Re: Ontario must pay for surgery to give trans resident both penis and vagina: appeal court

In article <a90b43efb9.1745699073@wpghu.xg>,
Tyler Coop  <tcoop@uraniumone.com> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2025, doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) posted some
news:vujes1$1d9n$2@gallifrey.nk.ca:
>

In article <25fq0k1jlvubo35m4lah3dmmagibvco3c2@4ax.com>,
Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:

In article <8fcq0k5c7bs7uvje0fnqqrpfud9ba079ag@4ax.com>,
Joel  <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-25, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

slothe <slothe@netcom.com> wrote:

On 25 Apr 2025, a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> posted some
news:qiOOP.2639593$OrR5.2009332@fx18.iad:

>

Simply amazing!
I want it all!
I want it both ways!
And I want all of you to pay for it!
---------- Court - OK, sounds fine to us.

>
That's ridiculous.

>
They may have accidentally done the right thing.  This particular
surgery is just fucking insane but it seems to be the wish of the
person acquiring it - I could never advise anyone to modify their
genitals but if they choose that they choose with free will to
pretend that God screwed up and it requires a knife to the balls.

>
Looks like the insult "go fu%k yourself" has taken on a whole new
meaning.
>
ROTFLMAO!

>
They would need a partner, not being able to use the penis to
penetrate their own makeshift vagina.  I say if a person is
delusional enough to think they're bigender and should literally
have surgery to have both parts, let them.

>
What does this have to do with Canadian Politics?

>
>
Are there not trans people in Canada, as it happens?
>
-- Joel W. Crump
>
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
>
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
>
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

>
And US laws have no implication in Canada.

>
It would be a better 51st candidate state if they did!
>
You moose-kissers get a free pass for Marie-Pierre Bouchard
because she's funny and looks good in a swimsuit.
>

 burn in Hell Yank!