Transable was the first one. I believe it's also known as "body integrity identity disorder". Physically alright, thinks they should've been born disabled (or at least that's what the article writer said it was) and mentioned to a psychologist pouring bleach into one of their patients who felt they should've been born blind, though I didn't click the link for the reference. Given what they're saying I imagine they're cherry-picking their evidence anyway.
As Frumple said about media distorting the case, during the article I read the first sentence referred to Wolshct as a pervert, and never pointed out that Wolscht left his family because they were unsupportive or what not, just that he left his wife and kids to live as a 6 year old girl and has a sexual relationship with the adoptive father (again, no idea if it's true, just what the article stated)
It was just the sort of transition between the various things that bothered me the most. They started with transgender and transagist, two things that are reasonably easy to get your head round. Then moved on to transspecies, which is slightly less so, but relative to the others, okay. Then transable, which was couched in "if they can accept the other trans- arguments, the liberals have to accept this as normal too!"
Then into the whole homosexuality is the same as bestiality is the same as incest is the same as pedophila nonsense, using the argument "if they say "you love who you love" for homosexuality, they have to accept it for the others too!" because obviously every argument anyone ever makes is absolute, with no grey areas between the white and black on the two-sided scale.
I stopped reading it shortly after that. Something about teaching kids sex ed in kindergarten and giving contraceptives to 6th graders and then saying the important things - faith and family - are left out. I (at least like to tell myself I) don't like to judge people, but man, that was some horribly prejudiced shit.