North Carolina, Georgia, and now Mississippi.

[AgentHomo]

Three states have proposed bills that would grant churches the right to discriminate against the LGBT community. Disney and Apple have been some among a plethora of companies that threatened to end business with George if the bill was passed. Luckily the bill was vetoed (VICTORY!).

Unfortunately, the victory was short lived when North Carolina passed HB2 which overturns any protection the LGBT community has from discrimination (a major loss indeed.) Now transgendered citizens in North Carolina are forced to use the bathrooms corresponding to the gender they were assigned to at birth. Trans individuals are now being discriminated against by a single state. Let's hope the bigotry and homophobic ignorance of that state's government destroys them in a display of ultimate karma. Here's to the companies that will boycott North Carolina, I support you!

Even worse is Mississippi. That state's government is currently planning on a bill that will deny members of the LGBT community services such as weddings, adoption, and counseling just to name a few. The governor, Phil Bryant, claims that the bill is to ensure the Christian faith is protected from discrimination. This sounds contradictory to the big win of 2015 in which the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in all fifty states. Mississippi is planning on going against the highest law in the land. Sad, in my research I found that four justices voted against same sex marriage last summer. I still think they should be unemployed. I digress. I always thought of Mississippi being a backwater, podunk, bible belt state that would actually consider something as preposterous and bigoted as this. I'm not surprised. Let's hope that the LGBT community will make their voices heard in Mississippi then hold North Carolina accountable for the ridiculousness that abounds in those two states.

I personally will not back down and continue to protest for complete equality. I urge all members of the LGBT community to do the same until global equality has been achieved.

[Vlerchan]

This sounds contradictory to the big win of 2015 in which the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in all fifty states.
It's not. This bill reserves the right for firms to refuse to serve LGBT if religious or ethical concerns persist.

Obergefell v. Hodges [2015] held that the right to marriage - as guaranteed under statute - must be extended to same-sex couples as per the Equal Protections clause in the constitution.

Sad, in my research I found that four justices voted against same sex marriage last summer. I still think they should be unemployed.
I think this is a textbook example of why permanence of office is such a valuable cornerstone of constitutional democracy.

[KingWavy]

wow, thats a lot of information. Thanks for that!!

[West Coast Sheriff]

in my research I found that four justices voted against same sex marriage last summer. I still think they should be unemployed. I digress. I always thought of Mississippi being a backwater, podunk, bible belt state that would actually consider something as preposterous and bigoted as this

I'm sure you feel a lot of resentment towards this opposing view; however, you are neglecting to view the situation through their eyes. Different individuals adhere to different principles and to condemn someone for their actions would be hateful.

The courts ruled that clerks ought to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples. It doesn't force churches and other institutions to submit to other people's beliefs. We have to respect the liberty and justice of all groups. We cannot force churches, bakeries and other institutions to go against their beliefs. It would result in a direct violation of their person freedoms. It's not ethical to infringe on the rights of others due to ones personal views.

I know your post was more focused at the state governments and their actions, however, I did want to comment on the lack of under there seems to be for those with opposing viewpoints.

[Porpoise101]

I agree that the mistreatment of people is bad. Those states that have made those laws are an example not to be followed. However, neither is Georgia. Georgia's case worries me because it showed that the influence of corporations has gone too far. Apparently they now have the ability to openly force a governor to veto and pass bills. Wonderful.

[Uniquemind]

I agree that the mistreatment of people is bad. Those states that have made those laws are an example not to be followed. However, neither is Georgia. Georgia's case worries me because it showed that the influence of corporations has gone too far. Apparently they now have the ability to openly force a governor to veto and pass bills. Wonderful.

At least their on the side of right on this issue.

And this issue works well because it's biased in the news headlines because the headline is bent towards social justice verbiage.

[sqishy]

Three states have proposed bills that would grant churches the right to discriminate against the LGBT community. Disney and Apple have been some among a plethora of companies that threatened to end business with George if the bill was passed. Luckily the bill was vetoed (VICTORY!).

So it is a sort of boycott if these bills pass. While it works in favour of LGBT+, it does basically show that there's a problem with the system if companies can sway the course of legislation, as opposed to people (which democracy is supposed to do).

Don't worry, I am on your side (if we take the us-other side view), but just pointing out some things.


