Outrageous! Transgender Pedophile Gets Child Pornography Conviction Overturned, Wait Until You Hear Why

What exactly qualifies as a "transgender right"? Where should the line be drawn in the matter of freedom of expression as well as other freedoms when we're talking about a transgender individual?

Does a man have the "right" to put on a dress and pretend that he's a woman? Does he have the "right" to mutilate their own genitals in an effort to make their bodies appear to be more like a woman's?

It's my opinion that they have the freedom to do those things, as stupid as those things may be, because I don't think anyone has the authority to tell them what to do with their bodies.

But now people are blurring the line of what a right actually is. Recently, a transgender “woman” was just practically avoided all punishment for one of the most disgusting crimes: possessing photos of child sex abuse.

The reason the conviction got overturned was because he was, “struggling with issues concerning his transgender identity.”

According to Pluralist,

“There were a total of 15 images depicting young boys between the age of five years and 16 years posing naked, performing oral sex or engaging in anal intercourse, either with other young people or adults,” the court said.

Last December, Bunton pleaded guilty in the District Court of Burbane to possession of child exploitation material.

During sentencing, Justice Brian Devereaux pointed out that Bunton had told a psychologist that she only got involved with child porn “out of curiosity and at a time when she was struggling with issues concerning her transgender identity and sexual identity.” She claimed to have stopped viewing the material at age 17.

The forensic psychologist, Dr. Gavan Palk, seemed convinced in his report to the court.

“She does not present as a person who is a risk to children. Her sexual offences appear situational and in the context of low self-esteem and lack of confidence due to teenage sexual adjustment issues,” he said. ‘There was no evidence of entrenched paedophilic tendencies.”

I guess if a person is "struggling" with something, even if that thing doesn't even exist, that person can have criminal convictions overturned?