Feminazis need to shush

But, yes, I am well aware there will be those types who defend the rights of rapists and kiddy fiddlers; I'll stick to my convictions, thanks all the same.

Even convicted "rapists and kiddy fiddlers" do have rights, though obviously they don't have all the same ones everyone else does. For a few examples in the US, there have been Supreme Court cases about prisoners' First Amendment right to practice their religion. Courts have applied the Eighth Amendment protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" to conditions inside prisons. Also, Elessar mentioned human rights....if something is a "human right" that means it applies to all humans. (Right? )

But rapists and kiddy fiddlers should not have those rights. That's all I'm saying.

I cannot believe that an adult of average intelligence has to ask me why I have an issue with convicted sex offenders changing their sex (at the cost of the taxpayer no less). They have committed acts of evil and should not receive any help for any thing as far as I am concerned.

As for your last paragraph? I shall state it again as you seem to be getting a little confused (accidentally on purpose, obviously): I have nothing against transgender folk at all (as previously stated); but I disagree with sex offenders receiving treatment. It isn't too hard to understand this.

Okay. So you don’t want sex offenders to get gender-related treatment, because I guess sex and gender are closely related. You’re happy for them to have other ailments treated though I think (correct me if I’m wrong), eg high blood pressure. So how about sex-related medical problems? Prostate cancer? BPH? Testicular cancer? Should they receive anti-retroviral therapy if they have HIV?

I’m just curious to know where you draw the line.

Incidentally, I couldn’t find a breakdown of the crimes committed by the 70 (out of 85,000) transgender prisoners in UK prisons. Perhaps they truly were all ‘acts of evil’, but I suspect not.

Where did I state that I was happy for them to receive any treatment for anything?

And I am not merely focusing on those prisoners who have already had a sex change; I am talking about those who wish to make that change. And among those prisoners who wish to change sex will be sex offenders (like the one I put in a link in a previous post a page or two ago). So I shall reiterate my stance: scumbags who rape others do not deserve to have the taxpayer fund their treatment. Obviously, if you feel that rapists and pedos should receive treatment then that's up to you - each to his own.

And until recently you used to stop them from passing on their twisted, whiny, weird genes

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-belgi ... SKBN18L1H6

well, I'm not sure why you brought in a totally different issue in this. I'm not familiar with this law. Since it is of no relevancy to my argument, I'll just discard this.

but your continued dissaproval of the "twisted, whiny, weird" characteristics surprises me. In what way does transgendership and related medical procedures not comply with the cambridge definitions of these words?

isn't that what these medical procedure want to achieve, ad nominatim: to change the original shape, ie to twist? aren't they "unusual", or weird according to the cambridge definition? I must be living in a different world than you: so far I havent seen too many transgenders walking the streets, so is it too much to label them "unusual" or "weird" (according to cambridge)

isn't it true that you are just triggered over nothing?

I cannot believe that an adult of average intelligence has to ask me why I have an issue with convicted sex offenders changing their sex (at the cost of the taxpayer no less). They have committed acts of evil and should not receive any help for any thing as far as I am concerned.

As for your last paragraph? I shall state it again as you seem to be getting a little confused (accidentally on purpose, obviously): I have nothing against transgender folk at all (as previously stated); but I disagree with sex offenders receiving treatment. It isn't too hard to understand this.

Okay. So you don’t want sex offenders to get gender-related treatment, because I guess sex and gender are closely related. You’re happy for them to have other ailments treated though I think (correct me if I’m wrong), eg high blood pressure. So how about sex-related medical problems? Prostate cancer? BPH? Testicular cancer? Should they receive anti-retroviral therapy if they have HIV?

I’m just curious to know where you draw the line.

Incidentally, I couldn’t find a breakdown of the crimes committed by the 70 (out of 85,000) transgender prisoners in UK prisons. Perhaps they truly were all ‘acts of evil’, but I suspect not.

Where did I state that I was happy for them to receive any treatment for anything?

And I am not merely focusing on those prisoners who have already had a sex change; I am talking about those who wish to make that change. And among those prisoners who wish to change sex will be sex offenders (like the one I put in a link in a previous post a page or two ago). So I shall reiterate my stance: scumbags who rape others do not deserve to have the taxpayer fund their treatment. Obviously, if you feel that rapists and pedos should receive treatment then that's up to you - each to his own.

If you don’t think they should receive treatment for anything whatsoever then that’s fine. I mean, I completely disagree, but at least your stance has some internal consistency so I can accept it as simply being very hardline rather than logically flawed.

The people you are concerned about are such a tiny number of humans that I think you’re getting unnecessarily distracted by them. Their role in the discussion of transgender rights is nothing more than a small footnote.

And until recently you used to stop them from passing on their twisted, whiny, weird genes

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-belgi ... SKBN18L1H6

well, I'm not sure why you brought in a totally different issue in this. I'm not familiar with this law. Since it is of no relevancy to my argument, I'll just discard this.

but your continued dissaproval of the "twisted, whiny, weird" characteristics surprises me. In what way does transgendership and related medical procedures not comply with the cambridge definitions of these words?

isn't that what these medical procedure want to achieve, ad nominatim: to change the original shape, ie to twist? aren't they "unusual", or weird according to the cambridge definition? I must be living in a different world than you: so far I havent seen too many transgenders walking the streets, so is it too much to label them "unusual" or "weird" (according to cambridge)

isn't it true that you are just triggered over nothing?

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re weird ‘AF’ as well, but my views and biases and dare I say prejudices shouldn’t impact on their basic human rights.

