Doesn’t align with your transitioning experience? 😉Googled "How do trans people live with themselves" and found this AI Overview
how do trans people live with themselves - Google Search
which in part states the following,
Transgender people live authentically by aligning their external presentation with their internal gender identity, often through social, medical, or legal transition. They build resilience through finding supportive communities, cultivating self-acceptance, and fostering personal joy despite facing high rates of societal stigma, discrimination, and isolation.
Thought it was an interesting take on the 1% of Americans over the age of 13 who identify themselves as being Trans.
Goes to show AI has a long way to go…
Keep your fantasies to yourself please…
LOL! I have no fantasies which involve you. I’m not into Trannies at all, but you do you.Keep your fantasies to yourself please
https://twitter.com/k_mahlburg/status/2041501298244419947?s=61&t=1KiTJ7EYgX-uQgf4Wkb9sg
Well, the answer to the question posed in the title is, they don’t want to. What a shocker…
@zeke4ahs , please evaluate the study & debunk its conclusions…
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2041915899129614490?s=61&t=1KiTJ7EYgX-uQgf4Wkb9sg
What a tragedy for this young man & others like him thanks to the progressive freaks that pushed this & insisted gender reassignment is the way for kids. I notice no responses from @zeke4ahs or any of the others that argued in favor of gender reassignment in youths about the study link posted above either. Shocker…
Kind of fits here.
8-1 with the only dissenting opinion being the clown of the group.
Ironically, she might be right in the long run. Legally, I think the Court made the right ruling, but practically, it's probably going to cause more harm than good. The body of evidence against the efficacy of conversion therapy is pretty robust. Allowing children to be placed into this "treatment" path is almost certainly going to cause irreparable damage.
But, that's not really KBJ's job. Right? Rule on the law, not on the policy. So the Court made the right ruling, but the dissent will be proven correct by history. That's not uncommon.
Edit to add: What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing.
Kind of fits here.
8-1 with the only dissenting opinion being the clown of the group.
Ironically, she might be right in the long run. Legally, I think the Court made the right ruling, but practically, it's probably going to cause more harm than good. The body of evidence against the efficacy of conversion therapy is pretty robust. Allowing children to be placed into this "treatment" path is almost certainly going to cause irreparable damage.
But, that's not really KBJ's job. Right? Rule on the law, not on the policy. So the Court made the right ruling, but the dissent will be proven correct by history. That's not uncommon.
Edit to add: What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing.
So, to paraphrase, you are saying that she is nothing but a political hack pushed into SCOTUS to represent a specific political agenda? What's been doing more harm than good lately is Trans people with access to firearms.
Kind of fits here.
8-1 with the only dissenting opinion being the clown of the group.
Ironically, she might be right in the long run. Legally, I think the Court made the right ruling, but practically, it's probably going to cause more harm than good. The body of evidence against the efficacy of conversion therapy is pretty robust. Allowing children to be placed into this "treatment" path is almost certainly going to cause irreparable damage.
But, that's not really KBJ's job. Right? Rule on the law, not on the policy. So the Court made the right ruling, but the dissent will be proven correct by history. That's not uncommon.
Edit to add: What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing.
So, to paraphrase, you are saying that she is nothing but a political hack pushed into SCOTUS to represent a specific political agenda? What's been doing more harm than good lately is Trans people with access to firearms.
No, I'm saying history will judge. Harlan went against the legal mainstream in 1896, and he's remembered as the hero today. So who knows what will happen.
As for your trans firearm issue, I have no comment because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It has nothing to do with conversion therapy, which is the only reason I jumped back into this cesspool.
Kind of fits here.
8-1 with the only dissenting opinion being the clown of the group.
Ironically, she might be right in the long run. Legally, I think the Court made the right ruling, but practically, it's probably going to cause more harm than good. The body of evidence against the efficacy of conversion therapy is pretty robust. Allowing children to be placed into this "treatment" path is almost certainly going to cause irreparable damage.
But, that's not really KBJ's job. Right? Rule on the law, not on the policy. So the Court made the right ruling, but the dissent will be proven correct by history. That's not uncommon.
Edit to add: What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing.
So, to paraphrase, you are saying that she is nothing but a political hack pushed into SCOTUS to represent a specific political agenda? What's been doing more harm than good lately is Trans people with access to firearms.
No, I'm saying history will judge. Harlan went against the legal mainstream in 1896, and he's remembered as the hero today. So who knows what will happen.
As for your trans firearm issue, I have no comment because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It has nothing to do with conversion therapy, which is the only reason I jumped back into this cesspool.
But you literally admitted that, along with 8 out of the 9 other judges, the court made the right ruling according to the law and facts of the case in question. An activist posing as a judge isn't doing what the judicial branch is supposed to be doing. If they don't like the law(s), they could have run for the legislature.
Kind of fits here.
8-1 with the only dissenting opinion being the clown of the group.
Ironically, she might be right in the long run. Legally, I think the Court made the right ruling, but practically, it's probably going to cause more harm than good. The body of evidence against the efficacy of conversion therapy is pretty robust. Allowing children to be placed into this "treatment" path is almost certainly going to cause irreparable damage.
But, that's not really KBJ's job. Right? Rule on the law, not on the policy. So the Court made the right ruling, but the dissent will be proven correct by history. That's not uncommon.
Edit to add: What the fuck does this have to do with the topic of the thread? Nothing.
So, to paraphrase, you are saying that she is nothing but a political hack pushed into SCOTUS to represent a specific political agenda? What's been doing more harm than good lately is Trans people with access to firearms.
No, I'm saying history will judge. Harlan went against the legal mainstream in 1896, and he's remembered as the hero today. So who knows what will happen.
As for your trans firearm issue, I have no comment because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It has nothing to do with conversion therapy, which is the only reason I jumped back into this cesspool.
But you literally admitted that, along with 8 out of the 9 other judges, the court made the right ruling according to the law and facts of the case in question. An activist posing as a judge isn't doing what the judicial branch is supposed to be doing. If they don't like the law(s), they could have run for the legislature.
And according to the law at the time, the majority of justices ruled Plessy correctly, too. We have all sorts of reasons why they were wrong now. Maybe the same will occur with this case down the road, I don't know.
And according to the law at the time, the majority of justices ruled Plessy correctly, too. We have all sorts of reasons why they were wrong now. Maybe the same will occur with this case down the road, I don't know.
But, you could say the same about any case, correct? Even if it were unanimous in voting, right?
Also, in practice the Plessy ruling was problematic b/c it failed to take into account that separate could never be equal - particularly in certain geographies. However, how much context should actually go into a legal ruling vs. following or strictly interpreting the law? In other words, was it SCOTUS job in Plessy to acknowledge and understand that equality wasn't possible given segregation?
When we hear people talk about politicization of the court, the context and exogenous considerations are what concerns me. In other words, even if we assume CO's law was passed in poor judgment or against scientific research, the court's focus should be to determine if the law is constitutional and just vs. the studies or details behind it.
Take another example - say Alabama bans vaccinations for any children. Most of us would agree that is stupid and against science. But, is it really the court's responsibility to consider that fact vs. the constitutionality of the law (e.g., right to have your child vaccinated)?
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"