Gender ideology harms children.

Gender Ideology Harms Children

Originally posted March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016. Updated with Clarifications on April 6, 2016.

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species. This principle is self-evident. The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.1

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child’s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as “feeling like the opposite sex” or “somewhere in between” do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.6

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.5

6. Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.7,8,9,10

7. Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.11 What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?

8. Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.

President of the American College of Pediatricians

Quentin Van Meter, M.D.

Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians

Pediatric Endocrinologist

Paul McHugh, M.D.

University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital

For a PDF version click here: Gender Ideology Harms.

CLARIFICATIONS in response to questions regarding points 3 & 5:

Regarding Point 3: “Where does the APA or DSM-V indicate that Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder?”

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) is the author of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition(DSM-V). The APA states that those distressed and impaired by their GD meet the definition of a disorder. The College is unaware of any medical literature that documents a gender dysphoric child seeking puberty blocking hormones who is not significantly distressed by the thought of passing through the normal and healthful process of puberty.

From the DSM-V fact sheet:

“The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”

“This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”

Regarding Point 5:  “Where does the DSM-V list rates of resolution for Gender Dysphoria?”

On page 455 of the DSM-V under “Gender Dysphoria without a disorder of sex development” it states: “Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%.”  Simple math allows one to calculate that for natal boys: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 2.2% = 97.8% (approx. 98% of gender-confused boys)  Similarly, for natal girls: resolution occurs in as many as 100% – 12% = 88% gender-confused girls

The bottom line:  Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned.  Specifically, they advise:  affirmation of children’s thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones. There is an obvious self-fulfilling nature to encouraging young GD children to impersonate the opposite sex and then institute pubertal suppression. If a boy who questions whether or not he is a boy (who is meant to grow into a man) is treated as a girl, then has his natural pubertal progression to manhood suppressed, have we not set in motion an inevitable outcome? All of his same sex peers develop into young men, his opposite sex friends develop into young women, but he remains a pre-pubertal boy. He will be left psychosocially isolated and alone. He will be left with the psychological impression that something is wrong. He will be less able to identify with his same sex peers and being male, and thus be more likely to self identify as “non-male” or female. Moreover, neuroscience reveals that the pre-frontal cortex of the brain which is responsible for judgment and risk assessment is not mature until the mid-twenties. Never has it been more scientifically clear that children and adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding permanent, irreversible and life-altering medical interventions. For this reason, the College maintains it is abusive to promote this ideology, first and foremost for the well-being of the gender dysphoric children themselves, and secondly, for all of their non-gender-discordant peers, many of whom will subsequently question their own gender identity, and face violations of their right to bodily privacy and safety.

References:

1. Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development, “Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Childhood.” Intersex Society of North America, March 25, 2006. Accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.dsdguidelines.org/files/clinical.pdf.

2. Zucker, Kenneth J. and Bradley Susan J. “Gender Identity and Psychosexual Disorders.”FOCUS: The Journal of Lifelong Learning in Psychiatry. Vol. III, No. 4, Fall 2005 (598-617).

3. Whitehead, Neil W. “Is Transsexuality biologically determined?” Triple Helix (UK), Autumn 2000, p6-8. accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm; see also Whitehead, Neil W. “Twin Studies of Transsexuals [Reveals Discordance]” accessed 3/20/16 from http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transs_stats.htm.

4. Jeffreys, Sheila. Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism. Routledge, New York, 2014 (pp.1-35).

5. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (451-459). See page 455 re: rates of persistence of gender dysphoria.

6. Hembree, WC, et al. Endocrine treatment of transsexual persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94:3132-3154.

7. Olson-Kennedy, J and Forcier, M. “Overview of the management of gender nonconformity in children and adolescents.” UpToDate November 4, 2015. Accessed 3.20.16 from www.uptodate.com.

8. Moore, E., Wisniewski, & Dobs, A. “Endocrine treatment of transsexual people: A review of treatment regimens, outcomes, and adverse effects.” The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003; 88(9), pp3467-3473.

