Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
Correct - but not for the reasons you think.
Proof is the domain of mathematics, not science. Furthermore, the standard of proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" isn't even one that is required in the legal realm either. That is to assume that any scientific study would directly deal with the question of whether taxpayers should pay for something - which would be an unlikely scenario.
|
Certainly similar cases were tried, but obviously had different outcomes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rathji
So as far as the specifics of the various GRS go, they don't remove all the parts you mention AFAIK, but the hormone treatments pretty much render them useless.
|
It's straying far off topic, but actually the prostate does perform non-sexual functions. It regulates urine flow, which could lead to other complications. So, it's not so simple, is it? You're the one who kept insisting that this was "medically necessary." One quick surgery could lead to several others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rathji
From there, you would need to make up your own mind. I don't expect you to change your mind on this, but eventually you might be sitting there and be ready to say or do something really ####ty to some transgender person , and maybe you might stop and think that you wouldn't do that same thing to some else who had been born with a medical problem, so why would you do it to this person. Or maybe you won't, and my effort will be in vain.
That's your choice though.
|
Because people think they taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill, you and that other obnoxious poster totally derail the discussion with accusations of violence that don't exist. Neither of you can just focus on the matter at hand without making everything personal.
Grow up.