2005-03-01

Was John Forbes Nash insane?

A popular film of 1951 (list of 1951 films)
Look magazine: "The best of the science-fiction movies!":


soundtrack to The Day the Earth Stood Still by Bernard Herrmann

Let me tell you, as someone who was a young person in 1951,
that that movie had a great effect on many of us back then.
So far as I can recall,
there was no one who said that such things could not happen.
Not that they necessarily would happen,
but there was no reason to doubt their possibility.
That was the intellectual climate then.



I have noticed that some members of Team PC have been having a jolly old time,
yukking it up about how crazy
the (politically incorrect) mathematician John Forbes Nash allegedly was.
This belief was conveyed to the general American population
by the 1998 book A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar
and the 2001 Hollywood film of the same title.
I have not seen the film (although I have read Wikipedia's summary of it),
but I have read the book.
The book describes a number of incidents in Nash's life and asserts,
based on the authority of the author and various "experts" whom the author quotes,
that these indicate clearly that Nash was, by some definitions, mentally ill.
She asserts specifically and without qualification that Nash was mentally ill.
In the book's Prologue, on page 17, she writes:
Nash succumbed [to schizophrenia] at age thirty.]
At the top of the front cover of the hardcover edition of the book (12th printing, copyright 1998),
above the title, appears the following in red type:
A legend by the age of thirty,
recognized as a mathematical genius even as he slipped into madness,
John Nash emerged after decades of ghostlike existence to win
a Nobel and world acclaim
But how did she and others arrive at that conclusion,
and why should we, the readers of the book, reach the same conclusion?

She begins the book, at the start of the Prologue,
with a strikingly detailed description of a scene
(the comments in square brackets have been added by the author of this blog):
John Forbes Nash, Jr.
mathematical genius, inventor of a theory of rational behavior,
visionary of the thinking machine —
had been sitting with his visitor, also a mathematician, for nearly half an hour.
It was late on a weekday afternoon in the spring of 1959,
and, though it was only May, uncomfortably warm.
Nash was slumped in an armchair in one corner of the hospital lounge,
carelessly dressed [Is it supposed to be significant that he was “carelessly dressed”?]
in a nylon shirt that hung limply over his unbelted trousers.
[“hung limply”? “unbelted”?
These facts, if true, must be significant to the author,
or she would not have put them in this book.
But what is the significance?
Are “unbelted trousers” a sign of mental illness?
What will the shrinks and those egging them on think of next as a way to smear people?]

His power frame was slack as a rag doll’s, his finely molded features expressionless.
He had been staring dully at a spot immediately in front of
the left foot of Harvard [math] professor George Mackey
[author of, among many other excellent books,
Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics]
,
Hardly moving except to brush his long dark hair away from his forehead
in a fitful, repetitive [got to watch out for those repetitive acts!
In particular, I also sometimes do things repetitively,
like listening to the same Bach cantata as I am now.]
motion .
His visitor sat upright, oppressed
[“oppressed”? Is that the right word?
Maybe discomforted,
but then is it the job of a person incarcerated in a mental institution
to make conversation with those who visit him?
It seems to me that clearly it was Nash who was the oppressed one in this situation,
not his visitor Mackey.
But the author Nasar couldn't figure that out.]

by the silence, acutely conscious that the doors to the room were locked.
Mackey finally could contain himself no longer.
His voice was slightly querulous, but he strained to be gentle.
“How could you,” began Mackey
“how could you, a mathematician, a man devoted to reason and logical proof …
how could you believe that extraterrestrials are sending you messages?
How could you believe that you are being recruited
by aliens from outer space to save the world?
How could you …?”

Nash looked up at last and fixed Mackey with an unblinking stare
as cool and dispassionate as that of any bird or snake.
[A comparison to birds and snakes?????
Are those the only creatures that have cool and dispassionate looks,
if indeed their looks possess those qualities?
Why, then, the comparison to birds and snakes,
other than a deliberate attempt to smear Nash?]

