Two Wisconsin Residents With Gender Dysphoria Sue State as ‘Transsexual Surgeries’ Not Covered by Medicaid

Photo Credit: Fernando Audibert

MILWAUKEE, Wisc. — Two Wisconsin residents who suffer from gender dysphoria have filed a lawsuit against the state’s Department of Health Services (DHS) after learning that its Medicaid program does not cover sex change-related operations.

Both of the plaintiffs, who go by the names Cody Flack (a woman who identifies as a man) and Sara Ann Makenzie (a man who identifies as a woman), sought coverage for chest reconstruction surgery. Mackenzie desired coverage for breast augmentation, and Flack sought coverage for a double mastectomy.

The lawsuit, while noting that gender dysphoria is “a serious medical condition recognized by the American Psychiatric Association,” refers to Flack as being a man and Makenzie as being a woman.

“Despite his efforts to present as the man he is, he considers the breasts an undesirable visible marker of something he is not—female—that subjects him to mistreatment, social stigma, and related symptoms of gender dysphoria and emotional distress,” the legal complaint states of Flack. “At various points in his life, … Flack has felt helpless and has had thoughts of suicide and self-harm because of the presence of his breasts.”

“Although her hormone treatments resulted in some breast growth, those treatments alone provided inadequate for the development of female-appearing breasts. As a result, … Makenzie has been perceived by others to be a man and has consequently experienced mistreatment and harassment,” it says of Makenzie.

“In 2017, in consultation with her medical providers, … Makenzie sought to obtain chest reconstruction surgery in the form of breast augmentation to outwardly appear as the woman she is and to treat her gender dysphoria.”

However, they were both told that Medicaid does not cover their desired operations. Upon belief, “transsexual surgeries” were among six services and procedures listed in a bulletin in the 1990’s that were determined to be medically unnecessary.

  • Connect with Christian News

Flack and Makenzie are now challenging the exclusion and are arguing that the surgeries are needed for their treatment of gender dysphoria.

“There is no medical or scientific support for Wisconsin’s contention that transition-related health care for transgender people with gender dysphoria is ‘medically unnecessary,’” the suit states. “To the contrary, there is a strong consensus among medical and mental health professionals that gender-confirming surgical procedures and hormonal treatments are the only safe and effective medical treatments for the gender dysphoria experienced by many transgender people.”

“If Defendants continue to deny Wisconsin Medicaid coverage to … Flack and … Makenzie for their surgical treatments for gender dysphoria, the above-referenced harms to their physical and emotional health and well-being will continue, subjecting each of them to significant ongoing risks to their health and safety,” it contends.

Flack and Makenzie are seeking a permanent injunction against the State’s exclusion and a declaration that the practice violates the Affordable Care Act, the Medicaid Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read the legal challenge in full here.

As previously reported, Walt Heyer, a man who identified as a woman for eight years until he became regenerated by the Spirit of God, wrote an article in 2017 remarking that allowing those with gender dysphoria to conform their bodies to their psychology does not solve the underlying problem.

“Too many U.S. medical practitioners direct all gender-distressed people toward the extreme measures of conforming the body to the mind, rather than exploring the psychological issues that lie beneath the feelings,” he stated. “Giving powerful hormones and recommending radical surgeries without screening for psychological issues first causes great harm to the patients and their families.”

“Many people who are regretful and suicidal followed to the letter the generally accepted treatment protocol of doctor-prescribed hormone therapy and genital surgery,” Heyer, who now helps those with sex-change regret, outlined. “It is not homophobic, transphobic, or bigoted to look at the causes of dissatisfaction and suicide among the transgender population. Rather, it is a caring, heartfelt way to prevent dissatisfaction and suicides.”


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Why should personal mutilation be covered …….

    • Adam

      Because it’s not a delusion.

      Viagra is covered by Medicaid and Medicare. This should be covered too.

      • Sola Gratia

        Suppose someone of Asian descent believes they are truly European and wants eye surgery, would you say taxpayers must fund that? Or if a European believes they are truly Latino, do we pay to have their skin darkened? Where does paying for such things stop, and who gets to decide?

        • Susan Perelka

          I agree, this is getting out of control. It is not a necessary procedure in order to save your life or to maintain your physical health. If you want to do something that is nothing more than a cosmetic surgery, than pay for it yourself, plain and simple! STOP milking tax payers! God made you male or female, it’s that simple. Why would you want to undergo a surgery and put your life at risk for “cosmetic” surgery! It is not necessary, accept who you are and stop trying to get others to pay for your personal decisions.

          • Adam

            It very much IS a procedure to save someone’s life and maintain physical health. All those assaults by your kind on transgender people for simply peeing behind a wall tend to inflict physical injuries.

            But you probably don’t care about that.

