Trans

Lawsuit Aims to Force Catholic Hospitals Perform Transgender-Related Surgeries

Refusing any voluntary hysterectomies presented as discrimination.

|

Surgery
Luis Louro / Dreamstime.com

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) definitely wants us all to see a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital in the Sacramento area in California as a clear-cut case of anti-transgender discrimination. The reality is a whole lot more complicated, and the ACLU's behavior here is pretty troubling for anybody who values religious freedom and freedom of association.

Evan Michael Minton, 35, had decided to pursue surgery as part of the physical transition to living as a man. He turned to the Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael to get a hysterectomy, a necessary part of the transition process. According to the lawsuit, the hospital chain canceled the procedure abruptly the day before it was scheduled to happen.

The Medical Center is a Catholic facility and operates in accordance to Catholic doctrine. In this case, the hospital does not permit or perform elective sterilization procedures due to the church's position on birth control. This is not a total ban; sometimes hysterectomies are medically necessary. But the church and hospital sees Minton's pursuit as elective and voluntary and declined to participate.

So to be clear here, the hospital does not normally perform hysterectomies. This is not an anti-transgender position. The Catholic Church's general opposition to voluntary birth control procedures is what's at issue here. So when an ACLU attorney tells the Sacramento Bee that the denial is a "clear-cut case of discrimination," that's quite far from the truth. California's anti-discrimination law does cover gender expression as part of "sex" in its definition, but is this sex discrimination if this hospital doesn't perform elective hysterectomies on anybody?

Furthermore, according to the response from a hospital, they followed up their rejection by actually helping Minton secure a new hospital to get the hysterectomy done. A spokesperson told the Bee, "We understand how important this surgery is for transgender individuals, and were happy to provide Mr. Minton and his surgeon the use of another Dignity Health hospital for his surgery within a few days."

This is far from a case where a transgender person is being cruelly turned away or being mocked or told that his transgender identity is fake or a lie or any number of anti-transgender attitudes. Minton did get his surgery from another hospital, and his doctor got emergency privileges there, again with the help of Dignity Health officials.

To be clear, though, the Conference of Catholic Bishops does oppose the inclusion of gender identity in health care discrimination laws and does not support surgically altering a person's sex. The way Dignity Health handled this conflict facilitated Minton's transition without having to compromise the hospital's religious values. Everybody got what they wanted out of this.

Nevertheless, Minton and the ACLU are suing because of how the rejection made Minton feel. And the ACLU is deliberately trying to present this as part of a concerted effort to diminish discrimination protections against transgender people.

That's obviously not what's happening here, but the ACLU has already got Catholic hospitals in their crosshairs for reluctance to induce abortions in emergency cases. It's just another weapon use to target them.

One does not have to be a Catholic, oppose abortions, or oppose transgender surgical changes to be deeply concerned that an organization devoted to civil liberties wants to use government force to try to make a hospital perform procedures its operators object to and even find deeply reprehensible.

Supporters of attempting to force the Catholic hospitals into practices that violate the members' religious beliefs tend to point out that they receive tax dollars, which really implicates the size of government and its overwhelming control over our lives.

Even if we were to say that it's acceptable for religious freedom and freedom of association to be compromised if the alternative is some form of widespread harm to individuals, that's not even the case here. Minton got the procedure he needed. The organization he is suing even helped him.

This is not a case about preserving civil liberties. This is a case about using government force to order people around and making them perform or host procedures to which they have moral objections, even when the marketplace provides alternatives.

This is the kind of behavior that actually helps feed the backlash. Letting transgender people use whichever public restroom that fits them requires others to do absolutely nothing but leave them alone and mind their own business. Forcing others to actually participate in the process of gender transition or face government sanctions is something else entirely.

NEXT: Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Cut Taxes, But Not Enough

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are there any rights the leftists recognize?