“Because,” Nash said slowly in his soft, reasonable southern drawl,
as if talking to himself,
“the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me
in the same way that my mathematical ideas did.
So I took them seriously.”
[Endnote: George W. Mackey, professor of mathematics, Harvard University,
interview, Cambridge, Mass. 12.14.95]

[An aside: That description of a 1959 scene is remarkably detailed
to be recounted in an interview in 1995, 36 years later.
Would one really remember 36 years later
that Nash's shirt "hung limply" and his trousers were unbelted?
I doubt if I would.]

Well, let me break off from recounting parts of Nasar's book
and switch to describing my own reactions to it.
When I first read this book, in 2010
(I had, of course, learned from newspaper stories about the book,
but had not read it.),
I took that passage at face value.
I trusted the author to be an unbiased observer and narrator,
setting out the key facts in Nash's life to enable her readers to understand the man and his environment.
Given the front cover blurb and other background information,
I took that passage as being an indictment of Nash's mind.

But then, some time later, I thought about the general situation in the 1950s,
a period I had and have personal familiarity with,
familiarity which, of course, those born after 1960 certainly do not have.
In fact, discussion of the possibility of the possibility of extraterrestial life
(generally presumed to have reached a far higher level of advancement than "earthings")
was a commonplace event in the 1950s.
Sci-fi films were a staple of the 1950s, I think to a far greater extent
than in more recent decades.
Two I remember in particular were:
but there were many others.
Beyond Hollywood, there was much discussion in the magazines of the time about the possibility of contact with extraterrestrials.
In later years, this talk moved into discussion of "Area 51"
and people who claimed to actually have had such contact,
and even, in some cases, having been abducted by outerspace aliens and taken to their space ships,
only to be returned to earth.
You can read about people making those claims.
I am not aware of people making such claims being, in general, deemed "insane".

Getting back to Nash,
the path to his thoughts that extraterrestrial aliens were trying to contact him,
was a path that general America culture of the time had opened up.
If one asserts now that that claim is absurd on its very face,
one is ignoring the general cultural climate of the 1950s.


As to Nasar's many other descriptions of Nash's behavior,
I often felt the desire to question how "insane" his behavior really was.
For example, she describes how Nash, while walking with a companion,
noted that "There's a dog following us."
My thought: so what?
Do dogs sometimes follow people?
Of course they do.

In general, I wonder how "insane" Nash really was.
She states that he had opinions now described as politically incorrect,
racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic.
Further, she has very extensive coverage of the thoughts of his wife.
She states that his wife,
before she signed the papers that involuntarily committed Nash,
was worried that Nash was going to abandon her and their young son.
Hmmm...

I know nothing about Nash besides what I have read in Nasar's book
and the occasional references to him in newspapers
(although I do have some knowledge of the environment in which he was,
in particular, the intellectual and social life
of a mathematics department of a Boston area university,
and know that the mathematicians whom she quotes uniformly
are very, very well-regarded mathematicians,
and in one case one of the mathematicians she quotes was one of my professors).
But she mentions on the second page of the Prologue
that one psychologist thought Nash was never mentally ill.
I wonder how well-founded the diagnosis of his "mental illness" was.
No doubt some of his other claims, as quoted in the book,
claiming to be "the emperor of Antarctica" and other such claims,
are clearly absurd and delusional.
But the Hollywood film version of the book,
as described in Wikipedia,
contains supposed episodes not described in the book.

Quoting now from Wikipedia:
Some years later, Nash is invited to the Pentagon to crack encrypted enemy telecommunication. Nash is able to decipher the code mentally, to the astonishment of other codebreakers. He considers his regular duties at MIT uninteresting and beneath his talents, so he is pleased to be given a new assignment by mysterious supervisor, William Parcher (Harris) of the United States Department of Defense, to look for patterns in magazines and newspapers in order to thwart a Soviet plot. Nash becomes increasingly obsessive about searching for these hidden patterns and believes he is followed when he delivers his results to a secret mailbox.

Meanwhile a student, Alicia Larde (Connelly), asks him to dinner, and the two fall in love. On a return visit to Princeton, Nash runs into Charles and meets Charles' young niece Marcee (Vivien Cardone), whom he adores. With Charles' encouragement he proposes to Alicia and they marry.