          • Susan Perelka

            It’s also being pushed in changing rooms and showers, so please don’t say it is just a bathroom stall, if that is what you mean by peeing behind a wall. You are going too far.

          • Adam

            I meant “peeing behind a wall” as in a stall. The only way someone can tell what someone has in their pants is if the person concerned is actually being a voyeuristic peeper.

        • Nick Halflinger

          You do realize Latinos are European?

          • Sola Gratia

            In a sense you are correct. Some of my family is from Colombia and it was that part of the world I had in mind.

          • Nick Halflinger

            Indigenous Colombians or Catholic Spaniards who left Europe about the same time the Protestant British where coming to North America?

          • Sola Gratia

            My Colombian family members consider themselves Latino regardless of their distant ancestors origins. Are you going to argue with them??

        • Adam

          Ahh yes, I’ve countered with unassailable facts, so you’re left with no alternative but to turn to the last bastion of anti-LGBT defense: argumentum ab absurdo. I’ve been around this block before. Those don’t work.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        it is a delusion to think you are a man in a womans body or a woman in a mans body and you have no science to prove otherwise …. how does a person know what the opposite gender feels like when they are not …. DELUSION ……. that position that there is ……. is illogical and antiscience ………. Viagra is not mutilation ……….. false equivalency ……….

        • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

          Well, no, there is plenty of science on the matter. It isn’t delusion, it is a very real thing. However I am dubious about these people suing because I am uncertain the gender reassignment surgeries should be covered.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “there is plenty of science on the matter.”

            nope … there is plenty of FALSE SCIENCE and is unpronounceable and therefore not of any value …….. GENETICS does not change because a person has “FEELINGS” that are unsupportable by REALITY ……

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            What I’m talking about isn’t false science at all, but accepted in the field and peer-reviewed, very much the gold standard used in psychology. If you choose to disbelieve it, then there is really no point in arguing with you. Look up the name Walter Bockting, PhD.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            UNREPRODUCABLE …… ESPECIALLY as in “psychology” ……….. so NOT science ….. garbage ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I don’t think the story you included has anything to do with what we were talking about.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That sure went over your head.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I don’t think so. Would you like me to present one simple, catch-all article that rejects all reasons for following a religion? Would that not be the same thing?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why are you confusing religion with science? Amos brilliantly proved that psychology isn’t a science. He proved that your source is not legit and thus cannot be used in your argument.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            All he did was present one article, not too brilliant if you ask me. And it was an article that seemed to suggest that unless independent study yielded identical results each time it was worthless, which isn’t how science works. You’re trying to discredit experts in the field with language trickery. If you – and Amos – really want to break this down, at least science studies and tries to understand things. Does your faith do that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What expert in what field? You said you could back up your claims scientifically. That would mean producing proof of a trans gene. You haven’t done that. You can’t do that because there isn’t one. See how that works?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            “What expert in what field”? Did you read the article or not? It doesn’t even matter if you did or not, since it was all contained in what I sent you.

            “You can’t do that because there isn’t one”

            Have you got conclusive proof of that, or is it safe to assume it’s still being studied?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re not very good at this. 🙂 You have no proof of a trans gene and that’s the crux of your argument.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You’re the one who keeps bringing a gene into this. But I don’t think you’re entirely certain why.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL You’re not very good at this. You can’t make up stuff without proof.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I’m not going to get banned from this forum for arguing with you. Good day.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thanks for admitting defeat. Next time try some real science. It’s your friend. It never hurts to learn something new, or to open your mind to learning.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You’ve had the last word, now you can go declare war on the dictionary and science fields some more. Enjoy your “victory”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL You still haven’t given a real scientific source to back up your claim. You can’t because there isn’t one. Embrace science. It’s not a bad thing to learn to use your mind. Try it.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Goodbye, sir. Enjoy your day.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            Gee, you’re dumb.

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            LOL you deny what the dictionary says and think psychology isn’t a science. You’re retarded.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Best Disqus username ever. LOL

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            LOL
            Amos can barely form complete sentences. All those stupid strings of periods? Get real, he’s never said anything “brilliant”. He’s functionally retarded at best.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            complete refutation of “PEER REVIEW” as a “gold standard” ….. especially in the field of “psychology” ….. your “gold standard” statement is garbage and your argument is garbage …. and i have more articles that from prestigious tomes that “PEER REVIEW” has absolutely NO MEANING as to whether a study is reproducible and the truth …….

            Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
            2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182.
            doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

            Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

            When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new `disease’, female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited—not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times). `But,’ the news editor wanted to know, `was this paper peer reviewed?’. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not. Well, had it been? I had read it much more carefully than I read many papers and had asked the author, who happened to be a journalist, to revise the paper and produce more evidence. But this was not peer review, even though I was a peer of the author and had reviewed the paper. Or was it?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You aren’t using the correct arguments for this discussion. If I were putting everything on peer review for legitimacy, you might have a point, but I’m not. It’s simply one aspect.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have no basis to trust the sources you are putting up as “expert” as there are no REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS to support your claims ……….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you called it a “GOLD STANDARD” … so yes you are and you are now into SELF CONTRADICTION …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No I didn’t. This is my statement:

            “What I’m talking about isn’t false science at all, but accepted in the
            field and peer-reviewed, very much the gold standard used in psychology.”

            What I was calling a “gold standard” was not the peer review process, but actual science, which you were calling “false science”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “No I didn’t. ”

            “peer-reviewed, very much the gold standard used in psychology.”

            you just did AGAIN ………. do you read what you write ………….. SELF CONTRADICTION ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You need to read it again, not me. I said real science has been peer reviewed (among other things). I didn’t claim the peer review process was what made it the gold standard. REAL SCIENCE is the gold standard. You are calling it “false science” for no reason other than you don’t like it. What makes it false?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            real science ….. IS REPRODUCIBLE …… and psychology AINT even close to being science as REPRODUCIBLE …… and you called peer review a GOLD STANDARD …… and you have quoted YOURSELF saying so ……… SELF CONTRADICTION AGAIN ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I didn’t call peer review a gold standard, Amos. Read it again. I said peer review was part of what made real science the gold standard. I’m not going to argue over that. My words stand, and I have not changed them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I didn’t call peer review a gold standard, Amos.”

            YES YOU DID and now you are not only in SELF CONTRADICTION …… you are outright LYING ……….

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            He didn’t call peer review a gold standard, you fucking mental midget. Read it 25 times if you have to. And learn to type in complete sentence while you’re at it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            TOS VIOLATION …… was nice not knowing you …… have a good day ……

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            Banning me doesn’t stop you from being a psychotic, illiterate IDIOT.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            name calling is not intellectual argument ….. and it is quite apparent you cannot marshal any argument whatsoever to counter anything said ….. and i do not ban anyone … YOU banned yourself by your inability to make any cogent argument ………..

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            I’m not calling you an idiot to make an intellectual argument. I’m calling you an idiot because you are clearly an idiot who doesn’t understand science never mind basic English. Banning me achieves nothing, you know how easy it is to come back? I love watching you guys treat the bans like they’re some great victory.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so just EPITHET ….. so just MORE NAME CALLING ….. so just more TOS VIOLATION …….. make an intellectual point you can prove or TAKE A HIKE ………………..

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            Oh fuck off, you stupid baboon.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” REAL SCIENCE is the gold standard.”

            and you claimed “field and peer-reviewed, very much the gold standard used in psychology.” ….. NOTHING THERE about “real science” ….. and you are now an outright LIAR ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I will probably regret responding to this, since I already said I was done with you, and I can practically feel you taunting me for coming back (and if you don’t, your friend probably will), but you’ve given me one last opportunity to explain language logic to you. Keep in mind, I haven’t once called you any names, and you are calling me a “liar”, which I certainly am not. So just let the record show that.

            I originally said, “there is plenty of science on the matter.”

            You then started to call it FALSE SCIENCE, and those capital letters are yours, see above. I then responded: “What I’m talking about isn’t false science at all, but accepted in the field and peer-reviewed, very much the gold standard used in psychology.”

            “NOTHING THERE about “real science”

            The topic is science, which MEANS “real science”. And real science includes things like peer review, which is what I said.

            What I did NOT say, and you cannot deny, is that “peer review is the gold standard”. It’s PART OF it, but not the whole thing.

            Now kindly stop calling me names and let this one go.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” last opportunity to explain language logic to you”

            you are not using logic ……. you are not using science ……. you have lied about what you said ….. and if you are caught in your own self contradiction and lies …. that is not name calling ……. YOU ARE CAUGHT …… and it is here for all to see …… you said what you said ….. and instead of being a grown up and admitting your error ….. you are now back pedaling and covering up for what you said ………… YOU SAID … “very much the gold standard used in psychology.” …….. in black and white …… NOT PART ….. not just a little bit ….. THE GOLD STANDARD ……. so you can either RETRACT your fallacious statement ….. or take a hike …..