    1. Theirs.

    2. Their right to confiscate your property without compensation. Their right to tell you how to live your life. Their right to tell you how to run your business. Their right to determine the products you’re allowed to purchase. Their right to decide how (and if) you raise your kids. Ad infinitum…

      In short, leftists recognize many rights. For themselves. For you not so much. In fact, just shut up about that “rights” talk.

      Isn’t that right Tony?

    3. LGBT****s not having their fragile egos bruised?

    4. The right to “free” stuff (that others make and pay for)? The right to not be offended by reality?

  2. Nevertheless, Minton and the ACLU are suing because of how the rejection made Minton feel.

    Oh, Sweet Baby Jesus. Sure, nobody likes to be rejected. But it’s a part of every adult human being’s life.

    1. It’s even part of every child’s life.

  3. What kind of retards are running the ACLU these days?

    With all the shit going on with civil asset forfeiture, criminal justice reform, police shootings, and so forth, THIS is the issue they choose to devote resources to?

    What the hell does the term “civil liberties” mean again?

    1. In the context of “American Civil Liberties Union” it means far Leftwing Progressive agenda. With some honorable exceptions (a few of which got local chapters in real trouble with the national organization), it has ALWAYS meant that. However, there was a time when the Far Leftwing Progressive agenda was not mostly also fundamentally fascist.

  4. Sorry Shackford. The religious freedom ship sailed with the Gay Marriage is a human right ruling. Once we get the trans-sexual bathroom human right lawsuit finished, this will be “settled law”.

    You should have thought about this back when the Libertarians and Reason were having orgasms over judicial rulings expanding government power over such things, rather than pushing for competent legislation that would fix it and still maintain the tired, now dead concepts of the Constitution.

    1. When you conflate court rulings that expand equal protections by governments with lawsuits trying to force private organizations to do something they don’t do, it’s really hard to tell whether you’re being disingenuous or just retarded. Moreover, it’s difficult to decide which of those is the more charitable interpretation.

      1. There is a point there that is fair. The notion that the question of marriage was covered at all in the Constitution has just allowed some people to invent new things covered by the Constitution and existing law, particularly concerning gays and now the transgender. When these new ‘rights’ are stripping away already existing rights (in most of these cases the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment) then nothing has been gained. Everything has just been evened out.

        1. The gay marriage ruling in Obergefell doesn’t strip away existing rights. It does the opposite of that.

          1. If you believe that there is a ‘right’ to marriage and it is found in the Constitution, then yes. However, if you recognize that no government should be making a decision about human relations and that Obergefell didn’t change that it just created a new group that would receive government recognition, then no.

          2. Unless you mean the rights reserved to the states in the 10th amendment.

          3. It takes away the rights of people to refuse to marry two gay people in love.

            Since lefties don’t consider the right of association a right, it was no big deal telling those nazi fuckers that they had to marry two gay people and fascist fuckers that they had to bake a gay-themed wedding cake.

      2. This lawsuit is based on similar equal protection reasoning that does not recognize a difference between government and private entities.

    2. You should have thought about this back when the Libertarians and Reason were having orgasms over judicial rulings expanding government power over such things

      Yeah, I’m sure a couple more libertarians weighing in would have really tipped the scales.

      1. It’s not about tipping scales, it’s about Reason cheerleading the government using it’s club to violate state’s rights and freedom of association when it came to outcomes they liked and now bitching about government using its club to violate freedom of association when it comes to outcomes they aren’t so sure about.

        Reason in general only cares about the Constitution or federalism when it applies to topics other than Ass-sex, Pot, and Mexicans. When it comes to that 3 legged stool, the ends justify the means.

        1. Which is made clear by this:

          This is not a case about preserving civil liberties. This is a case about using government force to order people around and making them perform or host procedures to which they have moral objections, even when the marketplace provides alternatives.

          Pretty obvious that Scott thinks the government should be forcing the religious bigots to treat the poor tranny.