Nash begins to fear for his life after witnessing a shootout between Parcher and Soviet agents, but Parcher blackmails him into staying on his assignment. While delivering a guest lecture at Harvard University, Nash attempts to flee from what appear to be foreign agents, led by Dr. Rosen (Plummer). After punching Rosen in an attempt to flee, Nash is forcibly sedated and sent to a psychiatric facility. He believes the facility is run by the Soviets.

Dr. Rosen tells Alicia that Nash has schizophrenia and that Charles, Marcee and Parcher exist only in his imagination. Alicia investigates and finally confronts Nash with the unopened documents he had delivered to the secret mailbox. Nash is given a course of insulin shock therapy and eventually released. Frustrated with the side-effects of the antipsychotic medication he is taking, he secretly stops taking it. This causes a relapse and he meets Parcher again.

After an incident where Nash endangers his infant son and accidentally knocks Alicia and the baby to the ground (thinking he's stopping Parcher from killing her), she flees the house in fear with their child. Nash steps in front of her car to prevent her from leaving. He tells Alicia, "She never gets old", referring to Marcee, who although years have passed since their first encounter, has remained exactly the same age and is still a little girl. With this, he finally accepts that they are part of his hallucinations. Against Dr. Rosen's advice, Nash decides not to restart his medication, believing that he can deal with his symptoms in another way. Alicia decides to stay and support him in this.

Most of this is not in the book.
It no doubt makes a great story, but it is not in the book.
One may wonder:
did the fact that Nash was worried about Jewish domination of the world
influence how he was portrayed,
both in the movie (with screen play by Akiva Goldsman)
and in general culture?





One other note:
Poor John Forbes Nash was pilloried by various people
for thinking that people from other worlds were communicating with him via the newspapers.
Where on earth could he have gotten such a crazy idea?
Well, not only was there the culturally significant 1950s film The Day the Earth Stood Still,
but also note the following description, from Wikipedia, as of 2014-09-11
(but the emphasis is added by the author of this blog):
The Tom Swift Jr. stories
[which were quite popular with young males in the 1950s]
had stronger science-fiction elements
than the earlier series,
particularly in the later volumes.
One subplot which, beginning on the first page of the first volume,
ran the length of the series, is
Tom's communication, via mathematical "space symbols,"
with beings from "Planet X."

This mystery is never completely resolved
despite the beings sending an artificial "energy brain"
to occupy a robot body built by Tom in book #17 (see illustration [below]).



So, a thought that may seem really crazy in the 1990s or 2000s
may not have seemed so crazy in the sci-fi-obsessed world of the 1950s.
Of course, that is not to deny that some psychologists in the 1950s
did indeed declare Nash insane and requiring involuntary confinement,
just to suggest that some of what was presented in the books and movie A Beautiful Mind may look different if viewed from the cultural context back then.

Labels: , ,

2005-02-09

"Transgenders" are insane

The frankly blunt title of this post states my opinion:

My view is quite simple:
If, for example, a man has balls and a dick,
but thinks he is a woman,
he is ipso facto insane.
Likewise if a woman has a functioning vagina,
but thinks she is a man.

No doubt there are some gray areas,
where Mother Nature has produced people with
a genuine mix of male and female biological characteristics,
i.e., hermaphrodites.
Their condition is not their fault,
and they deserve full compassionate consideration for their condition.
But the so-called "transgenders"
include people whose biology is purely of one sex,
while their mind wants to be the other sex.
This is not a problem of their biology, but of their mind.

If the American Psychological Association thinks otherwise,
that only shows how, while some of their work no doubt qualifies as science,
at least some of their judgments are pure politics,
without the slightest scientific validity.



Some articles on the people called "transgenders":

2014-08-31-NYT-can-jill-soloway-do-justice-to-the-trans-movement
Can Jill Soloway Do Justice to the Trans Movement?
By TAFFY BRODESSER-AKNER
New York Times Magazine, 2014-08-31

[My reason for referring to this article
is not to endorse the views and attitudes it expresses,
but to observe how it demonstrates how much our "elite" media in general,
and the New York Times in particular,
serve as a propaganda vehicle for disseminating
whatever radical views the homosexual lobby comes up with.]