            your “science” of psychology is for the most part NOT REPRODUCIBLE ….. and if it cannot be reproduced on a consistent level …… IT IS NOT SCIENCE …… you have bought into a delusion …. and you are just as much possessed by that transgender delusion as the person who wants to self-mutilate and have others pay for it …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            The words are there on the screen, and I’m unashamed of them. I am sorry for you because you don’t understand them, even after having them explained to you several times. You simply don’t understand what’s being said to you, and you lash out and call me a liar because of it. It’s disgusting.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so no real argument or refutation ….. just back pedaling and trying to CYA …. ” I am sorry for you because you don’t understand them, even after having them explained to you several times. You simply don’t understand what’s being said to you” …… RIGHT BACK AT ‘CHA SPORT …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Yes, the argument and refutation has been made over and over. I didn’t lie, my original statement stands, and has not been changed. I never said peer review was the gold standard. You simply misunderstood and then flew into a rage.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            SELF CONTRADICTION is a lie ………. saying you stand by your lie is a lie when what you said was a lie …… and liars …. tell lies ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And how many more long, drawn-out explanations from me are you going to require until you finally acknowledge that you simply didn’t understand what was being said to you? I’ve given you at least 5 now.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i understand just fine ….. that you cannot understand that your baloney is not being bought ….. i what YOU do not want to understand ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It isn’t baloney, it made perfect sense when I wrote it, and still does. Wow, and after countless explanations you still can’t comprehend.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “it made perfect sense when I wrote it,”

            and there lies the problem …. with your lies ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Give it up Amos. You lose. You simply don’t understand what was being said. Or you are dishonestly trying to put words in my mouth. Both are very bad form for someone calling themselves Christian. I have no reason to lie, and I did not lie.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you do not get to dictate the terms of surrender …… you are CAUGHT in your lies …. you cannot prove even one of your assertions …. you put your BLIND FAITH in some PhD from someplace else as if he is the authority ….. and we are not going to cede even one INCH of true science to the likes of you ………….. FAIL … and you are still a liar as you were CAUGHT lying ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You caught ZERO. There was no lie, and I didn’t even try to back away from what I said. You didn’t understand, and tried to use the opportunity to twist the words to your own understanding. THAT is the truth.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope .. CAUGHT … back pedaling so fast you cant keep your lies straight …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You “caught” nothing. I didn’t self contradict. I stand by every single word, and I’m sorry it was so difficult for you to understand even though everyone else seemed to have no issue with it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Both are very bad form for someone calling themselves Christian. I have no reason to lie, and I did not lie.”

            YOU cannot even begin to tell us what a christian is or how they become one ….. so YOU are no authority to determine who is and who is not …… YOU do not get to decide …. and your INTENT to lie has NOTHING to do with whether or not you did lie …. YOU DID ……. and you are a liar ……….. christians NAME NAMES ….. and you are NAMED ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I’m not going to get into who is and who isn’t a Christian. This is about you supposedly “catching” me in a lie that I neither tried to duck or hide from, nor did I change my story. You simply didn’t understand what was being said and jumped to a conclusion. You are welcome to go back and find my exact words where I said, verbatim, “peer review is the gold standard”, but you won’t find them because I didn’t say that, and the reason I didn’t say that is I didn’t MEAN that. Clearly you enjoy semantics games, so show me those exact words in that exact order. Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are running away so fast from what you said it is hard to keep track ……

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Considering I’ve met every single word you’ve said head on and have proven every single thing you’ve said wrong, repeatedly and with examples, with no contradictions and no changes to any of the words I’ve used, I’d say you have a very funny idea of what “running away” means.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have yet to provide any REAL science, mr.”gold standard peer review”, and you have RUN from that as a “gold standard” …. “because it really is other things also” …… and ANY “psycho;logy” “peer review” has LESS than a 50% chance of its findings being REPRODUCIBLE …… and if you went to a college professor and told them my grades are less than 50% …. so i deserve an “A” ….. (well today you would probably get one) …… but that is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE ….. and you STILL are running away from your “gold standard” statement ….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            What science are you looking for me to present, since it was a general comment when I originally made it? What am I running from, and when did I run? Peer review is a COMPONENT, it is a PART, but not the whole picture, and I never claimed it was. If you can’t manage to string a sentence together without trailing off in a mass of dots, do you expect me to believe your college professor story?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “What science are you looking for me to present, since it was a general comment when I originally made it?”

            “Look up the writings of Walter Bockting, PhD.” – VERY SPECIFIC …… NOT “general” ……

            “but accepted in the field and peer-reviewed, very much the gold standard used in psychology.”

            “What am I running from, and when did I run?”

