Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why There Is (And Should Be) No Legal Right To Transgender Protections

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Transgenderism is when a person considers themselves to internally be the opposite sex of their physical body. They mentally “self-identify” in contradiction to the physical fact of their body sex. Transgender law advocates insist that self-identified “transgenders” be given legal right to have unfettered access to all public facilities currently reserved for one sex or the other (male and female restrooms, lockers, showers, women’s shelters, etc.) Obama has recently decreed that all schools that do not fully adopt transgender protections and policies will face the revocation of federal funding.

Usually, when a person believes they are something in contradiction to the physical facts (such as believing one is Napoleon, or believing one is a horse), we call that view delusional, because it is a persistent belief held in contradiction to physical facts. Believing that one is a “female” trapped in a male’s body is to consider female-ness something other than what it is, which is a designation based on physical facts. A man can have personality traits that are more in line with what are generally considered the personality traits of females, but having such personality traits doesn’t in fact make them a female “trapped” in a man’s body; it just makes them a man with some personality/psychological traits that are more generally considered to be that of females.

Should men (or women) be free to exhibit personality traits that are more in line with the opposite sex? Should they be allowed to dress like the opposite sex? Certainly. No one is arguing against that. However, should such people have the right to be legally accepted as actually being the opposite sex, for all legal intents and purposes? Should public institutions be forced to view them as the sex they personally identify with by allowing them full legal access to public facilities of the opposite sex?

This boils down to a simple question: should self-identifying personality traits that contradict physical facts be enforceable in the public sector as if those personality traits were physical facts? If a man self-identifies as a woman, should they be given access to all female-specific services and facilities? Should they be able to fill out employment forms and government forms, such as the census, as the opposite sex? Should public-funded school sports teams be required to allow men into women’s sports because they self-identify as women?

Logically, where does the right to self-identify in contradiction to physical facts end? Can I self-identify as a different race? A different age? Can I self-identify as having skills I physically do not have, as having talent I do not possess? Should the law force everyone to accept whatever anyone self-identifies as, regardless of what the physical facts are?

The reason transgenderism is not, and should not be, a legally protected right is because it is a set of personality/psychological traits where a person subjectively, mentally sees him- or herself as something they physically are not, or perhaps because they wish to display a personality that is somewhat in contradiction to social norms concerning gender. Society cannot legally enforce individual personality traits as if those traits represented physical reality or else chaos will ensue. Actual law must be grounded in physical reality, not in individual conceptions of self or individual personality traits. Society cannot, and should not, force everyone to treat such personality traits as if those personality traits represent physical reality. If a 40 year old man “sees himself” as a 4 year old child, am I legally bound to treat him as such? If a stranger insists they are my child or my parent, should such a personality trait have legal force?

These are not “slippery slope arguments”, these are the logical entailments of giving personality/psychological traits (that are in contradiction to physical facts) the full support and force of law. It is outright insanity. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all; it is attempting to break down any valid meaning to any law or right whatsoever if people can simply “self-identify” in contradiction to physical facts.