          1. Actually, his point still stands, as this doesn’t fall into the “ass-sex, pot and mexicans” where any ends justify the means at Reason. Shackford was definitely on the “any means to ass-sex” bandwagon RE: Obergefell and the “Gay Cakes” issues. And now the same arguments that were used to abuse judicial power will be used again. This time, he’s apparently unsure about that use. But he lost the moral high ground way back then.

        2. States — governments — do not have rights. They have power and authority stolen from individuals.

          Only individuals have rights, sometimes exercised in the name of business 00 property — they own.

          When governments use their power and authority to stop other governments or individuals from abusing other individuals’ rights, it’s a happy coincidence. It is seldom altruistic.

      2. Zeb, my point is that Shackford lost the moral high ground on this 2 years ago. Maybe longer back, I started coming late ’14, so I dunno. He was all for abusing judicial power for his little pet project, and any means was justified by the end. Andpeople who actually took the time to look at this stuff said “wait, let’s do legislation, not the courts!” and instead, it was the courts. And Reason and Shackford celebrated. Get them religious folk!

        Now fast-forward 2 years, and Shackford says “wait, um this seems like it’s violating all those constitutional, liberal principles we said it wouldn’t…” Too late. Too late.

        1. Unfortunately, the ruling did not go as expected. I thought the only way the Nazgul could find for Gay Marriage was as a contract, and since the state may not discriminate in the treatment of contracts on the basis of Sex (via the 14th amendment and it’s interpretation through other cases), they must treat the class of Marriage contracts the same whether the couple is same or opposite sex. That would’ve obviated these kinds of issues as well as any potential polygamy issues (not that I particularly care if people want to be married to multiple people, but as far as not moving the bar too much all at once).

    3. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended consequences.

      The people who denied the warnings are either idiots who should never be trusted again, or liars.

  5. We’re gonna need a bigger tub of popcorn.

    1. At least now we probably won’t be “treated” to the mind reading warlock coming here and shitting all over the thread to tell us all how “Shackleford” and reason (because all their contributors and editors have a monolithic viewpoint – IT IS KNOWN) doesn’t really care about religious freedom and freedom of association so long as trannies “get their pony” and can use government coercion to force religious institutions to conform to the proggie agenda.

      Nevermind Shackford’s last paragraph where he explicitly denounces that very thing. That’s just a convenient disguise. The Warlock knows “what reason really thinks.”

      1. Nailed it.

      2. Shackfraud did,however, use too many “to be clear”s here.

      3. Well, looks like you got invited to this weekend’s cocktail party.

        Amirite guys?

  6. The organization he is suing even helped him.

    I bet they won’t make that mistake again. Seriously, I’m at a loss for words to describe what I feel about this person.

    1. What we have here is an emotional and psychological cripple. She has descended to the point of self-mutilation, and her society is supporting her delusions. This person is a train wreck, and the people who have fostered in her the idea that surgeon-assisted self-mutilation will make things better deserve to be crucified.

      1. Or he’s just looking for a big pay-out.

        1. I suspect it’s more likely this is the primary motivation. They see a target they think has a fair amount of money (nevermind that Catholic hospitals are usually non-profit) and want to get them some of that payola.

          And the ACLU probably sees this as a potential stalking horse to force Catholic hospitals to end their practice of refusing elective hysterectomies.

          1. Or maybe it knows they can’t end that practice, so will close up shop instead.

          2. Nonprofit or not, they have a very large insurance policy that can pay out settlements.

          3. “nevermind that Catholic hospitals are usually non-profit”

            Don’t confuse “not-for-profit” with “no money”. CGI anyone?

      2. That’s right. ‘Transgenderism’ is phony bullsit. Worse than phrenology. Phony science based around misdiagnosed severe form of body dysmorphia. It’s practitioners should be stripped of medical licenses and put in prison for the violent mutilation of delusional people.

        And fuck the progtards for sensationalizng this horror at the expense of sick people.

        1. OR… let people be free to do what they want to their own bodies.

          1. I agree, with the caveat that they shouldn’t be able to use government coercion to force others to do something to their bodies that they don’t want to do for them.