9. FDA Drug Safety Communication issued for Testosterone products accessed 3.20.16: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm161874.htm.

10. World Health Organization Classification of Estrogen as a Class I Carcinogen: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/ageing/cocs_hrt_statement.pdf.

11. Dhejne, C, et.al. “Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden.” PLoS ONE, 2011; 6(2). Affiliation: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. Accessed 3.20.16 from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885.

 

 

 

Uncategorized

The truth about gender….’Gender ideology harms children’.

 

 

The American College of Pediatricianshas released an EXCELLENT POSITION STATEMENT about the HARM being done to children by those who proclaim that ‘gender is how you feel’ and who suggest to them that a boy can ‘become’ a girl or a girl can ‘become’ a boy, especially by taking puberty blockers or hormones and having sex re-assignment surgery.

 

Point 5 states, “5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”

 

Point 7 highlights the real facts about the high suicide risk in transgender adults who take hormones and have ‘re-assignment surgery’.

It continues…

“What compassionate and reasonable person would condemn young children to this fate knowing that after puberty as many as 88% of girls and 98% of boys will eventually accept reality and achieve a state of mental and physical health?”

 

Paul McHugh speaks from experience…

 

One of the authors of the statement from the American College of Pediatricians is Dr Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Medical School and the former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Paul McHugh was at the hospital when they were the FIRST hospital to do sex-reassignment surgery for transsexuals. He was ALSO there when the hospital STOPPED doing the operations because they realised the harm being done to people.

Paul has written about the situation..

He begins, “The idea that one’s sex is a feeling, not a fact, has permeated our culture and is leaving casualties in its wake. Gender dysphoria should be treated with psychotherapy, not surgery….”

Article: Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: It Is Starkly, Nakedly False That Sex Change Is Possible, CNS, 17/6/2015.

 

 

Uncategorized

Gender identity clinic for young people sees referrals double

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36010664l

The number of young people referred to England’s only gender identity clinic for under-18s has doubled in the past year to nearly 1,400, figures show.

The data also shows that nearly twice as many biological girls than boys were referred to London’s Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust last year.

Consultant clinical psychologist Dr Bernadette Wren said young people now had more freedom to define themselves.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour a “social revolution” was happening.

The statistics show that there were a total of 1,398 referrals to the clinic last year, 913 of whom were female and 485 male.

In 2009/10, the first year for which figures are available, there were a total of 97 referrals – 40 were female, 56 were male and there was one referral for counselling for the child of a transsexual parent.

The number of referrals increased by 50% in ever subsequent year until 2015/16, when there was a 100% rise in referrals, from 697 in 2014/15.

Asked if boys were being unrepresented in the figures and not getting referred, Dr Polly Carmichael, a fellow consultant clinical psychologist at the clinic, said: “I think the sheer number of young people being referred to the service, a 100% increase this year, it’s hard to think there would be a gender difference in terms of who is being referred.

“Particularly because some of the hypothesis in the past around more natal males to natal females being referred was around the way in which the natal male body developed and how that perhaps made it more difficult for them socially if they identified as a female gender. And so I can’t see that’s changed in any way so it seems unlikely there is under-representation.”

Dr Wren said in the past, more boys tended to come forward than girls, because girls found it easier to be “boyish” in what they wore or how they styled their hair, but that society was now more accepting.

She added: “We live in a world where people alter their bodies, surgically or otherwise, and this freedom is available for people as they get older.

“Maybe we just have to be acknowledging that that is a liberty that people have, that these things are possible, technologically, and people will avail themselves of those things.

“It’s not really for us to approve or disapprove. What matters is what they make of their lives in the end and whether they lead rewarding lives.

“We’re trying to make sure that nothing happens too precipitately. But in the end, we maybe have to see through this social revolution and see how it transpires.”

‘I felt it was the right thing to do’

Sasha, not their real name, felt they did not fit in.

Sasha, who was born a girl, was treated at the Tavistock Clinic as a teenager and now refers to themselves as being of non-binary gender.