Comments
Clown, IslamISM (Mahdist 12th Imam or Muslim Brotherhood forms) is a significant global geostrategic threat and has a successor ideology. But even that is off on a tangent to the OP. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Vividbleu: "So what? I said ” not necessarily” I only need to give one example." I was being sarcastic. And I apologize, you didn't deserve it. But am I correct in saying that you do not believe that Christianity is morally superior to Judaism? The reason I ask is that it is the new covenant that adds the "judge not lest you be judged" concept. Do you not consider that morally superior to the Old Testament punishments? Is there nothing about Christianity that you consider morally superior to Judaism?clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Clown I must add that I think it's incompatible with Christianiy for a Christian to think they are morally superior to anyone. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Clown RE 285 "But that only removes one faith from the list. " So what? I said " not necessarily" I only need to give one example. Do you have any substantive rebuttals to the OP? Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Observe the fact that I was not the one who brought up moral superiority. If you have a problem, it is with Vividbleu. Please take it up with him. If you do not want to take part in the little side discussion that Vividbleu and I are engaged in, feel free to keep quiet.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Observe the OP focus vs the tangents.kairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
Vividbleu, fair enough. I will concede that Christianity doesn't consider itself morally superior to Judaism. I will concede the fact that Christian culture has always treated the Jewish culture as having a morality equal to that of Christianity. But that only removes one faith from the list. Are all of the others or equal morality to Christianity?clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Clown RE 280 Hmmm Clown have you heard of the 10 commandments delivered to Moses a Jew, embraced by Christians? Christianity does not claim a moral superiority as it relates to Judaism. The disagreement between the two revolve around the nature of God and the coming of the Messiah. Me thinks maybe your the irrational one. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion?" WTF? Are you suggesting that the faith you believe in is not morally superior to Islam? Or Judaism? Or Hindu? Or Buddhism? Or the FSM? If not, why do you follow it? Does that seem rational to you?clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion? F/N: For those failing to recognise that worldviews -- the proper way to analyse what is so often caricatured as religion (used as a dirty, contempt laced dismissive word) -- can be analysed on comparative difficulties and foundational concerns cf here. And if threat assessment is the problem the inherent instability of democracies has been of concern for 2400 years and geostrategic issues are also relevant.kairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
John a designer Atheists have a message for us: "It's 2016, we know more than God!"Eugen
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
Vividbleu: "Not necessarily." Do you have examples? Is there really any person in the world who doesn't think that their faith is morally superior to others? If I thought that religion B was morally superior to religion A, why would I stick with religion A? Wouldn't that be irrational?clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Clown RE 277 Not necessarily. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Apocalyptic fantasies are actually quite seductive aren't they.zeroseven
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Vividbleu: "One of the strongest arguments they make is that from a moral perspective their faith is far superior to Christianity..." But, to be honest, doesn't every faith believe this?clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Andre RE 273 The West neither has the will nor the philosophical foundations to resist Islam, the lack of will being directly tied to its foundation. Some form of tyranny is coming, we are already in a state of soft tryanny and it only takes a very small step to slip into hard tryanny. Certainly Sharia falls in the latter category. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
John "Why aren’t they having more of an influence? " Because they have no power or position in the dominant drivers of culture the media, the arts and education. All the aforementioned are dominated by "moral relativists" and have been since the 70's. Truly the most damaging institution has been our educational complex from K1 to our Universities. Schools are nothing more than indoctrination camps. When we look at our Universities many espouse outright fascist positions all under the guise of "tolerance" "Where does morality come from"? In the US from the tyranny of the majority, enforced by the state ,which has been deemed moral by 9 people ( currently 8). As to Thomas Jefferson, most grade school, high school or college students would not be able to identify the form of our Government. Most would answer " we are a democracy" WRONG. Pure democracies lead to tyranny. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
