Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wtc911
"You appear to be emotionally invested in maintaining an aura of infallibilty in Farah's writing."

I have no interest in Farah whatsoever. I very rarely read Farah or WND, and I have never posted him before. And if you read my last post (#25) you'll see no emotional investment. You would be more persuasive if you would simply provide the facts as requested, and refrain from ad-hominem insinuations.

You asserted that "farah conveniently left out the part of the change that requires each applicant to document an on-going process of treatment leading to a complete 'sex-change' procedure." That's quite significant, if true, but you have been asked twice to document this, and have twice declined. (Why?)

The link I provided to the Washington Post article on this, did not report any such requirement. Again, can you document that this is a requirement? All it would take is a link. I'd be interested in seeing it.

29 posted on 11/09/2006 6:54:47 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (As always, striving for accuracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

"The new plan, unveiled in September would also allow changes for people who hadn't had genital surgery, but could show substantial proof that they have undertaken other steps to irrevocably alter their gender-identity - like undergoing hormone therapy."

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1106/373428.html

Of course, just as big a problem than "journalists" writing misleading articles, is "journalists" who don't know the difference between homosexuals and transsexuals.


30 posted on 11/09/2006 1:46:46 PM PST by ErnieBert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson