Not anti-gun, but I defy the aptness of your argument.

The car has a completely different function than the gun. The car is not designed to kill, when used properly. The gun is designed to kill. That's is function. Your purpose for it may be protection, but its function as a device is to propel a bullet, most often into a living object, for the purpose of incapacitating or killing that living object.

With a car, your purpose may be to get to work, pick up groceries, drag race, or to get laid. But the car's function is transportation.

They could have made shoes, jackets, maybe a trendy purse from the hides.

The eyelid tattoo could be a message for other prisoners while he's asleep. Some might construe it as an invitation.

People really should smile in pictures.

How desperate were those women?

This isn't unusual, is it? If she's prone to illness, maybe she should put it on her speed dial.

Didn't the Professor on Gilligan's Island make one of these out of coconuts once?

Sorry, Tempscire, then you completely ignored my point by "correcting my vocabulary". Is that better?

I'm not trying to make an accurate argument about gender identity - I'm giving my opinion on a subject.

As for calling him a her, I wasn't uptight about that, either. Just pointed out what the article says: he's kinda stuck as neither.

I think you pored through it.
If you poured through it, you'd probably ruin the book.

Gun culture isn't unique to the USA. What about all the Middle Eastern countries where they fire guns in the air at weddings? They don't have any problems with violence.

Very silly indeed.
I just had to wait to see what the baby picture was gonna do.

Tempscire, you completely miss my point by playing semantics.

My point was you don't need to justify your sex change to the world by saying "I was born wrong."

If this guy's comfortable living his life as a woman, he doesn't need to justify it to us.

I certainly have no problem with him doing it, as I said, if he can afford to. But simply removing your sex organs does not make you any less a man than one who, say, lost his genitals in a war.

Maybe one day they will have a treatment that will change people completely. If so, more power to those who would make such a choice.

Probably the dolphins sensed the distress, made noises, and the whales followed the familiar noise back into the sea.
It doesn't automatically denote any intelligence, motivation, or purpose in their apparent "communication".

It certainly doesn't prove the existence of a soul, which is something highly-debated even among us sentient humans.

It's true, though. Simply removing the external sex organs and sculpting new facsimiles doesn't change a person into the opposite gender.

Changing a dog into a pig isn't an apt analogy, since those are two different animals entirely. You can neuter your boy dog, but that doesn't make him a girl dog.

I'm not against him changing his body if he can afford to; I just find the reasoning a little specious. You don't need to justify it with "gender is wired in the brain; biology isn't perfect". That just makes it somehow sadder.

Nice axe-grinding, anonymous.

I hear that's how the Plague started.

So, women who are menstruating don't act as sexy as women who aren't?

That's about as scientific as when they found traffic jams are a result of too many cars on the road.