I'm glad your not my dentist. I'm happy when my dentist tells me I don't have any cavities, but I also recognize that he is there to treat me, not to make me happy.

The writer is right on. To treat someone with a vagina that is pregnant as a woman wouldn't fall into the "delusional" category by any recognizable logic that I have ever seen.

Really, your post is just madness. "Gender" has a specific meaning to it. It's not something that we each get to redefine. Rape is not concensual sex, regardless of what the rapist things. Baseball is not basketball, regardless of what the player thinks. Light is not dark, no matter how much you wish it were. And men don't have vagina's and female sexual organs. I'm sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings.

"Would you enjoy making his visit to the obsetritician unpleasant?"

I don't know of any men who've visited an obstitritian, but I can't imagine it being pleasant for any of us.

Maybe an uncomfortable visit to the obstitritian would make the person feel more like a man.

This isn't an appendectomy where I would humor her, she's having a child for which she wants to claim responsibility and authority.

Kids are remarkably resilient, but need simple answers. When it seems that in some way "mother" must explain, "Your daddy temporarily became a mommy because I couldn't be one", I imagine even more difficult problems than in my case where my grotesquely crippled mother was the de-facto "father" due not only to her "man-like" strength of will and character, but to my father's emotional impairments.

After reading some accompanying articles, I'm inclinded to believe this person is extremely sensitive to gender-referencing titles and [might] insist upon being called, "Sir." From the material presented, I suspect that this woman actually believes that she is a man having a baby.

I could no more suggest--let alone assist--her to have a child than if she believed herself to be Pocahontas with my experience-based good manners requiring me to humor her if I knew she would not have custody of the child.

I have to agree with devinkay to some degree here. Not to be disrespectful, but social sciences are FAR from being a true science. You indicate that 60 years of research has produced a rash of conclusions, all still supported by theory. Unfortunately, that is true of most of social science...virtually all of it rests upon theory. Not only does it rest upon theory, but there nothing close to a concensus opinion with respect to those theories. In fact, the theories tend to reflect the personal beliefs of those who have crafted them. And that is true on both sides of the argument.

There is NOTHING close to hard evidence that transgender issues come about because of a birth defect. It's only supposition and conjecture. There's just as much evidence that transgender issues result from nurture, not nature.

Given the lack of any solid conclusion, everyone is free to believe which side of the argument they chose to believe. But to argue that it is all but conclusive is simply not true. Not by any measure.

"...over sixty years of focused psychiatric research [has created] a body of data related to transgenderism [that] isn't immense..."

Look, I'm not looking to belittle anybody, but the fields of psychiatry, psychology and neurology are absolutely littered with historical missteps that, upon further review, have been so discredited as to seem ridiculous, if not monstrous, in retrospect. And the transgender bandwagon has just this scent about it. (Turning a functional penis into a faux-vagina? Why not just pop an ice-pick into the frontal lobe via the eye socket?)

Typically, these errors were born of preconceived biases that begged the treatment to fit the conclusion, and they were perpetuated by a potent unwillingness to admit to manifest blunder.

Popular (if ineffective) remedies for celebrated disorders tend to die hard.

I'm just wondering aloud whether the transgender protocol might not have wandered down just such a cul-du-sac. There are plenty of people willing to defend the status quo on this issue with cries of bigotry and intolerance. But honest inquiry is too often rejected --not on its merits--but as some sort of cruelly intentioned taunt..

listen, i'm fairly liberal, but i don't need the nightmares.

Um, rimi: 'um' is a conversational place-holder used by a speaker to buy time to form or finish a thought. It's not generally even included in a quotation. There is no need to type it in a comment.