Unfortunately, the victory was short lived when North Carolina passed HB2 which overturns any protection the LGBT community has from discrimination (a major loss indeed.) Now transgendered citizens in North Carolina are forced to use the bathrooms corresponding to the gender they were assigned to at birth.

A step backwards, indeed.


Even worse is Mississippi. That state's government is currently planning on a bill that will deny members of the LGBT community services such as weddings, adoption, and counseling just to name a few.

I wonder if this means that LGBT+ will be denied services in general, or those who offer the services will be given justified freedom to not serve LGBT+ on grounds of them being LGBT+ (in sight of the law). I expect it is the latter - only want to clarify.



I still think they should be unemployed. I digress.

I wouldn't go as far as firing/etc those who disagree with viewpoints regarding LGBT+. Unless it is overall to the effect that it endangers LGBT+ getting sufficient services (and sufficient ease, as in not having to travel 100s of km to get them), and/or it causes LGBT+ more than just localised denial of service, then should we be threatening people's jobs because of their views on others? I feel there is another way that does not involve threatening, but at the least talking it through. Up-front threatening of removal of aspects of a person's livelihood is something that neither 'side' should do. (Again, I am overall on 'your side', but I want to say this too.)




I think this is a textbook example of why permanence of office is such a valuable cornerstone of constitutional democracy.

Does this mean one being guaranteed their occupation as part of their rights?

[Vlerchan]

Does this mean one being guaranteed their occupation as part of their rights?

Judges can't be made redundant outside of under specific conditions laid out in the constitution. It's to ensure independence from the political domain.

I expect it is the latter - only want to clarify.
It's the latter.

[Exocet]

Sorry to say being LGBT isn't a crime nor is it an sickness so can't be fixed by a Dr and meds. But ignorant fucks can be educated. VT is for everyone no matter what they are or who they like. But isn't a place for you to preach hate to many of its members. I know you are fond of the Nazi party for when we chatted before the head of the SA was a gay man. Yes I know he was killed but LGBT is powerful more powerful than any on against its rights.

I have the right to be against this community,and you can tell me whatever you want,my perception wouldn't change. To me just like billions of anti LGBT.
Are u going to sue me or what ?

[Vermilion]

No just laugh as you freak out watching men kiss men and women kiss women. And a trans person using a different toilet to what you like

[Porpoise101]

To me just like billions of anti LGBT. This brings up an important point. Most people around the world are either against or neutral to the LGBT community I'm sure.

[Kahn]

This brings up an important point. Most people around the world are either against or neutral to the LGBT community I'm sure.

Speaking for myself I don't think LGBT rights are as important an issue as the media makes it out to be. There are far greater issues we have to deal with in comparison to LGBT rights (the growing wealth inequality, our staggering debt, the growing discontent with Congress, the general apathy of the population, etc, etc.) and, quite frankly, I thought the amount of coverage the Supreme Court ruling received was rather laughable. Less than 4% of the American population identify as LGBT. It sure was a historic moment for an incredibly small minority of the population; for the rest of the population, it hardly effected a damn thing. I'm of the opinion that it does not compare to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, though many (especially around our age) tried to make it seem like it was it's equal.

I'm not saying these things to offend the community here- I'm all for allowing gay marriage and equal workplace opportunities. I just think that, in the grand scheme of things, it didn't/doesn't deserve to be blown so out of proportion.

Just an opinion.

[sqishy]

Judges can't be made redundant outside of under specific conditions laid out in the constitution. It's to ensure independence from the political domain.


It's the latter.

Thanks for the explanation.

Speaking for myself I don't think LGBT rights are as important an issue as the media makes it out to be. There are far greater issues we have to deal with in comparison to LGBT rights (the growing wealth inequality, our staggering debt, the growing discontent with Congress, the general apathy of the population, etc, etc.) and, quite frankly, I thought the amount of coverage the Supreme Court ruling received was rather laughable. Less than 4% of the American population identify as LGBT. It sure was a historic moment for an incredibly small minority of the population; for the rest of the population, it hardly effected a damn thing. I'm of the opinion that it does not compare to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, though many (especially around our age) tried to make it seem like it was it's equal.

I'm not saying these things to offend the community here- I'm all for allowing gay marriage and equal workplace opportunities. I just think that, in the grand scheme of things, it didn't/doesn't deserve to be blown so out of proportion.

Just an opinion.

I do agree with this, so long as more important aspects of politics/society/etc get more coverage, as opposed to this topic (for example) getting less and less past the point of needed awareness raised for it.