            “Peer review is a COMPONENT, it is a PART, ” —— RUNNING

            Gold standard:
            a : something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged
            b : a point of reference from which measurements may be made
            c : a standardized problem or test that serves as a basis for evaluation or comparison

            NOTHING ELSE is required when a “gold STANDARD” is invoked ….. AND YOU DID …… and NOW YOU ARE SAYING THINGS in CONTRADICTION to your pronouncement ……. run away little person …. run fast …. run far …….. and keep running …….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Both are very bad form for someone calling themselves Christian. ”

            “I’m not going to get into who is and who isn’t a Christian. ”

            SELF CONTRADICTION ……. AGAIN …………. saying a person is a “bad form” christian is saying they are not a christian ….. and you CANNOT EVEN DEFINE WHAT A GOOD ONE IS …… you cannot even define WHAT one is ….. so HOW would you know a “good” one from a “bad” one …… SELF CONTRADICTION …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Do you know what “self contradiction” means? It means to say something and then say something that directly contradicts it. I haven’t done that, as I have shown you – with my own word – over, and over, and over. At this point, isn’t it best for you to concede that you’re just doing this for attention?

            And I’m asking you one final time to please refrain from calling me a liar when I have defended my position with examples from the getgo.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “It means to say something and then say something that directly contradicts it.”

            and that you cannot see it …. thats the problem …… when you reject God and His standard and authority … you are reduced to futility of mind ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            We haven’t been talking about God. You keep trying to, but it has not been relevant to the discussion which has been about the gold standard in real science.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            this is a CHRISTIAN forum ….. about topics of interest to CHRISTIANS ….. for CHRISTIANS to have discussions about ….. GOD IS ALWAYS ON THE TABLE here …… it is ALWAYS RELEVANT ….. what is NOT RELEVANT is YOUR ASSERTIONS of science THAT CANNOT BE REPRODUCED ……. and therefore a LIE …… making YOU A LIAR ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            God was not germane to the discussion. It doesn’t matter where the conversation happens, we were talking about science and “fake science” – which you never DID define.

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            Look at all the articles Christian News Network posts, and you and your circle of buddies never have anything to say unless it’s an article bashing LGBT people. What a fine model of a Christian you are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You haven’t given one piece of scientific evidence for your claims, and on top of it, you’ve been name calling via sock puppeting (and very poorly too).

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, I am not a sock puppet, but you’re welcome to present your proof anytime. I gather that this isn’t an unusual charge for you to make.

            Pointing to people with doctorates and other experts would be enough for most people, but you are anti-science, do not believe psychology is a science (even though it was pointed out to you that people can get PhDs in psychology), and refuse to accept dictionary definitions, so that’s really as much about you as we need to know, wouldn’t you say?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re dealing with sock puppet accounts at this time. This is james blue having a breakdown and posting multiple times. Zampogna never got over being banned. LOL They’re not even worth replying to.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Even if they are sock accounts, are they wrong? I personally don’t care who they are if they can make a decent argument, something you appear to struggle with.

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            It’s Zampogna!
            No, it’s Peewee!
            No, it’s…James Blue!
            It’s a bird! It’s a plane!
            Jesus Christ you’re stupid, Guest Verified.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Cry some more, triggered soul.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            I kind of feel sorry for him.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Imagine having such a pathetic life that you come onto a message board with a bunch of alts to swear at strangers. It’s so sad.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Very very sad. I could not imagine going to any site and do what they do to anyone.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
            2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182.
            doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

            What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you’d expect by chance.1

            That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish’ and `reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven’t already done it?’

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I’ve already told you that peer review is one part of the process, you don’t need to keep presenting articles that fight the same argument we are no longer disputing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your methodology is wrong …. peer review is NOT a “gold standard” ….. FAIL …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I’m sorry you don’t understand. We’ll just leave it at that. I’m not here to argue.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” I’m not here to argue.”

            thats a lie …. and more SELF CONTRADICTION …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Goodbye, sir.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            see ya liar …. would not want to be ya … dont let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya …………..

          • Adam

            100 out of how many? What’s the time frame that they’re taking from? How many in that time-frame were not included in the review? Was the review done accurately or did they just go out and clown-show the experiments so they’d fail anyway?

            Let’s just say they’re looking at 100 studies over 10 years….I’d guess that’s a tiny fraction of the number of psychology papers produced in a given timeframe because thousands of psych papers are generated each year.

            Or heck, they could be from the erstwhile Trump University School of Psychology, we all know how academically above-board that institution was *wink*

            I’m sure in New York City there’s probably around 2,000 conterfeit $20 bills. That doesn’t mean every $20 is a fake.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if it is NOT REPRODUCIBLE …… your point is MOOT …… IT AINT SCIENCE …… not REAL science ….. and it is not RELIABLE OR INDICATIVE of anything other than the psychological studies are GARBAGE FALSE science …….

          • Adam

            JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE IT, DOESN’T MEAN IT’S NOT SCIENCE, you senile old COOT. Go have your nurse in the home up your meds and wheel your blubbering ass down to lunch to get your pudding and cornmeal mush.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            just because a scientist says something DOES NOT MAKE IT SCIENCE …… and you have NO SCIENCE to back up your assertions ………….. oh … and TOS VIOLATION ……. nice not knowing you …..