In their early teenage years, Sasha began to feel it would be easier to become a boy and was eventually referred to the Tavistock Clinic.

“For most of my life, I felt as though I didn’t fit in and I was never entirely sure what that was about. But when I began thinking about my sexuality and gender identity, I felt as though there were certain paths that would be more suited to the way I felt.

“I anticipated being a man as feeling happier within myself. That was probably the key thing that drove me forward in terms of pursuing treatment. I felt it the right thing to do on a very instinctual level.”

Sasha, not their real name, started hormone blocking treatment at the age of 18, and went onto testosterone a year later. They had a double mastectomy and felt at that stage they had achieved what they wanted to “surgically and physically”.

Now, Sasha says they do not fit in “with the traditional binary discourse of being male or being female”.

“It’s quite a difference as to when I was referred to the Tavistock,” added Sasha, but said they did not regret anything that happened.

“The decisions I made were absolutely right for what I needed then. I believe now, on looking back, that there may have been more options to be a bit more flexible in thinking about my gender identity that I didn’t quite pick up on at the time,” they said.

While Sasha is happy with the physical changes to their body, they said sometimes they wished they had “taken things a little bit slower or waited until I was a little bit older”.

She said one of the most difficult things for the clinic was to persuade young people to get on with their lives “without necessarily jumping into physical intervention in ways that we might feel is a bit premature given the state of their thinking”.

“That’s the tough thing because I think there’s a lot of pressure out there to help them believe that physical intervention will sort all of their difficulties out.

“We think that for some young people, physical intervention really, really helps them and is what they were always going to do at some point or other, and I think for others, we feel they need to take more time over it.”

There is also a small number of girls who come forward because they have a “hatred” of the sexual characteristics of the female body, she added.

“I don’t think the explanation is that we’re suddenly flooded with these young people,” she said. “I don’t think there are any grounds for saying that.

“It’s quite hard work to come to our clinic. We put them through an assessment process and none of these young people are doing this lightly.

“But we do need to consider whether there are some ways in which being male and having a male body is particularly attractive in 2016, the beginning of the 21st Century, whether there are any ways in which the social landscape shapes and influences how people feel about their role in life, their body and how they’re going to live in that body for the rest of their lives.”

 

 

Uncategorized

Feminists & Transgender

Maria Miller’s Report Puts Feminists In An Impossible Position

Maria Miller has stated that she is ‘taken aback’ by the ”hostility’ towards the government’s recent transgender report from ‘purported feminists.’ She says: “I think that all of us who are feminists know that equality for other groups of people, and a fairer deal for other groups of people, is good for us as well.”

Yes of course, as a society nobody wants to see any group suffering discrimination so why would anyone give more than a passing nod of approval to this new report, even those horrible feminists?

This time it’s not so simple; ‘transgender’ is not one of those ‘other groups’ defined by distinct boundaries, as all other minority groups are. By definition, ‘transgender’ stakes claim to membership of already existing groups; the mantra ‘transwomen are women’ accordingly puts them into two protected categories; both ‘transgender’ and ‘women’.

In the blurring of boundaries, ‘women’ as a distinct group ceases to exist; we have to say ‘women-born women’ now to make the sex-based distinction clear, and we are losing the right to do even that: any sex-based comparisons are seen as ‘transphobic.’

This is the crux of the matter; if the recommendations in this report are passed into law as expected, it means that in important legal terms the distinction between men and women will become ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’. This is an arbitary move; when did we decide that ‘gender’ is a stronger marker than ‘sex’ if you need to differentiate between men and women? Gender, as a concept of masculinity and femininity, is based on subjective opinion; a means of dividing men and women along personality lines. ‘Correct’ gendered behaviour and presentation is already enforced and policed by society in a million different ways from birth, and the group it mostly harms is women. This report does not ask women to support transgender rights, it demands that we accept a definition of women which reinforces a limiting stereotype and at the same time deny the biological sex which is the basis of discrimination against women.

