RSS

Professor Says Doctors Should Amputate Healthy Limbs to Accommodate ‘Transabled’ Persons

26 Jun

Professor Says Doctors Should Amputate Healthy Limbs to Accommodate ‘Transabled’ Persons.

‘Transabled’, now. Heaven help us!

A Canadian professor who has interviewed a number of people who believe that they are a disabled person trapped in a healthy person’s body is stating that doctors should amputate the limbs of such people to accommodate their feelings and desires.

As previously reported, a recent article published by a Canadian newspaper outlined that now following transgenderism is a class of people who believe that they are disabled people trapped in a healthy person’s body—and are going so far as to injure and maim themselves so that they can align with their preferred identity.

“As the public begins to embrace people who identify as transgender, the trans people within the disability movement are also seeking their due, or at very least a bit of understanding in a public that cannot fathom why anyone would want to be anything other than healthy and mobile,” Sarah Boesveld with the National Post wrote on June 3.

One of the experts on the matter cited in her article included Clive Baldwin, an associate professor of social work at St. Thomas University in New Brunswick, who has interviewed nearly 40 “transabled” persons. Baldwin also appeared on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on Sunday, in which he further explained the condition, which is also known as Body Alignment Integrity Disorder.

“[I]t’s usually a very specific disability that people want,” he said. “It might be an above left knee amputation, or a right below elbow amputation. Some people want to be paralyzed. They don’t want their legs to work.”

Baldwin said that he has spoken to one person who even expressed a desire to be blind.

“Do you think that in Western civilization, therefore, doctors should indeed amputate an arm, or a leg or make somebody paralyzed or make somebody blind who is suffering from this issue—from being transabled?” Klein asked. “Do you think that we should go there?”

“After long, hard consideration, yes, that is a medical option to deal with this condition,” Baldwin replied. “It’s not a decision that is or should be taken lightly but it’s one medical option to deal with it.”

He said that those who have had the operation feel better about themselves as a result.

“Certainly those people who have had an amputation, they have [experienced] physical feelings of relief, they feel more confident in themselves. They feel empowered,” he said. “Having one arm or one leg is actually empowering. Our society has difficulty with that idea, I think, that having a disability is empowering.”

But Klein expressed hesitation, opining that the matter should be researched further to see if psychological treatment could rather be provided as opposed to making such a permanent decision to accommodate the person’s feelings.

Others have also expressed concern over the concept. Marsha West of Berean Research said that with “trans” persons becoming more vocal in today’s society, right and wrong is further becoming muddled.

“What’s really at issue here is that it’s no longer deemed appropriate to view people as having psychological disorders—and the fact of the matter is that trans-people do have a psychological disorder,” she wrote in a blog post earlier this month. “Because the Left is bent on making the most perverted and bizarre human behaviors ‘normal,’ pretty much anything goes in our moral relativistic society.”

Exactly.

All this, just for a better parking space! 😉

Advertisements
 

27 responses to “Professor Says Doctors Should Amputate Healthy Limbs to Accommodate ‘Transabled’ Persons

  1. Matt

    June 26, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    I was going to have a good response to this, but it really just boils down to a giant, glowing WTF?

    That said, I want to be transgenderracenational. I feel like I was meant to be a Japanese woman born in Kyoto, but instead I’m stuck in this white man’s body, unfortunately born in the USA. Can anyone help me?

     
  2. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    🙂

     
  3. oogenhand

    June 26, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Reblogged this on oogenhand.

     
  4. Lena S.

    June 26, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    I was born female and bipedal mammalian, but I think I’m a trans-male octopus trapped in a human white woman’s body that should have been trapped in a Chinese man’s body with an extra toe on each foot. If I really give it some thought, I’m really a trans-male octopus that is supposed to have an extra tentacle and a duck’s bill. What should I do? (Please don’t poke fun; I’m extremely sensitive, you transphobic racist piece of shit! You should be hung drawn and quartered for your totally wrong opinions, shitlord!)

    [The above is an attempt to satire something already so absurd the satire isn’t even funny. This disclaimer is required because pretty soon no one will be able to tell if this was serious or not and who knows what trouble that might cause.]

     
  5. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    LOL! 🙂

    Alas, indeed, such a disclaimer is needed; it truly is sad that such be necessary.

     
  6. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    I found it funny, anyway. 🙂

     
  7. Lena S.

    June 26, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    After I posted I thought I should have added some sort of fictional being, like an elf or something, but that might have been taking it too far. 😛

     
  8. Lena S.

    June 26, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Oh ffs. Now WordPress has a rainbow across the dashboard. I’m really getting sick of sodomites.

     
  9. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    🙂

    Ugh.

     
  10. Lena S.

    June 26, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    Sorry to threadjack, but have you seen this handy guide giving us the most “offensive” terms to use?

    http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

    I happen to agree that “homosexual” is offensive, since it implies equivalence with “heterosexual”, the proper term for which is “normal”. Or maybe if I put it this way: I find being referred to as “heterosexual” offensive; my preferred term is “normal”. If sodomites don’t want to call me and my ilk “normal”, then they are bigots and normalphobic.

