...so it's their fault for dying from HIV and AIDS is it? A pair of diseases not well understood in their time, and if anything seem to have been mostly unleashed by the "free love" of the 1960s.
Right.
And the religious right remain utterly shocked as to why no one takes them seriously anymore...
HIV is a sexually-transmitted disease. It was
known to be a sexually transmitted disease in the 80's, but the LGBT activists and leftist 'allies' insisted that government money be spent by the Reagan to find a cure for the disease. And then they relentlessly attacked him as being homophobic/whatever else.
Even though government money
was spent, just not as much as they wanted.
Now, let's be clear. There is already a 99%+ reliable way of dealing with the AIDS problem. Don't have sex with people who are HIV positive. Even better, be monogamous, but you don't
actually have to go that far to do so. While this will not be a cure for people who currently have it, it
will stop it from spreading, and would basically wipe it out within a generation.
There are other diseases, which people do
not have a choice in whether or not they contract or develop, which are also in need of cures. Why should we
preferentially dedicate funding to curing a disease that already has a reliable method for being dealt with?
Now, if you want to give your money to a research project for HIV treatment, by all means. I might even do so myself, some day, though I'm not exactly a wealthy person. It's certainly a field of research worth pursuing, especially on behalf of those who (through contaminated blood transfusion or other rare means) are infected through no fault of their own. I certainly do not begrudge treatment for those who
do have it on their own fault either.
But people who lived highly promiscuous lives, then got infected with an STD, especially one as deadly and expensive to treat as HIV, are
not owed by society public money to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. That is correctly the domain of private charity and the like.
This is not 'hateful,' this is
truthful. Rewarding people for bad behavior is not loving, it is
evil.
No, gender dysphoria the condition has nothing to do with how you or I define gender. What matters is how the person with dysphoria sees their body matching up with how their body actually looks.
Basically, if you had someone who delusionally thought they had red hair, a cure would be dying it. It doesn't matter afterwards if the hair is actually blonde, as long as the do the proper dye routine, their self image will match the image they see in the mirror.
This is not a 'cure,' this is rejecting reality and substituting the fantasy. In this case, it's relatively harmless, because hair can easily be re-dyed or replaced.
The kind of treatments given for 'transitioning?' Puberty blockers can and do cause lifelong health problems. Hormone therapy screws up your hormonal balance like crazy, unsurprisingly. Cutting off fully-functional body parts and grafting on non-functional facsimiles of the other gender's reproductive organs?
That violates the rule of 'first, do no harm.'
There are
extremely rare cases of what used to be called 'intersex,' people who are genuinely born with extra chromosomes, or crazy hormone imbalances that result in them having sexual characteristics of both genders. People in those circumstances have some difficult decisions to make, and I do not envy them that position.
But the
overwhelming majority of 'trans' people do not have any of those conditions. They're simply channeling their discontent with life into the delusion that if they were the other gender, they'd be happy. Indulging that delusion hurts them, it does not help them.