[SethfromMI]

Churches were never forced to accept the whole gay marriage thing. if the churches were government owned/ran that would be one thing. but they're not.

[Sailor Mars]

Keep arguments and hate speech out of this thread. Thank you.

[Porpoise101]

Churches were never forced to accept the whole gay marriage thing. if the churches were government owned/ran that would be one thing. but they're not.
I agree that churches, mosques, and temples should not be forced to do such things. But people like bakers should serve anyone because at that point it becomes solely discrimination if they don't. If a Christian baker sold cakes to a thief, a murderer, or even a lier than they should serve to gay men.

[Uniquemind]

I agree that churches, mosques, and temples should not be forced to do such things. But people like bakers should serve anyone because at that point it becomes solely discrimination if they don't. If a Christian baker sold cakes to a thief, a murderer, or even a lier than they should serve to gay men.

Yeah if you're gonna claim "religious reasons" then by the entire faith's tenants you better be consistently restrictive on the same grounds to who you serve or do business with.

In my opinion State marriage licenses, might be illegitimate in the eyes of God, but for a state or legal political matter that shouldn't matter.

Marriage is an earthly construct, it flat out states in the bible that there is no marriage in heaven for anybody.

So why is this even a political issue? It's because so called "Christians" and even well recognized religious figureheads like the POPE don't understand this.


Earthly things are separate from heavenly things and that's a biblically argument do a separation between church and state.



Those clerks can quit their job and get a religious paying job if they feel their rights are being violated.

Their hearts made them feel attached to their job because their attached emotionally to their paycheck from said job.

So their trying to have their cake and eat it too by making this giant legal stink.


So at the end of the day do I mind that businesses are pulling out of states who pass stupid bills like this? No I don't and I think it completely fair for the citizens of such a state to feel pressure to then tell their political representatives to change their views as pertains to their job.


I strongly believe that if you are a politician, you are a puppet of the people and should have no will or view as long as you act for the State. On your private time sure have affairs, opinions etc. but not as a legal representative.

[Stronk Serb]

So? I guess you would be happy to deny service to the "privileged bigots". There are more pressing matters than gay rights, like the economy, education in the toilet, growing inequality. It's not like homosexuals in the US are lashed to crosses, forced to wear rainbow armbands and are treated like scum.

[Uniquemind]

So? I guess you would be happy to deny service to the "privileged bigots". There are more pressing matters than gay rights, like the economy, education in the toilet, growing inequality. It's not like homosexuals in the US are lashed to crosses, forced to wear rainbow armbands and are treated like scum.

Sometimes they are actually.

But yes address the other problems too, this issue has little to no effect on policies meant to fix the economy.

It's a small problem to continue the discrimination, and it's also a small problem to end it.

Next problem assignment plz.

[Stronk Serb]

Sometimes they are actually.

But yes address the other problems too, this issue has little to no effect on policies meant to fix the economy.

It's a small problem to continue the discrimination, and it's also a small problem to end it.

Next problem assignment plz.

I mean, by pure logic:

Should we make lives better for 4% of our total population by doing this, or make lives better for 100% of our population by doing that? I'd say do the second thing.

[Vlerchan]

But yes address the other problems too, this issue has little to no effect on policies meant to fix the economy.
The worthwhile question though is whether it would be boon to have the low-grade intellectual that tends to be a disproportionate representation amongst social activists start diagnosing and prescribing soloutions for our economy.

I genuinely don't see the benefit of more popular involvement on what's a substantially technical issue.

Should we make lives better for 4% of our total population by doing this, or make lives better for 100% of our population by doing that? I'd say do the second thing.
Or we could just encourage specialisation of our interest groups and get both done.

[sqishy]

I mean, by pure logic:

Should we make lives better for 4% of our total population by doing this, or make lives better for 100% of our population by doing that? I'd say do the second thing.

What do you mean by the 100% thing? (Just wondering.)

[Porpoise101]

I mean, by pure logic:

Should we make lives better for 4% of our total population by doing this, or make lives better for 100% of our population by doing that? I'd say do the second thing.
It's not a zero-sum world we live in. We can do the other issues later at any time. Personally, I'd rather they would just put an equality amendment in the Constitution so it's out of the way forever, but we decided to take the slow way. Making equal opportunity for everyone also benefits the whole society because that 4% will have more potential and can make a bigger positive impact on society. A genius in the 4% might be more hidden and have a harder time working because people don't accept them. But if they were treated well, then maybe they would be more productive and their merit would be recognised earlier.

