In a Universe Next Door ... #2

It could never happen here.

Burger also suggested that O’Donald’s symptoms of Heart Disease were not severe enough to make surgery a medical necessity. She pointed to a letter written by O’Donald explaining that she had put off open-heart surgery for two years until her son graduated from high school.

“In fact you were able to choose the timing of your surgery,” Hamilton told O’Donald. “You could wait two years until your child went to college to continue with your surgery.”

Burger argued that because O’Donald was able to come out as a heart patient on the job after acquiring a wheelchair, she did not meet the requirements of the cardiac diagnosis of being significantly impaired.

“Isn’t this inconsistent with someone who is significantly impaired?” she asked Ellaborn.

The Heart Foundation's Lioney followed up that question with Sanborn, asking if O’Donnabhain’s continued employment meant that she was no longer impaired. Sanborn said it did not.

“She was able to both simultaneously be unable to run and do her job,” said Sanborn.

Burger also called into question the credentials and reliability of the therapists. In particular she singled out Lanten, asking him to disclose whether or not he himself had a heart attack in the past. The Heart Foundation objected, claiming that the only reason to ask the question was to prejudice the court against the witness, but Burger said the question was important to show potential bias. Judge Storm permitted Burger to ask the question, and Lanten disclosed that he had had surgery for cardiac disease.

On the second day of the trial Mikalchus continued the tactic of questioning O’Donald’s Myocardial Infarct diagnosis, this time through his cross-examination of Green. He asked Green if people seeking treatment for Myocardoal Infarct might instead have Cardiaphillia, a concept promoted by controversial heart therapist Roy Whitehart that suggests some Heart Patients may be are sexually aroused by the thought of being in a wheelchair. Green said he did not subscribe to Whitehart’s theories, which have been widely rejected by the cardiac patient community.

Magonacus also posited that O’Donald’s therapists misdiagnosed her and that she may suffer from Influenza, a debilitating disorder which can lead to feelings of weakness.

Green countered by saying, “People who have Influenza don’t want their chests cracked open … It’s very important to them.”

The trial is expected to run through the end of this week. After that the trial will resume later next month to allow one more witness to testify.

Ridiculous, Right? Tax Accountants questioning the evaluation of medics who specialise in the area, even arguing that the disease itself is imaginary, and doesn't exist.

Well, in this Universe....

Hamilton also suggested that O’Donnabhain’s symptoms of GID were not severe enough to make surgery a medical necessity. She pointed to a letter written by O’Donnabhain explaining that she had put off sex-reassignment surgery for two years until her son graduated from high school.

“In fact you were able to choose the timing of your changes,” Hamilton told O’Donnabhain. “You could wait two years until your child went to college to continue with your changes.”

Hamilton argued that because O’Donnabhain was able to come out on the job after taking hormones and presenting as female, she did not meet the requirements of the GID diagnosis of being significantly impaired.

“Isn’t this inconsistent with someone who is significantly impaired?” she asked Ellaborn.

GLAD’s Loewy followed up that question with Ellaborn, asking if O’Donnabhain’s continued employment meant that she was no longer impaired. Ellaborn said it did not.

“She was able to both simultaneously think about her gender disphoria and do her job,” said Ellaborn.

Hamilton also called into question the credentials and reliability of the therapists. In particular she singled out Coleman, asking him to disclose whether or not he himself is transgender. GLAD objected, claiming that the only reason to ask the question was to prejudice the court against the witness, but Hamilton said the question was important to show potential bias. Judge Gale permitted Hamilton to ask the question, and Coleman disclosed that he was an FTM.

On the second day of the trial Mikalchus continued the tactic of questioning O’Donnabhain’s GID diagnosis, this time through his cross-examination of Brown. He asked Brown if people seeking treatment for GID might instead have autogynephilia, a concept promoted by controversial sexologist Ray Blanchard that suggests some transwomen may be men who are aroused by the thought of having a vagina. Brown said he did not subscribe to Blanchard’s theories, which have been widely rejected by the transgender community.

Mikalchus also posited that O’Donnabhain’s therapists misdiagnosed her and that she may suffer from transvestic fetishism, a disorder in which men are sexually aroused by dressing in women’s clothes.

Brown countered by saying, “People who are transvestic fetishists don’t want their penises cut off … It’s very important to them.”

The trial is expected to run through the end of this week. After that the trial will resume later next month to allow one more witness to testify.

Some more about the man whose theories the IRS finds so convincing:

Dr. Ray Blanchard resigned from the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA) in protest to the ethics investigation of his protégé, J. Michael Bailey. Blanchard, a psychiatrist, member of a eugenics think tank, and vocal proponent of repathologizing homosexuality as a mental illness, still runs Toronto’s Clarke Institute as a maximum security processing facility, using the same procedures, locked rooms and shared space areas for pedophiles, rapists, homosexuals, and transsexuals.

Bailey admitted later that there were bits of his book that he just made up.

From Andrea James' BBL Clearinghouse:

In November 2004, Northwestern University reported that Bailey resigned as Psychology Department Chair and that Northwestern was taking secret unspecified action against Bailey based on their findings. In February 2006, the online version Bailey's book was quietly removed from the National Academies Press website.