You can't follow the arguments that are presented to you.

I was trying to show you that to entertain delusions will lead you to absurd conclusions. I have demonstrated that you would be unwilling to entertain absurd claims in certain situations. You don't seem to be able to say when entertaining delusions is OK and when it's not. The rights/laws criteria fall apart.

Nope. I'm dismissing your argument because it's irrelevant to the subject. Again, I am not willing to have a discussion with you about the legitimacy of calling all transgendered and whatnot folk delusional. I am only willing to discuss how delusional or not is irrelevant, because what we are discussing is legislation that would deprive people of rights unjustly, and without due cause.

If you don't want to argue, that's fine. It's clear that they are deluded.

Well, again, you're flat out wrong, but it is irrelevant to the subject. You could easily educate yourself via google if you like.

No, and it seems that you're missing the point. I'm giving a response that is equivalent to your response to my absurd claims. Do you disagree with your response to my absurd scenario as well? You can't think that my response is unacceptable unless you believe that yours was (unless you want to be totally inconsistent and unreasonable).

To suggest that you can argue that "there are men who are not men" using "facts" is absurd. It is particularly absurd, since you have already dismissed facts in favor of delusions.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about "law". How would you feel if you were on trial, and the jury was full of people who were completely within their rights to believe insane shit that had nothing to do with the real world?

I guess it doesn't matter - you'd have to "deal with it".

I can't tell if you've really abandoned reality like this. I'm starting to think you're a troll.

I think the discussion has run it's course.