            1. Yep. Like that guy in England who has turned himself into a cat – full body tattoo, lip alteration, canine implants, implanted whiskers, etc.

              He’s footing the bill, and dealing with it in his own way. Which is fine. But nobody should be sanctioned for pointing and laughing or not wanting to participate.

      3. Yeah, no. I have no comment on all of that. I do have a problem with him or her attempting to force others to support his choices against their conscience. Her state of mind is beside the point.

    2. It doesn’t matter how accommodating one tries to be, for the left it’s never enough unless and until they can personally force you to violate your beliefs.

      In the name of equality, of course.

      1. Since leftists are like a form of social cancer, how should we deal them?

        1. Through mockery. Violence is against the NAP and is sinking to their level. Using government to outlaw things is descending to their level and moving towards endorsing authoritarianism.

          Ruthless mockery is the answer.

  7. “an organization devoted to civil liberties”

    It’s funny that you think that is still what the ACLU is all about. What is this the 90’s?

  8. The Catholic Charities get almost 60% of their funding from public sources.

    Which is bigger imposition on religious liberty? A predominately government funded hospital being told how to use those public funds, or non-catholic taxpayers being forced to fund hospitals that use their money to enforce the Catholic church’s social agenda?

    1. That was a terribly dumb remark.

    2. While I agree that government shouldn’t be in the business of charity, the fact is that in this case at least, no “non-Catholic” was forced to do anything.
      Regardless of one feels regarding transgender/transsexual treatment, this was an elective surgery. There was NO immediate health concern. If a woman who is “staying a woman” can’t get an elective hysterectomy there, why should a woman is “becoming a man” get one? Or should hospitals do EVERYTHING EVERY patient tells them to do?

      1. Or should hospitals do EVERYTHING EVERY patient tells them to do?

        In general all hospitals should be free to refuse to perform any surgical procedure that isn’t medically necessary. If nothing else, all surgeries have risk and therefore potential liability if something goes wrong. If a surgery isn’t medically necessary then the hospital should be free to tell the patient “Sorry, we’re not going to do that unnecessary procedure, but here’s the name of a hospital that will.” Which, once you cut through the “OMG, Catholics hate trannies” fake outrage is all that happened here. The only reason this is a story of any note is “because Catholics” and “trannies.”

        1. There is also the ACLU opposing the hospital owner’s and staff’s civil rights.

    3. They aren’t forcing patients to sign a form stating they accept transubstantiation as terms for getting a cold treated. They just aren’t performing an elective surgery that’s not medically necessary as a result of their beliefs. Bit of a difference.

    4. They’re not ‘enforcing their social agenda.’ They’re providing healthcare. That’s what the government pays them to do. The idea that government funding to an institution must be conditional on they’re willingness to perform a particular procedure is every bit as idiotic and unfair as specifically denying funding to institutions that do perform it. Either way you’re imposing some value judgment on them.

      The real solution is simple: fund patients rather than hospitals. And if someone wants to use their voucher to get their hip replaced at a hospital that doesn’t do abortions who cares?

      Of course it’d be best if people or their own insurance paid for their own healthcare but that’s a pipe dream it seems.

  9. This is the ACLU being an outright enemy of civil liberties. Minton had no right for any particular individual or private organization to perform that procedure and the hospital and its staff has every right to refuse to do any voluntary procedure.

  10. “Nevertheless, Minton and the ACLU are suing because of how the rejection made Minton feel.”

    Why not let Minton and the ACLU speak for themselves? It’s called an ‘interview’ in journalistic circles. Picking up the phone and talking to them is all it is.

    1. The Sacramento Bee article has a direct quote from Minton on why he decided to pursue the lawsuit, that after months if reflection he decided that the hospital’s refusal was devestating.

      1. I’m not criticizing the journalist from the Bee. This was a Reason article I read. The author apparently made no attempt to interview the principals.