vividbleau, Thank you for your comments. I think contemporary Islamists may be right in connecting the present moral decline of western civilization with Christianity. While surveys vary it has been estimated by sociologists that there are upwards of 60 million self-identified protestant evangelicals in the US. Why aren’t they having more of an influence? How can small group of fanatical activists so completely subvert American society and culture? Clearly the church and its leadership has been AWOL for the last couple of decades. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Christ told his followers in Ch. 5, 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” In other words it is our responsibility to be a moral influence on society. If as Christians we are not, there is clearly something very wrong. Aren’t our laws based on morality? Where does morality come from? Actually, I see the fundamental question, at least for the present discussion, as who defines our rights? The government? The Supreme Court? “The people?” According to Thomas Jefferson our rights come from the Creator. In the Declaration of Independence, he wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” While Jefferson did not accept what, at the time, were the traditional doctrines and beliefs of orthodox Christianity (he leaned towards Deism and/or Unitarianism) he did accept the idea that there was a transcendent intelligent Being who created the universe and who provides the foundation for mankind’s moral nature and human rights. For example, in a letter to John Adams dated April 11, 1823, Jefferson wrote: I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition… The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause… This is what he meant by Nature’s God. Today we would say that Jefferson clearly believed in intelligent design. But his beliefs about God did not end there. Elsewhere he writes: [C]an the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ." - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII So clearly, Jefferson conceived of God not as just some disinterested designer or creator but also as the transcendent law giver—whose moral laws provide a true and objective foundation for moral obligations, justice and human rights. The problem with so-called rights like the right to same sex marriage, or transgender rights is that no how, no way can it be argued that it comes from God. SSM is a blatantly a human creation which in its present form was “created” whole cloth by the secular-progressive left 50-60 years ago. The same can be said of “transgender rights.” My point is that these human created human rights cannot be absolute, universal or morally obligatory. However, the secular-progressive left clearly think that they are. They can only come to that conclusion by co-opting Judeo-Christian truth and doctrine, or presuming that they are god or gods. There is no basis on a secular (or an ontologically naturalistic) worldview for absolute, objective or universal human rights. Only Judeo-Christian theism provides such a basis. So when the secular progressive begins claiming-- or even implying-- that the so-called rights that he has invented are absolute and universal, he is coopting moral claims that are not logically justifiable on his world view. There are other ways secularists coopt Judeo-Christian thinking but without a solid ontological, epistemological or moral foundation he has no place to even begin.john_a_designer
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Vivid Islam taking over is a done deal.Andre
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
John RE 270 "Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that that is going to discourage them from trying with some type of coercive re-education. If that sounds a bit too Orwellian it isn’t, because it’s already happening. 1984 it appears has arrived a few decades late. If you think I’m exaggerating just wait a few more years." Coercive re-education is already happening with the Orwellian titles like LGBTQ safe training space. At the threat of one losing their job they must attend, smile, nod in assent and most certainly not object. Basically they have to bend over and ask for " oh that feels so good, more please" There is a lot of talk about the issue of access for predators however the real problem is that this whole thing is INSANE! The idea that someone is that which they "identify" is so incredibly off the charts crazy that one is left speechless. As to Orwell we have not only arrived but we have been here for awhile. I am probably older than most but if one were to go back in time say 30 years and warn the progressive types that their moral relativism (fluidity) would lead to men and boys being able to use girls bathrooms and showers they would scream "Oh you are being to extreme that will never happen" These same folk take KF to task for what they label "his extreme prognostications" As you wrote "You think I am exaggerating just wait for a few more years" Indeed. One last note. I have been studying Islam because I want to be more informed. One of the interesting things that I have found is how Islam views the West. They do not make a distinction between the West and Christianity, they are the same. One of the strongest arguments they make is that from a moral perspective their faith is far superior to Christianity (The West). They look and see this moral decadence and it confirms their belief that the West is dying as a culture and Islam will be its successor. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
KF said:
WJM, are you sure that many of the consequences of this imposition are UN-intended; given an evident socio-cultural and policy agenda now often termed “social justice”? Pardon a thought; though of course in doubt, charity must prevail and there are such things as blind marches of folly.
I should say "have consequences well-meaning supporters and defenders haven't thought through."William J Murray