2014-10-24-WP-transgender-federal-employee-wins-historic-discrimination-case
Transgender federal employee wins historic discrimination case
By Emily Wax-Thibodeaux
Washington Post, 2014-10-24

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Thursday announced a landmark determination that the Department of the Army engaged in “frequent, pervasive and humiliating,” gender-identity discrimination against Tamara Lusardi, a veteran and civilian Army software specialist who transitioned from male to female.

Lusardi was working in the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (“AMRDEC”) in Redstone, Ala., when she transitioned from male to female in 2010. During that time, the Army improperly restricted her restroom usage, referred to her with male pronouns and by her birth name and stopped giving her work, the OSC said in a report released Thursday.

In a telephone interview from Alabama, Lusardi, 49, who served in the Army from 1986 to 1993, including in Desert Storm, said she was called “sir” and “it” by co-workers and management after she legally changed her name, driver’s license and security clearance and began dressing as a woman.

Lusardi was also required to use a single-user, gender-neutral restroom, out of concerns that other employees might feel “uncomfortable” sharing a restroom with her.

The OSC, a federal investigative and prosecutorial agency, said
coworker preferences alone
“cannot justify discriminatory working conditions,”
since it could reinforce the very stereotypes and biases
that nondiscrimination laws are intended to protect against.
According to the report, Lusardi should be able to use
bathrooms designated for her gender identity.

[This attitude really shows the out-of-touch attitudes of the PC "elite",
and the Democratic Party which they have, as shown by this case, influenced.
"Coworker preferences" may be deemed biased, bigoted, and discriminatory by the PC "elite",
but they are going to have a big effect on how effective the organization where the coworkers work is.
At some point all these PC policies are going to lead to a big pratfall for America.
How will combat troops respond if they are forced to cohabitate with such people?
Getting troops to put their lives on the line in combat is a difficult task;
alienating a significant number over issues such as this
is sure to result in a reduction in combat effectiveness,
through a reduction in what is usually described as "unit cohesion."

And I can certainly sympathize with the reluctance of women
to having a man use their restrooms,
just based on a purported change in his "sexual orientation".]


The Army declined to comment on the determination, citing ongoing litigation over the matter.

Lusardi’s case is part of a broader push by the federal government and the OSC to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in the government.

“I applaud Ms. Lusardi for standing up not only for her rights, but for those of all federal employees,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. “The Army deserves credit for seeking to right the wrongs that Ms. Lusardi faced and for creating a more welcoming environment for its LGBT employees.”

In July, Obama signed an executive order banning workplace discrimination against millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees of federal contractors and the federal government. The executive order prohibits firing or harassment of federal contractors based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and it bans discrimination against transgender employees of the federal government.

[There you have it.
Obama is behind this policy.
When (if) you voted for Obama, this is the policy you were also voting for.]


In a recent study by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National LGBTQ Task Force, 90 percent of transgender individuals report mistreatment or discrimination in the workplace, forcing many to hide their gender identity.

Discrimination forces many transgender individuals into extreme poverty, according to Sasha Buchert, staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center. They experience double the rate of unemployment, twice the rate of homelessness, and 85 percent more incarcerations compared to those who are employed, the study found.

Lusardi said she was unable to sleep because she was frozen out of work and told to stop speaking to co-workers about her transition.

“By then I was legally female and recognized by Social Security and Homeland Security,” she said. “I felt like it was unfair. But it was clear it was a condition of employment at that time.”

Lusardi grew up in an Air Force family and said she has long been proud of the work she does protecting troops in the field.

“I really care about my job, and I really wanted to be professional,” she said. “But people were saying, ‘Is it Todd or Tamara, I don’t know,’ and smirking at me, even after I had sent an e-mail explaining my transition. I just wanted to crawl under the table.”

Lusardi and the California-based Transgender Law Center filed a complaint to the OSC, which began investigating the case in 2012.

Activists say they are encouraged by recent legal victories for transgender individuals who lost jobs, and by positive stories about transgender characters on TV shows such as “Orange is the New Black” and “Transparent.” But there are still 32 states where firing workers for being transgender is still legal, the law center said.

The OSC report noted that the restroom restriction “had the effect of isolating and segregating” Lusardi from other female employees, “serv[ing] as a constant reminder that she was deprived of equal status, respect, and dignity in the workplace.”