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re weird ‘AF’ as well, but my views and biases and dare I say prejudices shouldn’t impact on their basic human rights.

they don't impact my views either: it's not because their personality differs from mine that the government shouldnt pay for their expensive treatments: it's because means are scarce and their are bigger needs, like the example I gave of children with cancer.

If you don’t think they should receive treatment for anything whatsoever then that’s fine. I mean, I completely disagree, but at least your stance has some internal consistency so I can accept it as simply being very hardline rather than logically flawed.

The people you are concerned about are such a tiny number of humans that I think you’re getting unnecessarily distracted by them. Their role in the discussion of transgender rights is nothing more than a small footnote.

It's fine either way...just not according to you. Hardline? What, stating that rapists and pedos do not deserve any form of treatment? It is only hardline if you think the way you do. But you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

I am not getting distracted by anything. I have never made an issue about transgender rights (OK, there was a time I disagreed with a colleague at Stonewall about the absurdity of all the new sexual definitions we now have...but that was nothing). I am merely stating that I oppose any murderer, kiddy fiddler or rapist having any form of treatment to change their sex. And away from all the rights and wrongs of this, why on earth should the hard-working man and woman in the street help pay for any of this? I cannot see one logical reason whatsoever.

Because if we have a universal healthcare system, we can’t have rules of entitlement being made based on people’s opinions and views. It’s either free for everyone or it’s not. If people can make their own rules based on their own whims, you run into dangerous territory. I’ll pay my taxes but not if it goes to sex offenders. I’ll donate blood but not if it goes to gays. Etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re weird ‘AF’ as well, but my views and biases and dare I say prejudices shouldn’t impact on their basic human rights.

they don't impact my views either: it's not because their personality differs from mine that the government shouldnt pay for their expensive treatments: it's because means are scarce and their are bigger needs, like the example I gave of children with cancer.

People with gender dysphoria (including children) have a very high suicide rate.

Arguably gender dysphoria is up there with cancer as a life-threatening condition.

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re weird ‘AF’ as well, but my views and biases and dare I say prejudices shouldn’t impact on their basic human rights.

they don't impact my views either: it's not because their personality differs from mine that the government shouldnt pay for their expensive treatments: it's because means are scarce and their are bigger needs, like the example I gave of children with cancer.

People with gender dysphoria (including children) have a very high suicide rate.

Arguably gender dysphoria is up there with cancer as a life-threatening condition.

so? plenty of other people fall into other categories with high suicide rates.

they don't impact my views either: it's not because their personality differs from mine that the government shouldnt pay for their expensive treatments: it's because means are scarce and their are bigger needs, like the example I gave of children with cancer.

People with gender dysphoria (including children) have a very high suicide rate.

Arguably gender dysphoria is up there with cancer as a life-threatening condition.

so? plenty of other people fall into other categories with high suicide rates.

And we try to help them, don’t we?

Because if we have a universal healthcare system, we can’t have rules of entitlement being made based on people’s opinions and views. It’s either free for everyone or it’s not. If people can make their own rules based on their own whims, you run into dangerous territory. I’ll pay my taxes but not if it goes to sex offenders. I’ll donate blood but not if it goes to gays. Etc.

But we can have those rules. And it really would work very simply. If you murder another, rape another, etc. then your entitlement to have a sex change is no longer available. One really does not have to take it to the extremes you mention; not allowing particular criminals certain healthcare services does not have to extend to personal prejudices towards gays - no one has to go there.

And I should think that if there was a vote on this most Brits would back it. Why should our wonderful NHS be weighed down even more by those in society who think it is acceptable to kill or rape?

I would also go much further by charging those who need language translators because they do not speak English. And I would have drunks fined every time they waste time in A and E. The money made here could then go towards help saving poorly children - it's just simple common sense.

And we try to help them, don’t we?

yes, but not at any cost. we dont live in a country with golden trees. only the sun shines for nothing. who is going to pay the price? you, Elessar?

expensive procedures arent the answer. we are looking at 15000 euro, at the very least. and that gives no guarantee that the patient wont commit suicide regardless. many of them committed suicide after the operation, because it didnt meet their expectations or something.

an unstable person with suicidical tendencies should not be followed in his / her detructive behaviour, but should rather be put in an asylum to protect them from themselves

And we try to help them, don’t we?

yes, but not at any cost. we dont live in a country with golden trees. only the sun shines for nothing. who is going to pay the price? you, Elessar?

I pay my taxes, so yes.

Because if we have a universal healthcare system, we can’t have rules of entitlement being made based on people’s opinions and views. It’s either free for everyone or it’s not. If people can make their own rules based on their own whims, you run into dangerous territory. I’ll pay my taxes but not if it goes to sex offenders. I’ll donate blood but not if it goes to gays. Etc.

But we can have those rules. And it really would work very simply. If you murder another, rape another, etc. then your entitlement to have a sex change is no longer available. One really does not have to take it to the extremes you mention; not allowing particular criminals certain healthcare services does not have to extend to personal prejudices towards gays - no one has to go there.

And I should think that if there was a vote on this most Brits would back it. Why should our wonderful NHS be weighed down even more by those in society who think it is acceptable to kill or rape?

I would also go much further by charging those who need language translators because they do not speak English. And I would have drunks fined every time they waste time in A and E. The money made here could then go towards help saving poorly children - it's just simple common sense.

How much of a drain on the multi-billion pound organisation that is the NHS do you think gender dysphoric murderers are?