a problem whereas thats not so much the case - but its still chemical.

Here is a moral dilemma for you. There is a man lying on the floor bleeding to death from slashed wrists. In the same room there is a man suffering from cancer waiting for an operatiuon. Who do you deal with first?

You deal with both as they are both life-threatening, are reality and are not a figment of thought/feeling. If theres not enough money/staff on then you deal with the most urgent first obviously which would be the slashed wrists, but really theres no comparison here.

A better question and more relevent one would be; there's a man with terminal cancer before you asking for drugs to extend his remaining time on Earth, on the other hand there's somebody who is threatening/has tried to kill themselves/self due to a belief that they think they are a female inside - who do you provide funding to?

I know which one i'd pick.

[HotelUser]

There's nothing sexual about thinking of yourself as the oppsosite sex you were born as, if there is then thats called a fetish - if its not sexual then its part of their thoughts/feelings, its not chemical whereas homosexuality is chemical.



I come up with the idea because put it this way, I don't look at oh I don't know.. Zac Efron and think "now i'll get an erection over him" - it just happens, its my hormones. The difference between now and thirty years ago is that people looked on homosexuality as a problem whereas thats not so much the case - but its still chemical.



You deal with both as they are both life-threatening, are reality and are not a figment of thought/feeling. If theres not enough money/staff on then you deal with the most urgent first obviously which would be the slashed wrists, but really theres no comparison here.

Okay, then I've been daydreaming and being aroused at the thought of attractive men since the day I was born - guess that's just a standard fetish. I must not be gay!

(note that I'm ignoring where you said it's chemical, because it's not your opinion that it's chemical - it's just a incorrect fact you've for whatever reason decided to make up here)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Okay, then I've been daydreaming and being aroused at the thought of attractive men since the day I was born - guess that's just a standard fetish. I must not be gay!

(note that I'm ignoring where you said it's chemical, because it's not your opinion that it's chemical - it's just a incorrect fact you've for whatever reason decided to make up here)

So when you look at guys you are sexually attracted to, you have to think as in "right, now I need to get hard" in order to gain an erection do you?

If so, then you are not gay. If yes, then you are gay - and due to chemical elements in your own body.

[Catzsy]

There's nothing sexual about thinking of yourself as the oppsosite sex you were born as, if there is then thats called a fetish - if its not sexual then its part of their thoughts/feelings, its not chemical whereas homosexuality is chemical.



I come up with the idea because put it this way, I don't look at oh I don't know.. Zac Efron and think "now i'll get an erection over him" - it just happens, its my hormones. The difference between now and thirty years ago is that people looked on homosexuality as a problem whereas thats not so much the case - but its still chemical.

You deal with both as they are both life-threatening, are reality and are not a figment of thought/feeling. If theres not enough money/staff on then you deal with the most urgent first obviously which would be the slashed wrists, but really theres no comparison here.

A better question and more relevent one would be; there's a man with terminal cancer before you asking for drugs to extend his remaining time on Earth, on the other hand there's somebody who is threatening/has tried to kill themselves/self due to a belief that they think they are a female inside - who do you provide funding to?

I know which one i'd pick.

The part in bold is exactly what you think about transsexuals now. Sorry I did edit the first post
with this information:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu.htm

So you would leave the man lying on the floor to die?

[HotelUser]

So when you look at guys, you have to think as in "right, now I need to get hard" in order to gain an erection do you?

If so, then you are not gay. If yes, then you are gay - and due to chemical elements in your own body.

But if I'm turned on thinking of myself as a female having intercourse with other males and I don't have to think to get hard in order to gain an erection then I'm simply becoming hard due to these same chemical elements in my body.

Side note: the lack of scientific accuracy in this debate is cringeworthy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The part in bold is exactly what you think about transsexuals now. Sorry I did edit the first post
with this information:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu.htm

So you would leave the man lying on the floor to die?

That website views transsexuality as a disease or a chemical condition, it is neither.

As for the question, you would pick the most urgent which is the man with the slashed wrists, now answer my one which is a bit more relevent to the thread (cancer vs transsexual boob implants).

[HotelUser]

That website views transsexuality as a disease or a chemical condition, it is neither.

As for the question, you would pick the most urgent which is the man with the slashed wrists, now answer my one which is a bit more relevent to the thread (cancer vs transsexual boob implants).

Thanks for the quick diagnosis, doctor :rolleyes:.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But if I'm turned on thinking of myself as a female having intercourse with other males and I don't have to think to get hard in order to gain an erection then I'm simply becoming hard due to these same chemical elements in my body.

Side note: the lack of scientific accuracy in this debate is cringeworthy.

Then thats a sexual fetish/thought, people act on fetishes aswell. The idea of transsexuality is the feeling that you are the opposite sex but trapped in anothers body, its hardly relevent to sexual thoughts.

If so or even so, you dont have to act on sexual thoughts.

Thanks for the quick diagnosis, doctor :rolleyes:.

No problem, because we've now established that homosexuality is a chemical feeling (of which we have no control over hence why we become aroused over men) whereas transsexuality is a thought, not a sexual or chemical feeling.

In an attempt to prove the point, you've gone into sexual thoughts now which aren't all that relevent if he feels he's really a woman.

[Catzsy]

That website views transsexuality as a disease or a chemical condition, it is neither.

As for the question, you would pick the most urgent which is the man with the slashed wrists, now answer my one which is a bit more relevent to the thread (cancer vs transsexual boob implants).

And your evidential source in support of your views is?

No it is not more relevant but what I would say is that every case should be dealt with on it's merits and individual factors. Is 3 months more life to a terminal cancer patient worth a transsexual committing suicide - no I don't think it is. Should cancer treatment and operations be given priority when there is a good chance of survival - yes I think they should. I am sure anybody waiting for a transgender operation would understand this and providing they know they are on a waiting list then I am sure they would be prepared to wait. It's when it is turned down it's a problem.