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Larry Taunton of the Fixed Point Foundation writes: “Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement.” Notice that the secular-progressive-left’s latest push for transgender rights is demanding something that nobody else has, or has ever had: universal affirmation and acceptance. Of course they cannot achieve that without some kind of yet to be discovered thought control or brain washing. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that that is going to discourage them from trying with some type of coercive re-education. If that sounds a bit too Orwellian it isn’t, because it’s already happening. 1984 it appears has arrived a few decades late. If you think I’m exaggerating just wait a few more years. This of course all goes to underscore that their so-called push for equal rights is all a sham. Granting universal affirmation and approval to some obscure minority is hardly equal when that kind of affirmation and approval cannot possibly be extended to everyone else. Is anyone in the main stream media expressing any concern about the fact that people with traditional values are being marginalized and persecuted? Why is there no concern for the feelings and beliefs of people who sincerely embrace traditional values? Like several others commenting here I am not opposed to accommodating people who identify as transgender. Provide separate single use bathrooms and locker rooms. That shows respect for their rights as well as everyone else’s. That’s how true tolerance is defined.john_a_designer
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
WJM: "Typical liberal mentality and response. Avoid addressing the argument and logic therein and write something as if apparent popularity or support makes a salient rebuttal." Sorry, I must have given the wrong impression. I was not intending my comment as any type of rebuttal. I only provided it for information purposes. I have not read the legislation so I have no comment on it. When I get around to reading it, I will comment on it more substantively.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
CF responds:
Canada just introduced transgender legislation with all party support. I think it was unanimous, but I could be wrong about it. The only opposition I have seen is coming from rev Charles McVety, Canada’s equivalent of Falwell or Swagart.
Typical liberal mentality and response. Avoid addressing the argument and logic therein and write something as if apparent popularity or support makes a salient rebuttal. Here's a Huffpost article from which several meaningful points can be drawn:
A troubling new poll has found that the majority of Americans are not on board with letting transgender individuals use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.
Note the writer's use of the term "troubling"; why is it "troubling"? Why isn't it "encouraging"? Note the not-so-subtle way this article is telling readers how to feel about the results of this poll.
According to the poll conducted by CBS News, 59 percent of Americans believe that transgender individuals should use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth, while 26 percent are comfortable with self-determination when it comes to choosing which bathroom to use.
So by far most Americans are against this policy. The article continues:
Legislation has since been passed in other parts of the country in an effort to counter institutionalized discrimination against the transgender community.
Note how the the poll is framed contextually by the implication that the fundamental issue driving the poll numbers is discriminatory attitudes towards transgenders. As I have pointed out previously, "transgender discrimination" has nothing to do with it. HuffPost continues:
While the American public’s response to this CBS poll shows how much work we have left to do when it comes to education about transgender lives, experiences and rights, the trans community is gaining more and more visibility.
The clear implication here is that it is ignorance which accounts for the data revealed by the poll, so if you don't want to be identified as "ignorant", you must be in favor of so-called "transgender anti-discrimination laws" ... no matter what they actually say; no matter the actual consequences; no matter how many it puts at risk; no matter how it affects families in public; no matter if it is entirely based on an ambiguous, impossible-to-identify, impossible to prove mental construct with no basis in physical facts that can be used to make facility use determinations and judgements.William J Murray
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Canada just introduced transgender legislation with all party support. I think it was unanimous, but I could be wrong about it. The only opposition I have seen is coming from rev Charles McVety, Canada's equivalent of Falwell or Swagart.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
WJM, are you sure that many of the consequences of this imposition are UN-intended; given an evident socio-cultural and policy agenda now often termed "social justice"? Pardon a thought; though of course in doubt, charity must prevail and there are such things as blind marches of folly. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
Seversky said:
A sexual predator could – and always has been able to – disguise himself as a woman if he was so disposed and enter a bathroom in search of prey. Would it make any difference whether the convenience was gender-specific or gender-neutral?
What makes a difference is the law makes it much, much easier for any male predator with absolutely no "disguise" prep to gain access to females in compromising locations and puts them virtually in direct contact with them before the female can do anything about it, like shout or call for help.
Is there any evidence to suggest that there is a higher number of sexual predators amongst transgenders compared with the general population?
Are you deliberately mischaracterizing Andre's post? This is typical of leftist agit propaganda - make it seem as if people are basing their objection on something other than what they are actually objecting to so that they appear to be making a claim they are not. Whether or not transgenders represent a higher proportion of predators than any other group is 100% irrelevant to the actual problem gender-neutral facility laws exacerbate: giving male predators easy, free access to vulnerable females in compromising locations and taking away their rightful capacity to react immediately upon sight of a man to protect themselves in such facilities.
