How gender affirming "care" violates ADA

Absent intent or authority as legal advice.

Just watch the video. Short and poignant.

Just like my….

https://rumble.com/v15kte1-gender-affirming-care-violates-ada.html

For clarity, Gender dysphoria or transsexualism is not a disability under ADA. BUT, the resulting trauma, and affected systems and major life activities that are permanently altered are still ADA-tied.

John Bobbit had a (catastrophic) penis amputation. Regardless of corrective surgery, this would have probably left him with post traumatic stress and perhaps bodily function disorders.

Another hiccup for the trans community is that they use the term “transgender” which is NOT mentioned in the ADA.

42 USC 12211(b) states:

(b)Certain conditionsUnder this chapter, the term “disability” shall not include—

(1) “transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;”

First, gender identity disorders that are from physical impairments could be interpreted broadly, because the ADA Amendments Act purpose statement says:

From Title II, 28 C.F.R. §35.101(b)

The primary purpose of the ADA Amendments Act is to make it easier for people with disabilities to obtain protection under the ADA. Consistent with the ADA Amendments Act’s purpose of reinstating a broad scope of protection under the ADA, the definition of “disability” in this part shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not whether the individual meets the definition of disability. The question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis. (emphasis added).

So, a physical impairment could be interpreted as being born into the wrong body, which is what the trans community believes. (Which begs the question - how do they know they have the correct mind?)

There is much room to use in the terms “construed broadly” and “expansive coverage” and “maximum extent permitted”.

If someone is born into the wrong body, is that a physical impairment? This is a question that, if presented to the federal judiciary, might end up in catalyzing WW3.

There is also the argument that by specifically omitting these categories from the ADA (along with homosexuality and bisexuality), it could be interpreted that Congress had intent to say that these things are normal. If that is the case, it is earth-shaking.

That possibility being true would strongly infer that people who enter that level of society are involved in things they want left alone…

It also presents the disturbing argument that because Congress omitted pedophilia from the ADA as a disability, those wanting to pursue it as a normal course of action have an argument that seems to be supported by this omission. YIKES.

Transsexual v. Transgender

Now, to finalize my thought about transsexual vs transgender. The trans community has shied away from the term “transsexual”. I’m not claiming to be an expert on this, but have observed that they want the “transgender” term, because gender (to them) is a choice.