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            When a scientist says something, you are the LAST person I would let tell me if it was science or not. You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            more EPITHET ………

          • Adam

            Amos doesn’t care. He thumps his Bible and anything he judges new or scary he claims his “God” opposes. Ever notice how people like him never seem to oppose being on the internet?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Trying to not engage in petty bickering and squabbling here, but my observation is they can justify anything, even opposing things like the dictionary and the field of science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re not even trying to troll well at this point. LOL

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Haven’t you got a dictionary to be denying somewhere?

          • Susan Perelka

            So, you come to a “christian” website and get upset when someone uses the bible? Do you see the absurdity of that statement? Who is really attacking who here?

          • Adam

            Ahhh here it is. The person who can’t comprehend how scientific peer-review works.

            “We do not allow the mentally delusional to self-diagnose…” *cough* stigmata *cough.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            dont even know what that means … do you …….

          • Adam

            Yes i do. Any time a RWNJ gets confronted by unassailable facts, they automatically turn to the slippery slope argument toward the ridiculous. Like how all you bible–humpers were complaining that same-sex marriage would lead to dog marriage, without realizing that marriage is in essence a contract, and dogs cannot consent to contracts.

            See, I used to be a conservative. Then I realized I had a brain.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …. NO EVIDENCE that i did any such thing … i do not believe in any “slippery slope” ….. so YOU do not know what you are talking about …….. and NOTHING you have presented is “unassailable ” ….. it is pure garbage ….

            FYI …. not a slippery slope … it is a CLIFF and you have clearly jumped off it ……

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There is no conclusive science on the matter. None. Why don’t you post the gene that determines such a disorder, and use a real scientific journal as your source.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Look up the writings of Walter Bockting, PhD. He is a transgender expert, professor of medical
            psychology (in psychiatry and nursing), co-director of the LGBT Health
            Initiative, Division of Gender, Sexuality, and Health, and a research
            scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute/Columbia
            University Medical Center. He is the principal investigator of a
            multisite, longitudinal study of transgender identity development across
            the lifespan, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and
            Human Development, the MAC AIDS Fund and a number of other private
            foundations. He has worked with transgender individuals, their families
            and communities for over 25 years, and is a past president of the World
            Professional Association for Transgender Health. He was also a member of
            the APA Task Force on Guidelines for Psychological Practice with
            Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Clients.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Thanks for admitting there is no gene that supports your theory. Anyone can form committees and spout any theory they want. That doesn’t make it science.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I didn’t admit that. I gave you more credentials for a single expert on the subject than you could possibly want (which is what you asked of me). If you are anti-science, just say so. I will always follow the science on matters such as this.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t give any credentials. You named a bunch of clubs some guy belongs to. Those aren’t credentials. What you need to back up your claim is some kind of genetic proof. You have none. Don’t pretend you follow science when you haven’t given an iota of scientific proof for your claim. In fact, you’ve given the opposite.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Firstly those aren’t “clubs”, they are distinctions in a field you seem to continually thumb your nose at. They are very much credentials, especially those little clumps of letters like “PhD”. If that’s not a credential to be proud of, I don’t know what is. We can still know things even if genetic proof eludes us (for the moment).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They are clubs. They are not distinctions, and psychology is not a science.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            If you think a PhD isn’t a distinction, I think we’re done here. I trust you’ll be telling your MD that you distrust his club membership next time you see him.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            A Ph.D. in literature would not make one a scientist nor a medical doctor. 🙂 Yeah, run away. You’re done here. There is no trans gene, so you’ve got no claim to stand on. Science proves you wrong.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            A Ph.D. in psychology WOULD make one a scientist AND a medical doctor though, but you believe the science of psychology is not a science. This is not running away. This is expecting a brick wall to provide thoughtful discourse.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are quite wrong. You don’t know the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. A psychologist just has a Ph.D. in psychology. A psychiatrist has a medical degree and then a specialty in psychology. Didn’t you know that?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You’ve already been shown that you disagree with the dictionary, with direct statements you made. You can’t redeem yourself at this point.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL

          • Lily Of The Valley

            What made the article Amos quoted a “brilliant proof,” while Rhesus Peanut Buttercup’s quote wasn’t?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because Amos’s quote proved that psychology isn’t a science and its studies are bogus. RPB’s statement proved he/she doesn’t know what constitutes as proof.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Excuse me, but didn’t you JUST finish telling me that a PhD was not a credential? And things didn’t go any better for you after that. If you make baffling statements like that one, is there a point in discussing anything with you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            A Ph.D. in psychology is not a medical credential. Did you not know that?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Your argument isn’t with me, sir, it’s with Merriam-Webster.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL LOL

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “What you need to back up your claim is some kind of genetic proof.”

