"Transableism"?

[Slater]

Not something you hear about every day:


"The point of "changing the identifier" from a psychiatric condition (BIID) to an advocacy term (transableism) is to "harness the stunning cultural power of gender ideology" to the cause of allowing doctors to "treat" BIID patients by "amputating healthy limbs, snipping spinal cords or destroying eyesight," according to Evolution News and Science Today (EN), which reports on and analyzes evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, intelligent design and other science-related issues.

In one case of BIID, Jørund Viktoria Alme, 53, a senior credit analyst in Oslo, Norway, identifies as disabled and uses a wheelchair, even though she has no physical handicap.

Alme is also transgender, according to Heraldscotland.com. Alme said on the morning TV program "Good Morning Norway" in 2022 that it had been a "lifelong wish" to have been born "a woman paralyzed from the waist down," the same source noted.

One woman in her 20s (not pictured) identified as blind but wasn't — and even took steps to try to destroy her own eyesight, according to multiple reports. In an even more shocking case, a 21-year-old North Carolina woman who identified as blind actually took steps to destroy her own eyesight, according to multiple reports from a few years ago."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/transgend...231708271.html

[SteyrAUG]

So is nothing a mental disorder anymore?

[kirkland]

They need to open the insane asylums back up

[Averageman]

It's all a mental disorder and if you go along with it you're not helping that person, you're crippling them.

[Slater]

I can't imagine that a doctor would voluntarily snip an otherwise healthy person's spinal cord.

[AndyLate]

Is it different than removing a physically healthy teenager's breasts or penis?

Andy

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It’s continuation on the war on religious beliefs, but they have moved onto trying to destroy the idea of objective reality and reason. The greatest example was Clinton questioning the definition of ‘is’. The word ‘is’ is the root of logic and reason. A is B is the basic identity. If you question that, there is no objective reality. If you can get people to give up something as basic as sex/gender, you can get to give up anything.

[SteyrAUG]

It’s continuation on the war on religious beliefs, but they have moved onto trying to destroy the idea of objective reality and reason. The greatest example was Clinton questioning the definition of ‘is’. The word ‘is’ is the root of logic and reason. A is B is the basic identity. If you question that, there is no objective reality. If you can get people to give up something as basic as sex/gender, you can get to give up anything.

Not defend Clinton but that was hardly the context of the debate. He saw a past tense / present tense out and he took it.

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton’s presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton’s rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, “There’s nothing going on between us.” How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

The distinction between “is” and “was” was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, “There is no improper relationship.” Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these Beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who’s willing to think carefully about “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, “Existential Willie.”

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Not defend Clinton but that was hardly the context of the debate. He saw a past tense / present tense out and he took it.

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton’s presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton’s rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, “There’s nothing going on between us.” How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

The distinction between “is” and “was” was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, “There is no improper relationship.” Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these Beltway domes were hyperanalyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who’s willing to think carefully about “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, “Existential Willie.”

Having to take three paragraphs to explain it, kind of proves my point? He tried to redefine words on the fly to suit his context. IIRC he also claimed that oral sex wasn’t really sex- even thought it is part of the word. He didn’t have sexual intercourse with her, so he didn’t have ‘sex’. Kind of reminds me of the Soros DAs, if yu can’t write the law, its almost better to be able to interpret it to what you want.

[Inkslinger]

The medical profession has realized that it much easier and more lucrative to treat issues in the brain by physically altering the human body to match the psychological anomaly. The brain is the organ that scientists understand the least. They can’t fix the real problem with these people so they say “**** it, we’ll just mutilate them.”