        1. The plaintiff and the ACLU explained their motivations in the linked source material. Shackford had their own words. Perhsps he might have a question that would shed some insight from these people, but we already had t heir own words, thank you.

          1. “Perhsps he might have a question that would shed some insight from these people”

            This was what I thought too, but apparently not. He had no questions.

        2. As you were just told, Minton already made his motives clear, so there was no need to interview him. He said why he did it. You’re just looking for an excuse to bitch about something.

          1. “so there was no need to interview him”

            You’re taking it on faith that the Bee accurately reported on Minton’s take on the matter. A more skeptical journalist would be more thorough. Not to mention skeptical.

    2. It’s also referenced in the lawsuit, which I read through as part of that whole “journalistic” thing.

      1. “I read through as part of that whole “journalistic” thing.”

        That’s very commendable and part of the job. What stopped you from picking up the phone and doing some ‘interviews?’ It’s also part of the job.

        1. Damn son, don’t question Shack Attack. I’ve been on the wrong end of that before

        2. No, getting prepared sound bites is not part of my job, actually,

          1. You have the Bee to do it for you.

            1. You see, Scott? This is the shit we have to deal with regularly.

              1. What’s the matter? It’s offensive to have poor journalism pointed out to you?

            2. To step back from being a combative jerk a bit. If I do have any questions about motives or find anything ambiguous about what’s going on, I do call people for these blog posts. (I talked to somebody at the ACLU on Monday about a different issue, in fact) But there’s no confusion here and there’s the actual lawsuit to look at and pull from.

              I reject the idea that getting quotes is in itself “journalism.”

              1. Quoting someone like Minton directly is better than quoting the Bee quoting Minton. That should be clear enough. It’s about getting the full story rather than a second hand version of it.

                1. Do you have any reason to think the Bee is lying? Does every newspaper in the world need to interview a person to report on them? If one paper gets to it first and gets the important first hand information from that source, is it not entirely redundant for every other paper to go and ask the exact same question? Why, yes it is.

                  You’re just being deliberately dense to pretend you have a valid point. Just admit you’ve been put in your place.

                  1. “Do you have any reason to think the Bee is lying? ”

                    I’ve never heard of the Bee until now. The science writer here cribs articles from the Daily Mail. Is the Bee any more reliable?

    3. His doctor eventually performed the procedure at another Sacramento-area hospital, but the initial denial still causes frustration and disappointment, Minton said.

      Reading the linked stories is hard.

      1. “Reading the linked stories is hard.”

        I don’t find them hard so much as boring and time consuming. However, since you’ve taken the trouble to respond, if there’s a particular linked article that you think is worth looking at, tell me and I’ll have a look see. Thanks.

        1. The very first one which contains the italicized text I provided to you. You really are determined to show off your stupidity, aren’t you?

          1. You really are determined to show off your stupidity, aren’t you?

            This right here is why free speech is so important: morons should be free to demonstrate the depths of their stupidity on open internet forums for the entire to world to see.

          2. Thanks for your timely response.

  11. Obviously, the hospital should be free to operate according to religious principles on which it was founded.

    But even on top of that heresy, I guess I have “anti-transgender attitudes” too.

    Shackford (and the press in general) use the word “he” to refer to a person getting a hysterectomy if that person says they identify as a man. But I want language to mean something. Using “he” implies we are all supposed to give in to this particular mental condition and accommodate an obvious contradiction. You know, 2+2=5.

    What decides which delusions we should accommodate and which ones we should not? It’s a serious question. According to Shackford, we are not allowed to say that her identity is “fake” or else we get the moniker above. Sure “fake” is an unkind word. But how is her identity to be described? It isn’t true that this person is a male.

    Sure, for a person with gender dysphoria, the condition is real. Maybe the best and nicest course of action for that person is to address them as they like to be addressed. Fine. But they are going farther than that and using government force to make everyone accommodate their condition.