            Answer me this simple question: What is the claim he made?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m not playing this game. The post is there, or did you/he/she edit it? 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I’m just trying to figure out how you think he needs “genetic proof” to support the claim that he made, which seems to be nothing more than that gender dysphoria is a real thing and not a “delusion” as Amos said.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If it’s a real thing, then it could be genetically proven.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Disorders can have other causes than genetics. But anyway, just because no one’s proved that a certain disorder is not genetic doesn’t mean they have ruled out the possibility. There are things that we haven’t determined the cause of yet. Autism, for one example. I understand scientists think autism might be genetic, at least in some cases, but they haven’t proven it. That doesn’t mean autism doesn’t exist, just because they can’t prove the cause of it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You just keep losing your argument for yourself. You’ve just further proven that there is no trans gene. 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I can’t “lose my argument” if it’s one I never made. I never said there was a “trans gene”!

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            LOL You don’t even seem to know what you were claiming.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            If you can find one thing, one sentence from me, where I claimed that science has conclusively found that gender dysphoria is genetic, go ahead and point it out to me. Otherwise, I don’t understand why you keep going on about that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Because if it isn’t a genetic condition, it means you are advocating surgery as first line treatment for mental disorders.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            That doesn’t make any sense. First of all, mental disorders can either be genetic or not. So “if it isn’t a genetic condition” (perhaps the correct word there would be “inherited”?) doesn’t really matter.

            If I advocate gender reassignment surgery as a treatment for gender dysphoria, that means I am advocating one form of surgery as a treatment for one type of mental disorder. Nothing more than that.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You never find where I said what you thought I did, did you?

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Are you familiar with the term “strawman argument”? Because that’s what you’re doing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, it’s the one you keep trying to use when you bring up autism. 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I only brought up autism once, so I don’t see how that would be “the one I KEEP trying to use.” You said, referring to gender dysphoria, “If it’s a real thing, then it could be genetically proven.” I then used the example of autism as something that IS a real thing, but is not proven to be genetic.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “Why don’t you post the gene that determines such a disorder”

            Why are you bringing genes into it? You and Amos were the only people mentioning genetics in this conversation. Gender dysphoria is real thing. Whether it’s genetic or not doesn’t change that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you’re admitting you can’t prove it? 🙂 You do know how genetics work, don’t you?

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Disorders can have other causes than genetics. You do know that, don’t you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you just admitted it’s a disorder? Now are you calling it a mental disorder? You do know that surgery doesn’t fix mental disorders, don’t you?

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Wow, that was quick. Gave up on that whole genetics thing pretty fast, huh?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, it seems that you did. Did you read my entire comment? Did you understand it? You cannot prove that there is genetic cause for a condition that can’t be fixed via surgery.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Who besides you in this conversation has said anything one way or the other about it being genetic? You’re the only one I see making any kind of statement about that. It’s the same thing you (and, to be fair, many others) often do when it’s a conversation about homosexuality; you mention something about how no one’s found the “gay gene”….even when no one is claiming that it has been found and no one is using that to support their arguments.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So if something isn’t genetic, you’re saying it’s a mental disorder yet you still advocate surgery. Does that mean you also support lobotomies for the mentally ill? Because that’s a surgery, too.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “So if something isn’t genetic, you’re saying it’s a mental disorder”

            You’re the only one who seems to think that part of the definition of “mental disorder” is “genetic.” I don’t even know where you would get such an idea. Also, you seem to think “disorder” means “mentally ill.” It doesn’t, not at all.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            If it isn’t genetic, then what is it? It can only be (by your reasoning) a mental disorder. So do you support lobotomies for the mentally ill? Why can’t you answer that?

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Gender dysphoria is considered a disorder. I have not argued that it isn’t. I don’t even get how you’re comparing gender reassignment surgery to lobotomies, it’s not even close to the same thing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s considered a MENTAL disorder. Lobotomies were once used (and are still used in some parts of the world) to treat mental disorders. Trans surgery is also used to treat mental disorders. The connection is obvious.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “It’s considered a MENTAL disorder”

            You just tried to discredit the entire field of psychology/psychiatry. Who do you think determines what is and isn’t considered a mental disorder?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you agree that this is a mental disorder? LOL You keep losing the argument for yourself. 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. I never said it wasn’t a disorder.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Maybe you’re confusing yourself with someone else. 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I’ll even quote myself, from only an hour ago, a comment addressed to you, at that:

            “Gender dysphoria is considered a disorder. I have not argued that it isn’t.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So who’s your expert on that? A psychologist? (who is not a medical doctor). So let’s say it IS a mental disorder. Do you support surgery for mental disorders? Remember, lobotomies were considered (and in some cases, still are considered) first line treatment for mental disorders.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “So who’s your expert on that? A psychologist?”