If gender-based rights are enshrined in law, women will still suffer sex-based oppressions such as sexual assault, rape, FGM, and discrimination based on our perceived capacity to give birth, but we will lose the language to talk about it and the right to organise against it as women, along with all sex-based protections such as single-sex facilities and services.

The report may look like little tweaks here and there to tighten up previous Acts, but it represents a fundamental shift: the process of erasing ‘sex’ and replacing it with ‘gender’ will become near-enough complete. The move from ‘transsexual’ (a recognition of two sexes) to ‘transgender’ (the idea of two genders), together with the change in definition of transgender from a clinically diagnosed condition of ‘gender dysphoria’ to a non-pathological state of ‘gender identity’ establishes ‘gender’ as not only the main marker, but a fixed innate one. (The suggestion of changing ‘gender reassignment’ to ‘gender confirmation’ and ‘acquired gender’ to ‘affirmed gender’ would seal the deal).

Language is important; it’s why the transgender lobby have worked so hard to change it and to train the media to do the same: ‘sex-change’ for example has become an offensive term as sex no longer exists and transgender people aren’t changing anything, but seeking acknowledgment of innate gender. If we were still using the term ‘transsexual’ parents would obviously not be so willing to apply it to their own children and nor would society as a whole. The label ‘transgender’ nicely obscures the fact that we are telling children that they are really the opposite sex, as implicitly acknowledged in the ‘treatment’ with cross-sex hormones.

Obfuscation of language is a great way to hide reality.

The biggest shift lies in the fact that we were never obliged to see transsexual men as ‘real women, the same as any other woman’ – because we all know that you can’t actually change sex, it’s a biological impossibility. If the government had stopped there and called for tighter laws to protect this distinct group from discrimination, at the same time as ensuring women’s continued protection as a sex-based category, there would be no problem. Perhaps we could have then examined the issue of male violence against transsexuals and worked on real protections for that group.

Instead, the report demands that women accept that ‘gender’ is the important distinction between men and women in areas where it’s really not.

The biggest practical impact for women is in the proposal to both simplify the application process for a gender recognition certificate in line with the principle of self-declaration, at the same time as making it illegal to exclude anyone in possession of a certificate from single-sex services. Facilities and services will in effect become single-gender, and yet the need for these sex-based protections hasn’t just gone away; single-sex services are there for a reason which hasn’t suddenly, magically changed.

This is how we get ridiculous situations like the recent case of the prisoner Tara Hudson, a transwoman whose crime was to head-butt a man so violently he lost all his front teeth, who had eight previous convictions for GBH and was a fully-intact male who boasted about his ‘7-inch surprise’ on his online escort site. Someone exhibiting behaviour at the extreme male end of the spectrum is now housed alongside vulnerable women, around 50% of whom will have experienced male violence and who are in prison overwhelmingly for non-violent offenses. Gender, though.

Why is holding out for rights based on sex seen as discrimination against trans people, and yet establishing gender-based rights is not seen as discrimination against women as a sex? How come gender gets to win?

To say transwomen are women doesn’t just minimise the importance of biological sex, it denies its existence altogether. One of the most heartbreaking things I’ve seen is a young transwoman’s genuine bewilderment and shock that young heterosexual males lose sexual interest in ‘her’ when they discover that ‘she’ has a penis. We have been teaching kids this stuff in schools since 2008 and in this report the government proposes more. No wonder our young people are so confused; outside the echo-chamber world of transgender groups, biological sex does matter.

The more we continue to enforce gender as the truth and sex as an illusion, the more 3-year-olds will be admitted to gender clinics by parents invested in the gender-stereotype version of difference between boys and girls, and another confused generation will be created.

In this report the government establishes that, in legal terms, where there is a clash of sex-based and gender-based rights, gender beats sex. If we go by the old-fashioned sex-based distinction between men and women, that means that men gain rights over women and validation by government will ensure that female-identified men will be more confident of those rights in other situations. As the report makes it easier for any man to identify as a woman and be taken at his word, this clearly puts women at risk. What feminist would not point that out?