The OSC investigation found no evidence that Lusardi’s gender transition had a discernible or detrimental impact on her or other employees’ work performance.

In response, the Army agreed to provide training to correct and prevent future discrimination, the OSC said. It also now permits Lusardi to use the restroom associated with her gender identity.

The Army agreed to the OSC’s recommendation to provide workplace diversity and sensitivity training, with a specific focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues.

Lusardi said she is busier at work these days, with the Army giving her back some of her workload since April.

“We have served our country in silence,” she said of transgender federal employees. “I hope my case and this decision will help other transgender people feel safe enough to bring their full authentic selves to work. This report makes clear that we don’t have to put up with being mistreated on the job just because of who we are.”

Labels: , ,

The "transgenderism" insanity

2014-10-27-WP-transgender-military-members-are-in-a-precarious-position
Transgender military members are in a precarious position



2014-12-16-msnbc-appeals-court-blocks-sex-reassignment-surgery-transgender-inmate
Appeals court blocks sex reassignment surgery for transgender inmate
By Emma Margolin
MSNBC, 2014-12-16

A federal appeals court has overturned a ruling that would have allowed a transgender inmate to access sex reassignment surgery for the first time in U.S. history.

Michelle Kosilek, a 65-year-old transgender woman currently serving life without parole for the 1990 strangulation of her then-wife, has not demonstrated that the Massachusetts Department of Correction’s refusal to provide sex reassignment surgery violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

The en banc decision reverses a 2012 federal district court ruling that ordered the Department of Correction (DOC) to provide such care to Kosilek, who would have been the first transgender inmate in the U.S. to undergo sex reassignment surgery while incarcerated.

“[W]e are faced with the question whether the DOC’s choice of a particular medical treatment is constitutionally inadequate, such that the district court acts within its power to issue an injunction requiring provision of an alternative treatment – a treatment which would give rise to new concerns related to safety and prison security,” wrote Judge Juan Torruella, a President Reagan appointee, in Tuesday’s opinion. “After carefully considering the community standard of medical care, the adequacy of the provided treatment, and the valid security concerns articulated by the DOC, we conclude that the district court erred and that the care provided to Kosilek by the DOC does not violate the Eighth Amendment.”

Kosilek suffers from gender dysphoria, which the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) defines as “clinically significant distress” arising in people whose gender assigned at birth differs from the one with which they identify. Treatment options include counseling, cross-sex hormones, social and legal transition to the desired gender, and sex reassignment surgery, according the DSM-5.

...

“The appeals court’s traditional role would be to decide if the trial court applied the wrong law; it would not be to second guess the facts that the trial court heard and found in the first instance,” said Levi. “What’s so unusual about this decision is that the appeals court did not identify what the trial court had done wrong as a legal matter, but rather disagreed with what the trial court found with regard to the essential medical need that Michelle Kosilek has for this particular treatment.”

“It’s very hard to understand this decision as being anything other than a transgender exception to the constitutional right that all inmates have to receive essential medical treatment,” she added.

Levi’s not alone. In a scathing dissent, Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson, a President Obama appointee, likened the First Circuit’s majority opinion to Plessy v. Ferguson – the 1896 Supreme Court case that sanctioned laws requiring racial segregation – and Korematsu v. United States – the 1944 Supreme Court case that found constitutional the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“Prejudice and fear of the unfamiliar have undoubtedly played a role in this matter’s protraction,” wrote Thompson. “Whether today’s decision brings this case to a close, I cannot say. But I am confident that this decision will not stand the test of time.”

Labels: , ,

Transgenderism, suicide, and mental illness

Let's review the basic situation.
I have no specific background in either law or medicine,
but I do read (some) newspapers.
They have frequently reported that
sufficient cause for involuntary commitment to a psychiatric institution
was evidence that "they present a danger to themselves or others".
As another example, prison inmates considered at risk for suicide
are generally put under a suicide watch.
In these situations, the access of the person to items which could be used for suicide or self-mutilation,
such as belts and razor blades,
is strictly limited.
In the extreme case, the person is put into a padded cell
and even put under some kind of physical restraints such as a straitjacket.
So, to the best of my knowledge, a person suspected of being at risk of suicide or self-mutilation
is considered seriously mentally ill,
and two things happen:
1. physical measures are taken to prevent the potential suicide or self-mutilation, and
2. the person will, possibly, be treated for mental illness by a psychiatric professional.