    I think I need to get off the Internet, lol.

     
  11. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    🙂

    Have you seen in some prog style guides that some progs find the term ‘Jew’ or ‘Jews’ offensive, apparently because neo-Nazis use it, so instead they counsel using the term ‘Jewish person’ or ‘Jewish people’? WTF? An inoffensive descriptive term suddenly becomes offensive just because some people not liked by progs use it (when, actually, they could simply use derogatory terms)?

    What will they do if neo-Nazis start saying ‘Jewish’? Encourage use of ‘people of Hebrew extraction and/or faith’?

    Sheesh!

     
  12. Gerry T. Neal

    June 26, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    The original delusion that is behind all of this nonsense about changing reality to suit people’s self-delusions is the delusion of man the creature, that he is God, the Creator and hence the determiner of reality.

     
  13. ddswaterloo

    June 26, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    The left hates normality, standards and truths they can’t control for their own uses.

    Are these disabled people going to receive disability benefits and other tax benefits that I have to pay for???

    Then that has to stop. Once again those who pay are not those who decide or benefit. That needs to stop. These sick people see disability as a tool for other purposes. Thats their choice, but I should not have to subsidize it or support it. Enough.

     
  14. Senghendrake

    June 26, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Gerry T. Neal:

    So in other words, Early Modern Philosophy’s rejection of Scholasticism. I.E.The movement towards “ghost in the machine” dualism and the mind-dependent reality, solipsism, hyper-skepticism and relativism that it engendered.

     
  15. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    @ Gerry: Exactly!

    @ dds: Agreed.

    Like I said, they want those parking spaces – and probably anything else reserved in quotas for disabled people, no doubt including various benefits.

     
  16. James and the Giant Peach

    June 26, 2015 at 7:37 pm

    It talks about Alexandre Baril giving a talk at a “local university” and leaves out the name.

    Googling him we see : he is a professor at the feminist famous Wesleyan University, studying Gender and Sexuality Studies. And let’s take a look at his bio shall we?

    “He is currently exploring various discourses surrounding three types of body transformations: transsexuality, transability, and voluntary HIV acquisition. ”

    Not only does this guy support people mutilating themselves outwardly via unnecessary amputations, but also supports people voluntarily acquiring HIV.

    If he wants doctors to do these surgeries (no doubt funded by taxpayers, as well as all disability benefits!) he should have become a doctor himself. The thing is sick psychos like himself won’t pretend to care about people long enough to become a doctor, they would rather bitch and moan to the people who actually help society, by forcing them to mutilate others.

    At a time when America has few specialists, and even family care doctors, he would want to waste resources on purposefully mutilating people, as well as purposefully infecting people who want to be infected with HIV. People like him make me believe pure evil is possible in the world.

     
    • Will S.

      June 26, 2015 at 7:40 pm

      Ick! Sick and evil, indeed!

       
  17. Lena S.

    June 26, 2015 at 8:24 pm

     
  18. Senghendrake

    June 26, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    “[He] also supports people voluntarily acquiring HIV.”

    Sounds like a real winner. In any case, to use a recurring metaphor that I take no credit for, this professor is an example of a matador. Homosexuals are the red cape- simple pawns to be pitied rather than hated.

     
  19. ray

    June 26, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    Dr. Ray thinks we should amputate all the Professors of Social Work from the continental body.

    That’ll be five thousand dollars. No he don’t take checks.

    Cheers.

     
  20. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    @ Lena: LOL! 🙂

    @ ray: I second that! 🙂

     
  21. Will S.

    June 26, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    @ Senghendrake: Well, certainly they shouldn’t be hated. But they are complicit in their attacks on Christians trying to make a living with beds and breakfasts, wedding cake baking, etc.; they have shut down businesses by their actions; e.g. a recent example:

    http://christiannews.net/2015/06/21/mennonite-couple-who-stopped-hosting-weddings-due-to-homosexual-lawsuit-now-shuttering-business/

    So they are hardly innocent, like bulls egged on by a matador. Yes, other progressives may be using them to promote their goals, but they’re only to happy to join in, to enact vengeance against Christians, whom they view as having oppressed them for so long.

     
  22. Sanne

    June 27, 2015 at 8:52 am

    The real question here is: who is going to pay their disability checks?

     
  23. Will S.

    June 27, 2015 at 10:04 am

    The taxpayer, of course.

    Maybe we should all have our legs broken, so we can get some of our hard-earned tax money back! 😉

     
  24. Gerry T. Neal

    June 27, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    Senghendrake,

    Indeed. Richard Weaver traced it back to nominalism. Nominalism rejected universals, whether viewed as innate in the physical world ala Aristotle (to whom the Scholastics leaned) or in a world of their own ala Plato, and postulated that they are instead just the concepts and names we project on reality to make sense of it. This puts man in the role of God, the determiner of reality.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s