If a transgender feels herself to be a woman trapped in a man’s body, is she likely to have any sexual interest in young girls at all?
Typical leftist tactic: make the debate about something it is not about because they cannot defend what it is actually about.William J Murray
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
clown fish:
S, my point exactly. Presumably trans have been using women’s bathrooms (and men’s) for many years. What is the danger in allowing them to do it legally?
You mean besides the erosion of the principle that laws should not be based upon individual self-conceptions that defy physical facts in the first place? If that principle is too abstract for you to understand the danger eroding it represents, the let's try something less complicated and abstract. The problem is not the transgenders that, as you say, have for years been discreetly been using the public restrooms that most closely match their gender appearance. Society has been politely looking the other way about that situation for decades if not longer. Only the ideological provocateurs are trying to make this a case about bigotry against transgenders. The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with transgenders per se, even though they are the ones the law is supposedly intended to protect. The problem is that the laws as written have vast unintended consequences that drastically alter, for no good reason, both a fundamental social norm and put millions of women and children at risk. Because these laws cover all public gender-based facilities, and because they set forth absolutely no criteria for identifying or proving "transgenderism", any person of either gender, regardless of what they look like and whether or not they have been convicted of being a sexual predator, have the right to use the gender-based public facility of their choice. This means any male can freely enter and use any public or publicly-funded facilities for females, including restrooms, showers, lockers, etc. and have access to what are currently women-only shelters, homes, etc. Think about what this means: a male predator now has the right to enter and use women's restrooms, showers and locker facilities and doesn't have to look or dress like a woman. Women no longer have the right to expect females only (or, at least what appear to be females) in their facilities; if a man (or group of men) enters, they can no longer shout them out or call for help based upon that. The men have a right to be in there. Boys have a right to be in the same room girls are undressing and showering in any grade. This puts predators in very close proximity legally, drastically reducing the time any woman or girl has to react, shout in defense or call for help; they cannot do so upon seeing them or if they try to enter, they must wait until they act against them, which in most cases is too late. This puts millions of women and girls at much greater risk in public and in schools not from transgenders, but from male predators abusing the law to their advantage.William J Murray
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
Seversky: Kindly reflect on the discussions that have been had on this across a few threads. Particularly, ponder the significance of removing the protective right to call out immediately as a man presents himself in a bathroom, locker room or shower for girls in a situation where seconds may well count. Multiply by the grooming effects of manipulation of law and education systems in ways that undermine the protective instinct of modesty, through what is frankly lawfare. Moreover think of the corrosive effect on law and institutions of undermining further the principle that to claim a right (which implies duties of others to render support) one must first manifestly be in the right lest one demand of others that they uphold or enable one in the wrong, tainting them. Think about the implications for all sorts of things including rationality, ability to know and to choose as well as for liberty and justice, of the ever more pervasive notion and implicit assumption that in effect our thoughts, feelings and behaviours are programmed by genes and/or by conditioning such that we are more like PCs or robots to be flushed and reprogrammed rather than responsibly free and rational, morally governed creatures; where core moral principles are objective and binding, forming a manifestly evident corpus of framework principles of the natural moral law that guide individuals, families, communities, institutions and the state alike. Consider what sort of precedents are being set for law and administration. Ponder the particular import of such when this includes forcing children into such. Include the potentially manipulable dynamics of opinion cascades and the implications for polarisation, alienation and slippery slopes (which are not automatically to be regarded as fallacious arguments). There is more but this is core. KF PS: A classical ethical teaching on such matters in the Western tradition of moral thought is this from Jesus:
Mark 9:42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[g: Greek to stumble; also verses 43, 45, 47] it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell,[h] to the unquenchable fire.[i] 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire.[j] 50 Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” [ESV]
kairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Seversky
Nothing, as far as I know but so what? If someone feels they were assigned to the wrong sex at birth and should be the opposite, where does it harm me or anyone else to let them change?
So by that rationale of yours, when someone feels that Christians/atheists/homosexuals/Jews/Transgenders are an abomination and should be subjected to concentration camps torture and certain death what is the harm in allowing them to do so legally?Andre
May 18, 2016
May
05
May
18
18
2016
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 13

Leave a Reply