            You asked me earlier “So you agree that this is a mental disorder?” I said I wasn’t arguing that. Why are you now asking me for an expert to confirm what YOU were saying?? Anyway, I think it is pretty much the consensus opinion of scientists that it is, you shouldn’t have to look too hard to find evidence of that, if that’s what you’re after. Maybe look it up on your favorite site, Wikipedia. But remember, you can check the citations there! 😉

            And are you also suggesting that if I support gender reassignment surgery (which I don’t think I said anything about, by the way!) then I’d have to support lobotomies on mental patients as well? That just doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying if I support appendectomies, I have to support drilling holes in people’s heads.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I’d recommend letting this one go, Guest “PhDs are just club memberships” Verified isn’t interested in the scientific/medical community’s thoughts on these matters.

          • John O

            Lily of the Valley
            look at like a spiritual disorder. science will never replace a Sovereign God.
            read romans 1.

          • YetAnotherSockAccount

            You don’t seem to be getting this through your appallingly thick skull, but your “show me the gene otherwise you don’t have an argument” argument is stupid, and no one’s buying it.

          • Susan Perelka

            Again, scientists are NOT gods and always correct. They are fallible human beings, that are doing the best they can with the information they presently have. Written history has proved scientists have been wrong on many occasions. In my generation, they said that you absolutely can’t have life without sunlight, we know this for a fact. Then…. oops… found thermal vents deep in the ocean with abundant life. Just because some scientist says it is, does not make it so. That is a repeatable experiment. Athiests rely on scientists like they are gods. Paganism.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Scientists study the matter. Religion does not, it just claims God knows best. Science gets better information all the time but never stops looking for it.

          • Susan Perelka

            So we have two different worldviews. You can’t prove God is real and you say I can’t prove he is. So, let each individual decide for themselves. There is no point agrueing anymore, you have decided and we have decided. That’s the freedom we have in America. Have a nice day.

          • Susan Perelka

            But God made it all, so I think He knows it better than they do.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That kind of thinking just rejects logic completely.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “Written history has proved scientists have been wrong on many occasions”

            You’re talking about that like it’s a bad thing. That’s actually one of the best things about science. Science is always open to change or even completely abandon old theories when new observations are made. If it didn’t, we probably wouldn’t have anywhere near the level of technology we have today. You wouldn’t have that computer or smartphone you’re using to look at these words right now. People would be dying of diseases that are now easily preventable and/or curable.

          • Susan Perelka

            But yet you tend to argue you are right just because of something a scientist has said, and then you agree that they aren’t always right. That is very contradictory.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Well, I can use what scientists say as an example of what the current knowledge of something is, but I don’t say that science will never say anything different or will never be proven wrong about something. Again, that’s a good thing. It’s a feature, not a bug, in other words.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            They aren’t always 100% right about everything but always use the best information they have to come to a conclusion. I take no issue with that.

          • B1jetmech

            If someone wants to mutilate themselves then do it on their own dime.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I agree with the sentiment, if not your wording.

          • Adam

            Read other articles. Both plaintiffs are on Medicaid for disability.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I will do that! Thank you.

  • Sola Gratia

    Who is to say these two people (whose ages are not given) would not come back and sue the government (read: us) if taxpayers fund this atrocity and the recipients decide at a later date that the surgery was a mistake and they want to live according to their natural sex?? We should assist them by encouraging them to learn to love and accept their bodies rather than hating themselves. The body is not sick, the mind is.

  • This is a mental health disorder brought on by demons. The cure is not to be found in mutilation and chemical therapy. The cure for this can only be found in and through Christ Jesus.

  • Ben Welliver

    If you cut off your hands or feet, people would know you were crazy as a loon and you would be treated as such.

  • Susan Perelka

    Abba Father, I lift up these people who the enemy has deceived. I ask for Your mercy towards them, that You would open their blind eyes to the truth of how You made them, male or female. I ask that You would reveal Your beloved Son to them, Who has the power to transform them and set them free from slavery to sin. I hope that one day they will accept the wonderful gift of grace You offer mankind through faith in Jesus Christ. For those who remain in rebellion against Your truth, I ask that You would protect us from any traps they are setting and let their own feet get caught in those traps and let the innocent go free. Thank You Father, for the mercy You offer. Thank you for the ability to stand before Your throne of Grace because of Jesus. We wait for You Lord Jesus, help us to continue to proclaim Your truth to those in darkness. We overcome by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. Sanctify us in Your truth, Your word is truth. Keep us from the evil one, give us our daily bread. Forgive us and help us to forgive others. In Jesus beautiful name. AMEN

    • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

      In Jesus Name I agree with this prayer Amen.