So why are transgenders, when they threaten suicide or self-mutilation
(as in the example of Chelsea Manning reported below),
treated differently?

I suppose one possible answer is that
if a person is put into such an unbearable situation
that a normal person would consider suicide the best alternative,
then the problem is not with the person,
but with the situation he finds himself in.
Prisoners of war being tortured would be an example.
If the torture is unbearable, than death is more desirable than continued torture.
But the key point is:
Would a normal person find the situation unbearable?

Suppose a high school student would threaten suicide unless they got what they want.
Would a school district be expected to give them what they want?
Of course not.
So why are the claims of "unbearable pain" by transgenders being taken as legitimate?

And if some transgenders do indeed commit suicide,
that by itself proves nothing.
People throughout history have gone to their death to advance a group goal.
Consider suicide bombers.
Or consider all those people who have burned themselves to death to make a point.
There have been many reported examples of such self-immolation,
again to make a political point.

In some cases, observers think the point is valid. The point is made.
In other cases, the point still seems irrational,
and the suicide is dismissed as
an unfortunate example of the consequences of mental illness.

So suicide, by itself, proves nothing.
The question, again, is
how would a normal person view the alleged reason for the suicide.

And transgenders certainly have not been considered normal.
Why should they be?

I think this difference,
in whether suicide is viewed as a result of mental illness or unbearable conditions,
indicates the arbitrariness and politicization of some of the judgements of psychology.





2015-02-13-AP-military-approves-hormone-treatment-for-chelsea-manning
Military Approves Hormone Treatment for Chelsea Manning
by Lolita C. Baldor
Associated Press, 2015-02-13

WASHINGTON --

Defense Department officials said Thursday that
hormone treatment for gender reassignment has been approved for Chelsea Manning,
the former intelligence analyst convicted of espionage
for sending classified documents to the WikiLeaks website.

...

The decision came after a lawsuit was filed in September
in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
It alleged
Manning was at a high risk of self-castration and suicide
unless she received more focused treatment for gender dysphoria,
the sense of being a woman in a man's body.

...








For an example of how the media normally explains suicide,
here is an example from the Washington Post:
2015-04-12-WP-rhythms-of-washington-return-after-illinois-mans-suicide-outside-capitol
Rhythms of Washington return after Illinois man’s suicide outside Capitol
By Victoria St. Martin and Michael Laris
Washington Post, 2015-04-12

[Emphasis added.]


The sightseers were back at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday,
roaming in the brilliant sun in the place where
a man had ended his young life in a tragic and spectacular fashion
just the day before.

Explanations remained elusive Sunday for what may have helped drive the man,
identified in police documents as Leo P. Thornton, 22, to commit suicide —
and to do so in one of the nation’s iconic places.

...

Thornton had a brown carry-on bag full of clothes
and a sign that Capitol Police Chief Kim Dine said touched on “social justice.”
A witness said people who saw the sign told him it read
“Tax the one percent.”

Whatever political component may seem to have been at play,
said Christine Moutier,
chief medical officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
and a former psychiatry professor at the University of California at San Diego,
suicide is primarily a mental health problem.
Research shows that
in more than 90 percent of the 40,000 American suicides each year,
an active mental health issue is at play, Moutier said.

“We often look to external cues, which are absolutely important.
But we have done that at the expense of
identifying the more internal mental health changes that are taking place
that are actually amenable to treatment,” Moutier said.
“The fact is that millions of Americans believe different political positions,
or lose their job, or get bullied,
and don’t actually entertain the idea of suicide.
There must be some underlying mental health and cognitive risk factors
at play.”


...

[Yeah, right.
But just let a "transgender" person commit suicide,
and see if the media scumbags trot out an "expert" to sing the same tune.
The evidence is that they (e.g., media editorial boards) do not,
but rather present the suicide of the "transgender" person
as evidence of "unbearable pain" the "transgender" is undergoing.
What a bunch of hypocritical, double standarding media bosses.]

Labels: , ,