    1. You’re as free to not call the person ‘he’ as Scott is to call the person ‘he’. “We” aren’t necessarily being forced to do anything.

      1. True, everyone can use whatever pronoun they wish. When I talk about language it’s just social criticism.

        However, much of the transgender “movement” is all about using force.

        1. Agreed. I do feel kinda bad for people who, to me, are fairly obviously broken and no amount of tinkering with the plumbing will fix. There’s another site that I visit occasionally that has any number of posts from LGBTQ+++ folks, some of whom are or have transitioned, complaining about how their lives are miserable. The one thing they have in common is shifting the blame to others who won’t “accept” them.

          1. I feel bad for them too. I think that maybe the bending-over-backwards accommodating of their condition is doing more damage to them than good.

            The transition surgeries do nothing except crudely remove or rearrange body parts. Nothing functional is ever created. It’s like a seventy-year-old person going overboard with plastic surgery in a futile attempt to get back to a youth they desperately see receding behind them. I imagine terrible sadness blankets them all the time: the thing is always out of reach.

            Of course every person is different. And people should definitely be free to pursue courses of action that make them sad.

    2. It isn’t true that this person is a male.

      What if you couldn’t even tell? How would you enforce a requirement that everyone describe themselves with their anatomical gender?

      1. I’m not demanding “a requirement that everyone describe themselves with their anatomical gender”.

        I’m simply demanding that other people not be forced to describe them in a way that makes them feel better.

        1. No, but that’s the end game of the position you’re describing. Because you’re probably already using the “wrong” gender now and then and don’t even know it.

          1. I’m not sure what you mean.

      2. And if you can tell?

        The opposite side if the coin here is requiring other people to describe someone by ther preferred gender (even when the results are absurd). And you have people trying to enforce it.

    3. It makes me wonder if it’s a good thing after all that I didn’t transition in the 80’s, as the modern-day “liberals” would expect me to be waving the banner for this parade of nutcases. Of course, I also wonder if having gone that route I would have ended up one myself. That is in no way implying one leads to the other; gender disphoria is a lifetime condition that just sits in the back of your mind and messes with you for shits and giggles, while modern liberalism is a cancerous, degenerative disease.

    4. That confused the hell out of me, “he” getting a hysterectomy. Took a while for me to figure it out.

  12. Furthermore, according to the response from a hospital, they followed up their rejection by actually helping Minton secure a new hospital to get the hysterectomy done.

    Nevertheless, Minton and the ACLU are suing because of how the rejection made Minton feel.

    *facepalm* For fuck’s sake…

  13. RE: Lawsuit Aims to Force Catholic Hospitals Perform Transgender-Related Surgeries
    Refusing any voluntary hysterectomies presented as discrimination.

    What a wonderful idea!

    Have The State force religious institutions to do something that goes against their principles.
    Why didn’t I think of that?

    1. Why didn’t I think of that?

      Probably because you’re not a prog-tard.

    2. A hospital is not a religious institution.

      1. Replace *religious institution* with *any institution* to get an even more valid point.

  14. Why not try to get the procedure done at an Islamic hospital?

    1. They wouldn’t want to insult the cultural sensibilities of a recognized progressive darling class. Such is the progtard way.

  15. The way Dignity Health handled this conflict facilitated Minton’s transition without having to compromise the hospital’s religious values.

    That’s . . . not actually true. They did compromise the hospital’s religious values.

    I’m not going to sell you this gun so you can murder your wife, but I know this guy on the other side of town who will. Here, let me call you a cab so you can get over there.

    Being a willing *accessory* to a sin is still committing a sin.

    1. Heh I was wondering when that point would come up. Can you imagine the even bigger shitstorm if the hospital had said, “Nah. Find someone else to do it yourself.”

    2. Not to mention, it’s not like it’s hard to figure out which hospitals in your area aren’t religiously affiliated.

    3. I’m pretty confidant that the Diocese and/or the Hospital had one of their Canon Law people split a mighty fine hair over this one.