It is not the case that feminists are ‘against’ transgender people as a group; the implicit assumption of Maria Miller that this is the only possible explanation for speaking out says it all. The government has put feminists in an impossible position: the very act of asserting women’s rights as a sex class, by definition, makes transphobes of us all.

Uncategorized

UK Government Report on Transgender Equality

UK Government Report on Transgender Equality

by Transgender Trend

The new UK government report on transgender equality was announced on Thursday and the press release in the previous blog was sent out to over 20 journalists, including all national daily newspapers.

The government must agree a new strategy, with full cross-party support, within 6 months. These are the new recommendations which most concern us:

  • A change in the application process for Gender Recognition Certificates (under the Gender Recognition Act 2004), to be based on ‘self declaration’ in place of a diagnosis of ‘gender dysphoria.’
  • The right of ‘gender non-conforming’ adolescents to have their ‘true gender’ recognised on the basis of self-determination.
  • Reducing the minimum age at which application can be made for gender recognition from 18 to 16.
  • A change in the name of the protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 from ‘gender reassignment’ to ‘gender identity’ (the term ‘transsexual’ is also defined as ‘outdated and misleading.’)
  • An expansion of the definition of ‘trans’ to include “the full spectrum of gender variant, gender non-conforming, gender diverse or gender atypical identities.”
  • A change in the exemption for single-sex services: the previous right to exercise discretion in excluding a trans person cannot now be applied to anyone whose ‘acquired gender’ has been recognised under the (amended) Gender Recognition Act 2004.
  • Consideration to be given to reducing the amount of time required for the assessment that children must undergo before puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones can be prescribed.
  • Staff training in ‘gender identity’ issues, and trans and gender issues to be taught as part of PSHE classes in schools (this has in fact been happening since 2008, the proposal is to do more).

To sum up: ‘transgender’ has become a meaningless category which potentially includes everyone; the label may now more easily be applied to any child who does not conform to sex stereotypes. The report manages to both normalise ‘transgender’ as a non-pathological identity at the same time as to pathologise non-conforming behaviour as a special separate category with a name.

Vulnerable teens will be especially susceptible to this ‘pick your personality’ self-classification choice, and they may not have to wait so long to get it set in stone with the proposal to reduce waiting times for ‘treatment.’ Less attention will be paid to examining any underlying causes, or pressures within teen culture to self-define as trans. Sex-segregated spaces will effectively no longer exist if the criteria for being a woman is now only self-declaration.

!

Uncategorized

Transgenderism Has No Basis in Science or Law

Transgenderism Has No Basis in Science or Law

 3635  342  4057

In a domain in which the proposed “therapies” are so drastic, it is not too much to ask for a solid, evidence-based statement of who is being treated, for what, and why, before writing a prescription or passing a law.

In recent months, there has been an explosion of highly controversial legislation, threatened executive edicts, and heavy-handed federal mandates regarding discrimination and public accommodation laws that require—among other things—public and private institutions, businesses, and schools to allow biological males who self-identify as females to use the toilet facilities and locker rooms of females (and vice versa). These developments have been accompanied by a chorus of pundits and editors expressing derision for “bigoted” opponents and cheerleading the valiant proponents of “transgender equality.”

What is missing from the conversation about these laws is any sound legal or scientific basis for the proposed changes. Who, exactly, are the groups who are supposed to be protected or accommodated? On what legal basis are those groups to be protected or accommodated? What are the consequences and implications for the larger society?

The Spectra of Nonconforming Sexuality

Lawmakers and commentators should grasp the variety of people who claim to be “nonconforming” to American understandings and expectations of sex and gender before leaping into action on their behalf. A continuing legal education program held recently in Massachusetts taught participants that nonconformists fall on various places on five different spectra of being, expression, and attraction:

1. Sex: “The sex you were assigned by the doctor in the hospital” at birth. Sex is either Male or Female—a binary distinction.