[Stronk Serb]

What do you mean by the 100% thing? (Just wondering.)

Instead of going group by group, you could pass legislation and do things that benefit the whole population first, then move on to groups.

It's not a zero-sum world we live in. We can do the other issues later at any time. Personally, I'd rather they would just put an equality amendment in the Constitution so it's out of the way forever, but we decided to take the slow way. Making equal opportunity for everyone also benefits the whole society because that 4% will have more potential and can make a bigger positive impact on society. A genius in the 4% might be more hidden and have a harder time working because people don't accept them. But if they were treated well, then maybe they would be more productive and their merit would be recognised earlier.

Just put it in the Constitution is it okay or not. I don't really care anymore. The gay lobby is not my thing anyways and they are getting annoying. This way people will finally shut their mouth about it and move on with something meaningful.

[sqishy]

Instead of going group by group, you could pass legislation and do things that benefit the whole population first, then move on to groups.


Perhaps yes, if the relevant legislation for both couldn't be done at the same time, which I don't see needing to happen.

[DriveAlive]

First of all, businesses that are not government run have the ability to deny service if they so choose. I also think that it is ridiculous to demand that any religious group recognize or perform gay marriage.

Second, I do not understand transgenderism enough and I will admit that. But I do think that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their anatomy. Life is not fair and I get that you want to be the opposite gender, but you are not. I do not mean to be incentive, I just do not think that this is a valid argument.

Finally, I think that all of this pressure for equality should be focused more on women than transgenders. The sexism in this country is ridiculous but nothing is getting done about it becuase it is not hip right now.

[sqishy]

First of all, businesses that are not government run have the ability to deny service if they so choose. I also think that it is ridiculous to demand that any religious group recognize or perform gay marriage.

This may be me making an educated guess that is too naive, but I thought denial of service was justified only if those offering the service were being insulted, harassed, assaulted, etc, or just if the customers were being unfair in general. The denial of service is reactionary due to an action, or (anticipated even) intention to action, of the customer.

I take same/different-sex marriage to be unable to do any of that. So I don't get what businesses intending to deny gay/bi/etc couples their service, have on their side here.



Second, I do not understand transgenderism enough and I will admit that. But I do think that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their anatomy. Life is not fair and I get that you want to be the opposite gender, but you are not. I do not mean to be incentive, I just do not think that this is a valid argument.

I won't go over my views because I already did in that 'transgenderism' thread recently.
I simply don't see how this is relevant (I'm not trying to stir up anything).

[Vlerchan]

but I thought denial of service was justified only if those offering the service were being insulted, harassed, assaulted, etc, or just if the customers were being unfair in general.
I'm a man of god and I find the presence of gays insulting.

Is that enough on the basis of those criterion?

The sexism in this country is ridiculous but nothing is getting done about it becuase it is not hip right now.
I would be interested if you could list some everyday examples of sexism.

[sqishy]

I'm a man of god and I find the presence of gays insulting.

Is that enough on the basis of those criterion?


You get to the issue with clarity. :P

I will add to what I said, that the actions/etc of the customer also have an impact on the performance of the business.

(This should happen with the criteria already put down, but your counterexample is slippery so yeah.)

I say in advance that I'm not going to accept your 'man of god' construct saying that the insult is interfering with his concentration and therefore his business. If we're going to allow this, then it opens a huge area of denying services due to stuff like this, for pretty much any customer.

[Porpoise101]

The sexism in this country is ridiculous but nothing is getting done about it becuase it is not hip right now.
Have you heard of intersectional feminism perhaps?

Otherwise, there are limits to refusal of service already. According to Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "places of public accommodation" (including restaurants, motels, and many more) cannot refuse service on account of age, race, national origin, and more. Religious organizations are not allowed to discriminate in this way either usually. The exception is creed when hiring. So a church can discriminate against Jews or Hindus when hiring. Seeing as we already have similar protection for these groups already, why shouldn't we add protections to LGBT? At least I think we should in places like restaurants.

[Arkansasguy]

Three states have proposed bills that would grant churches the right to discriminate against the LGBT community. Disney and Apple have been some among a plethora of companies that threatened to end business with George if the bill was passed. Luckily the bill was vetoed (VICTORY!).