    4. Mercy San Juan Medical Center is part of the Dignity Health system, which includes hospitals that are not Catholic. Minton was referred by Dignity Health to a non-Catholic hospital in its system. Mercy San Juan did not make the referral.

    5. Sure, according to your religious values. But maybe according to theirs, accessories don’t count.

  16. This Minton character sounds like a dick.

  17. ” Letting transgender people use whichever public restroom that fits them requires others to do absolutely nothing but leave them alone and mind their own business. Forcing others to actually participate in the process of gender transition or face government sanctions is something else entirely.”

    It is the inevitable consequence of the current approach to addressing body dysmorphic disorders.

    The trans are people whose believe their mind and body do not properly align. The medical community has decided that an acceptable approach to this serious problem is to surgically alter the individual so that their external appearance better conforms with what the mind desires. Unfortunately this doesn’t really accomplish much unless everyone else is willing to play along with the modifications. Therefore people who do not want to behave in the desired manner must be coerced.

    It is a change being forced upon all.

  18. Maybe I’m just woefully un-woke*, but aren’t hospitals for sick or injured people? I’m picturing some distressed person, who suddenly woke up feeling like they’re the wrong gender, being rushed in on a stretcher.

    (**ok, there’s no maybe about it)

  19. Who in the fuck wants to be under the knife of someone who doesn’t want to do the cutting??!

    1. Well, chances are if someone wants their genitalia sliced in half and inverted, they’re not in their right mind.

    2. Someone looking to cash in on a big lawsuit, that’s who.

  20. Couldn’t they just give this person a 90th-trimester abortion?

  21. Sneaking in the bathroom issue implies that it is clearly not objectionable, but you keep ignoring that trans people also want to use the showers with members of the opposite sex –ie a man with breasts but a penis wants the right to shower with the ladies, including in high school. Don’t keep pretending it is all so hidden just because SOME trans people use restrooms (only) without being detected.

  22. It is curious that feminists insist that there is no difference between men and women, but for the trans person the differences are so stark that they insist on surgery and hormones. Sorry, can’t keep up.

    1. I agree. Also if gender expression such as wearing heels and makeup is all socially constructed, why would being a genetic male with gender dysphoria necessarily lead a you to want to wear evening gowns?

  23. The new Americana Democratis is totally insane! They have lobotomized the young (NEA) just as I warned, and now it’s all about RUINING EVERYTHING!!!

    ber

  24. BAKE ME A GOD DAMNED GAY WEDDING CAKE.

    NOW, BITCH.

    AND TAKE SOME NICE PICTURES.

  25. Hospitals are in the business of health & medicine, not religion. If the Catholic’s don’t want to perform such procedures because it goes against their book of nonsensical & utterly demented fiction about a nonexistent psychotic sky-God then they should be relieved of the hospital and have it turned over to sane people to run. I’m against any religious group owning or running anything related to health, science, or education. They need to practice their shameful acts of insanity in the privacy of their homes.

    Religious people are the one’s that are not to be tolerated.

  26. “without having to compromise the hospital’s religious values.”

    Hospitals are places for science, not religion. The moment they moved out of their places of worship and into other realms of society they gave up their right to their beliefs. Aside from the fact that religion is nothing but a mental disorder or grand act of ignorance, I find it somewhat against their belief in the nonexistent sky-God to intervene in the first place. I mean, after all, if you get sick, perhaps that’s God’s choice, so by running the hospital, they’re acting against their own beliefs.

  27. So turns out that Minton has some interesting political connections…he is the co-chair of the California state Democratic Party’s LGBT Caucus. See “California Dreaming: Evan Minton, Transgender Political Staffer.” (I’m too lazy to figure out how to post a link here)

  28. “California Dreaming: Evan Minton, Transgender Political Staffer “-

    see Nation article, he is co-chair of the state LGBTQ Democratic caucus.

    This site is being awfully fussy about letting me post.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.