2. Gender Identity: The sex you know yourself to be. Gender is also Male or Female, but is a spectrum, not binary.

3. Gender Expression: A characterization of how you dress, talk, style your hair, accessorize, use makeup, and so on, which is described as being more or less Masculine or Feminine.

4. Sexual Orientation: The sexual attraction you experience, whether to those of the same sex, opposite sex, or people of both sexes.

5. Affectional/Emotional Orientation: The pattern of romantic attachments you form; whether you tend to “fall in love” with and  seek emotional closeness with men, women, both, or persons who see themselves as somewhere between or beyond the categories of male and female.

While there is no consensus even among transgender people on these distinctions and definitions, it seems abundantly clear that modern discrimination law based on dividing people into various subgroups is going to be under severe stress within such an extremely complex scheme. Is it possible or desirable for people with widely different types of “nonconformism” to be treated as a single identifiable group?

While the application of discrimination law to a particular individual can involve a complex analysis, “Nonstandard Sexuality” would be a protected group that truly makes a mockery of our already risible “protected” categories. Who, specifically, within the spectral clusters of nonconformist sexuality, is to be protected from discrimination? Should, for example, the simple desire to cross-dress place a man into a legal category of citizen “protected” against discrimination, or require businesses and institutions to accede to his request to use women’s facilities?

Is Sexual Discrimination Really the Problem?

The federal Department of Education recently mandated that schools provide access for nonconformist students to the toilet and locker room facilities of their choice, on the grounds that requiring biological males and females to use the facilities appropriate to their biological sex amounts to a violation of rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. That is, such biological sexual segregation constitutes sexual discrimination, because it discriminates against students who are of a “trans” sex and produces a hostile, intimidating, or offensive environment for them. This Title IX finding ignores any definition of the categories of students to whom it applies; it even ignores the research on the sexual development of children who outgrow their feelings of gender dysphoria.

The new regulations also ignore the very real possibility that such “inclusion” will create a hostile, intimidating, and offensive environment for sexually conformist students, staff, and teachers. This is remarkable, since less than two years has passed since the Department of Education mandated that every student who found any action—including speech—of anyone at her or his school offensive is entitled under Title IX to make a complaint of sexual harassment that must be investigated by the school.

Proposed accommodation statutes, commonly called “Bathroom Bills,” would require that toilet facilities and locker rooms must be made available according to the wishes of sexually nonconforming individuals—regardless of the wishes of the other individuals using the same facilities. The proponents of such laws ignore the invasion of female students’ privacy that can occur when males are admitted to facilities where the girls are often in the nude, and of males in the comparable situation. Invasion of teens’ physical privacy can be intensely painful—even traumatic—but most pundits belittle any harassment or privacy issues felt by conformist students or parents.

Lacking not only accepted and acceptable categories of disabilities—much less reliable diagnostic categories of mental disorders—such forced accommodations have no reasonable basis in law or medicine.

Is Sexual Nonconformity a Mental Disorder?

Return now to the complicated spectra of nonconforming sexuality and gender expression laid out above. On what basis are some or all of these myriad sexual nonconformists supposed to be protected under discrimination law if not on the basis of a specific sex? It is possible that these laws are being proposed not on the basis of sexual discrimination, but on the grounds of the Americans with Disabilities Act as applied to psychiatric disorders. If so, are they being proposed on the belief that sexual nonconformists suffer from the mental disorders of Gender Identity Disorder (the old term), Gender Dysphoria (the new term), or any of the other possible disorders of gender identity variants?

That poses a very large problem for legislators and enforcers. There exists no consensus among psychiatrists on the question of which nonconformists fall—or should fall—into the medical category of mentally disordered. There is no consensus among the nonconformists either. Difficult, too, is the fact that most transgendered people do not regard themselves as mentally ill and do not wish to be identified as “disabled.”