Unfortunately, the victory was short lived when North Carolina passed HB2 which overturns any protection the LGBT community has from discrimination (a major loss indeed.) Now transgendered citizens in North Carolina are forced to use the bathrooms corresponding to the gender they were assigned to at birth. Trans individuals are now being discriminated against by a single state. Let's hope the bigotry and homophobic ignorance of that state's government destroys them in a display of ultimate karma. Here's to the companies that will boycott North Carolina, I support you!

Even worse is Mississippi. That state's government is currently planning on a bill that will deny members of the LGBT community services such as weddings, adoption, and counseling just to name a few. The governor, Phil Bryant, claims that the bill is to ensure the Christian faith is protected from discrimination. This sounds contradictory to the big win of 2015 in which the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in all fifty states. Mississippi is planning on going against the highest law in the land. Sad, in my research I found that four justices voted against same sex marriage last summer. I still think they should be unemployed. I digress. I always thought of Mississippi being a backwater, podunk, bible belt state that would actually consider something as preposterous and bigoted as this. I'm not surprised. Let's hope that the LGBT community will make their voices heard in Mississippi then hold North Carolina accountable for the ridiculousness that abounds in those two states.

I personally will not back down and continue to protest for complete equality. I urge all members of the LGBT community to do the same until global equality has been achieved.

People should be required to use the correct bathrooms.

[lliam]

People should be required to use the correct bathrooms.

You put the whole text of the intro post in your quote for just that bit of text? I hardly noticed your statement for that reason.



Anyway. I think, that toilet-prob is ridiculous . The solution is simple: unisex toilets ... exists already.

http://queereka.com/files/2015/03/whichever.png

[Porpoise101]

You put the whole text of the intro post in your quote for just that bit of text? I hardly noticed your statement for that reason.



Anyway. I think, that toilet-prob is ridiculous . The solution is simple: unisex toilets ... exists already.

image (http://queereka.com/files/2015/03/whichever.png)
Yes, what even is the problem with sharing bathrooms anyways? Nowadays people are sensitive to sexual harassment, so anything that does happen will have consequences.

[Stronk Serb]

People should be required to use the correct bathrooms.

Gr8 post m8

Yes, what even is the problem with sharing bathrooms anyways? Nowadays people are sensitive to sexual harassment, so anything that does happen will have consequences.

Because in some areas where transgenders are allowed in oposite sex bathrooms have had an increase of whackos who are posing as transgender and who woul come into women's bathroom to jerk off. Helping transgenders this way is like giving crack to a junkie, it helps them a bit, but makes it worse in the long run. Also I can reverse-logic your question and ask what is the problem if people don't share bathrooms with the opposite biological sex?

[lliam]

Yes, what even is the problem with sharing bathrooms anyways? Nowadays people are sensitive to sexual harassment, so anything that does happen will have consequences.


I know it's ridiculous, when I talk about the good old times. But I really got the impression that we are partly over-sensitized in terms of social intercourse, err, interaction, than folks, let's say, 30 or 40 years ago. We've become pussy weaklings. And the moral of our days seems still to be more bigoted than it already was in those older times.


btw: Think about it, men dared to walk around wearing stuff like this ... in the 1970s/1980s.


http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/46/4623/YFTFG00Z/posters/retro-male-fashion-model-1970s-yellow-shorts-posing-kitsch.jpg


Nowadays you'll be sued for this. Cause of sexual harrasement or such. :D

[Katie96xox]

Oh dear, the politically correct outrage police are out in full force again. These bills are not homophobic, they are defending liberty and freedom of religion. If someone is opposed to gay marriage then why force them to participate in a gay wedding? If someone finds golf boring I'd forgive them for not watching all four days of the Masters plus the par-3 contest with me. It's the same principle.

As a lesbian, if someone opposed to homosexuality keeps their views to themselves and doesn't try to force their views onto me then I won't force my homosexuality onto them. Some of the gay activists seem to be seeking out Christian businesses with the sole intention of getting them shut down and sent through the courts. There are plenty of gay friendly businesses out there for us to use. If you want to force a devout Mormon to bake you a gay wedding cake and a devout Southern Baptist to be the photographer at your gay wedding that will be celebrated in a service by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church then maybe you deserve the so called "homophobic abuse". When you falsely label this legislation "homophobic" please stop pretending you speak on behalf of all gays and lesbians because you don't speak for me. When I get married I won't force anyone who opposes gay marriage to be involved because if I did then I would be doing something far more bigoted and hateful than them.