A “transgender disability”—should one exist and be accepted by those so labeled—would have to be a mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual. What would that impairment be? In what ways would the life activities of affected individuals be limited? It is very hard to conceptualize nonconforming gender identity as a disabling condition.

Disabilities law requires reasonable accommodations. Even if we postulated that nonconformists were somehow disabled in pursuing some life activity, how are they to be reasonably accommodated under disabilities law? How is a state legislature to lay out the range of reasonable accommodations for the whole spectrum of sexual expression? What is a reasonable accommodation and for whom? One size clearly does not fit all. There is no rational basis upon which such determinations can be made.

Where Is the Evidence?

More fundamentally, there is no consensus on the etiology of the diverse expressions of “gender identity variants.” Some LGBTQ advocates theorize that nonconforming sexuality is caused by certain family dynamics in the context of a bi-gendered patriarchal society. Others postulate that unidentified genetically based sex-hormone abnormalities cause transgenderism or homosexuality, even when there are no abnormalities of the reproductive anatomy.

Evidence-based conclusions are utterly lacking, whatever the claims of activists. Without clear distinctions not only among categories of the potentially mentally disordered but also between the mentally disordered and the normal population, how are diagnosis and treatment decisions to be made? It is hardly possible to pass disability laws without reliable diagnostic categories.

Most proposed legislation is driven not by medical research or theoretical differences but by the desire to make private or government insurance money available for hormone and surgical “treatment” for nonconformists experiencing psychological distress. The American Psychiatric Association has stated this unambiguously in its DSM-5, the current diagnostic manual. Pathologizing states of mind—even distress—simply to make insurance money available for attempts to change those states through surgical, medical, and cosmetic alterations to the body is simply not sound science. Neither is it just to the larger community that pays for medical insurance and funds the Affordable Care Act. Surely, in a domain with such drastic proposed “therapy,” it is not too much to ask for a solid evidence-based statement of who is being treated, for what, and why, before writing the prescription.

Our society cannot reasonably be expected to unquestioningly accept psychiatric “treatments” that strain our concepts of medical ethics, standards of care, and malpractice up to and past the breaking point.

Surgical Mutilation Is Not the Answer

Some psychiatrists and surgeons have already collaborated to employ mutilation of healthy body parts as “psychotherapy.” The conviction that one is a “one-limbed person trapped in a multi-limbed body” is now being treated as an actual mental disorder called “Body Integrity Identity Disorder.” Seven such patients are reported as having had an arm or a leg electively amputated as “treatment” for this disorder. Immediate post-operative reports seem to be positive, but what about follow-up reports on life as a voluntary amputee ten and twenty years after the surgery? How about an extensive social discussion of the ethical limits of elective amputation—both for the doctors and for the society at large?

The genital mutilation of healthy bodies of men and women demands no less serious consideration. The suicide rate in post-surgical patients has been reported to be twenty times higher than in controls matched for birth year and birth sex. It is hard to imagine more iatrogenic treatment. As one prominent member of the DSM work group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders put it,

It is difficult to justify the term “natural” variation for a condition that compels the respective individual to severely alter a healthy body by gonadectomy with attendant infertility and the replacement of intact primary and secondary sex characteristics with those of the other gender.

Let us be clear: there is no such thing as “sex-reassignment” surgery. A mutilated male pumped full of estrogen remains just that—a mutilated male pumped full of estrogen. He has not “transitioned” into being a woman. He can never be a woman. Nor are the hundreds of thousands of women who have undergone total hysterectomies for various reasons transformed into males. They remain women whose ovaries and wombs have been removed. They are not men.

While no one is yet publicly advocating the surgical alteration of children, loud voices in the media and among advocates—even at Boston Children’s Hospital—have called for and have even implemented hormone therapy to delay the onset of children’s puberty in order to facilitate gonadectomy later in their teens or young adulthood. Research on the sexual development of children who at some point are seen to be nonconformist shows that more than 80 percent of such children outgrow their “transgenderism” by the end of their teens. Interference with the normal sexual development of children on the basis of political ideology is not just unethical—it is child abuse. It is not only past time for an extensive public discussion of this practice; it is past time to put an end to it.