As for transgender bathroom use, if I ever run into a man in a dress in the ladies' toilets then once I'm finished with him he'll never use the ladies' room again.

[Porpoise101]

Also I can reverse-logic your question and ask what is the problem if people don't share bathrooms with the opposite biological sex?
That was my question. I was asking why all bathrooms be unisex in the US.

[sqishy]

As for transgender bathroom use, if I ever run into a man in a dress in the ladies' toilets then once I'm finished with him he'll never use the ladies' room again.

I guess LGBT means little to you then.

[Stronk Serb]

That was my question. I was asking why all bathrooms be unisex in the US.

Because men would bee like ewww someone threw a bloody tampon in the toiled and women would be like ewwww some man peed and didn't lift the toiled seat. Why fix something that isn't broken?

[Porpoise101]

Because men would bee like ewww someone threw a bloody tampon in the toiled and women would be like ewwww some man peed and didn't lift the toiled seat. Why fix something that isn't broken?
It's broken in some way if there are malcontents in the system. In this case, it's the transgender people. There already are unisex bathrooms though so why couldn't that just be the standard?

[Stronk Serb]

It's broken in some way if there are malcontents in the system. In this case, it's the transgender people. There already are unisex bathrooms though so why couldn't that just be the standard?

I don't really see it that way. Transgenderism is a disorder and instead of obliging them to their ilness, we should be helping them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839957

[Vlerchan]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839957[/url]

N = 1.

CONCLUSION:
Pharmacotherapy with pimozide should be considered in cases of doubtful gender dysphoria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839957

For those reasons this study isn't very useful.

[Stronk Serb]

N = 1.

CONCLUSION:
Pharmacotherapy with pimozide should be considered in cases of doubtful gender dysphoria.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839957

For those reasons this study isn't very useful.

It might not be THE cure, but it opens doors to possible treatment.

[Vlerchan]

It might not be THE cure, but it opens doors to possible treatment.
But it doesn't and the report has no pretences it does. The subject didn't have gender diaspora. The report refers to such a diagnosis as being doubtful.

Generally, both clinics believe that
those adolescents with higher levels of psychopathology,
less gender dysphoria and/or more recent onset of their
wish for sex reassignment should be followed over a period
of time in order to treat the more obvious psychopathology
(e.g., depression, psychosis, body dysmorphic disorder)
and to see if treatment of the psychopathology will lead to
a reduction in the wish to proceed to SRS (see case reports
of change in wish for SRS with treatment of comorbid
psychopathology (99-102)

Byne et al. (2011) Report of the APA Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder, pp. 14.

This draws on Puri and Singh (1996) amongst others. The point of their research was that in cases where gender diaspora is built on other - more obvious - psychopathological symptoms, psychiatrists should make an attempt to deal with and reduce these before addressing the gender diaspora. It was never suggesting that gender diaspora is treatable with pimozide.

[Stronk Serb]

But it doesn't and the report has no pretences it does. The subject didn't have gender diaspora. The report refers to such a diagnosis as being doubtful.

Generally, both clinics believe that
those adolescents with higher levels of psychopathology,
less gender dysphoria and/or more recent onset of their
wish for sex reassignment should be followed over a period
of time in order to treat the more obvious psychopathology
(e.g., depression, psychosis, body dysmorphic disorder)
and to see if treatment of the psychopathology will lead to
a reduction in the wish to proceed to SRS (see case reports
of change in wish for SRS with treatment of comorbid
psychopathology (99-102)

Byne et al. (2011) Report of the APA Task Force on Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder, pp. 14.

This draws on Puri and Singh (1996) amongst others. The point of their research was that in cases where gender diaspora is built on other - more obvious - psychopathological symptoms, psychiatrists should make an attempt to deal with and reduce these before addressing the gender diaspora. It was never suggesting that gender diaspora is treatable with pimozide.

I wasn't stating it was all treatable with pimozide in my last post, but that that treatmen opens the possibility of making a way to treat it, not with pimozide but with some other drug, or developing another drug.

[Vlerchan]

I wasn't stating it was all treatable with pimozide in my last post, but that that treatmen opens the possibility of making a way to treat it, not with pimozide but with some other drug, or developing another drug.
In that case there's no reason that one condition being treatable means that another - separate - condition is also treatable.