Stop Catering to Delusion and Make Laws Based on Reality

Many both in and out of the mental health community see the conviction of oneself as “transgender” as a delusion—a technical term referring to a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.

The larger community should not accommodate this delusion by pretending to accept it as reality. A deluded person is not “treated” by requiring everyone who encounters him to accept the validity of his or her delusion, contrary to all reality.

Up until the very recent past, reality testing was a fundamental component of psychotherapy. The opposite approach is irrational and indefensible. Indeed, one prominent psychiatrist in this field has termed this accommodation “collaborating with madness.” That is what American society is being asked to do by people who are well-meaning but profoundly confused about the realities of transgenderism.

We expect our legislators to have rational bases for the laws they enact. We expect our judges to have rational bases for the decisions they reach. Even amid political pandering by those seeking reelection, we expect at least a veneer of rationality in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers. There is simply no rational basis for the laws being proposed and imposed in the realm of transgenderism. There is very little knowledge at all—no common definitions of terms, no accepted methodology, no outcome analyses, no testing and rejecting of hypotheses, no agreed-upon standards, no science. There currently exists no reliable foundation for making these laws that will shape the actions of the larger community as they relate to sexually nonconforming individuals.

Laws that restrict our freedoms and direct our actions should never be passed without a clear definition of the interests and parties to be affected and a precise explication of the ways the laws will serve those interests. At present, we have no such definitions or explanations. Put the brakes on transgender lawmaking until we do.

Margaret A. Hagen, JD, PhD, is Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Boston University.

Uncategorized

Support ‘growing’ for transgender Christians!!

Madeleine Davies

by Madeleine Davies

Posted: 04 Dec 2015 @ 12:06

working title films

Click to enlarge

Transitioning in film: the actor Eddie Redmayne stars in a new film, The Danish Girl, as the husband of the Danish artist Gerda Wegener, who begins living as a woman, and becomes one of the first-known recipients of gender-reassignment surgery. The Danish Girl opened in the United States last Friday and is due for release in the UK on 1 January

A MOVEMENT to allow transgender Christians to be ordained and married is under way in the world’s churches, and is “highly likely to continue”, a new paper published this week suggested.

While a “growing number of Liberal Protestant denominations” are changing their policies, the advocacy of transgender groups and the reassessment of medical evidence may also produce a shift in conservative circles, the report’s author, the Dean of St John’s College, Cambridge, the Revd Duncan Dormor, writes.

His survey “Transgenderism and the Christian Church: An overview”, published in a new book, The Legal Status of Transsexual and Transgender Persons, concludes that, over the past 20 years, there has been “a very significant increase in the number of liberal and mainstream Protestant denominations which welcome transsexual and transgender Christians as congregational members and affirm their ministry as leaders and teachers”.

It also notes, however, that the “overwhelming majority” of the world’s Christians belong to Churches that are “officially unsympathetic to the claims of transgender people”. Transgender people are regarded as “sad and misguided individuals who suffer from a psychological or psychiatric condition that has been misdiagnosed and mistreated”, or as “notorious sinners”.

Although a “warm welcome” is possible in some congregations, marriage and ordination are generally “not viable options”. He includes the Southern Baptist Convention and the Vatican in this “conservative” group. Such teaching goes “against a growing medical consensus”, he argues. “In response to the careful and committed advocacy of groups representing transgender Christians, or a reassessment of the medical evidence, attitudes to transsexuality in particular could be reframed within some conservative Christian traditions.”

At the other end of the spectrum, in a “radical” grouping, he includes the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the first to ordain a transgender minister, Sky Anderson, in 1979.

The Church of England is included in Mr Dormor’s third group, defined as “moderate”. It does not have a clear theological position or a consistent policy, he writes, and the experience of priests who have transitioned has been “mixed”: six of the eight remain in priestly ministry. Their experience has been “largely determined by the response of their bishops”.

On Wednesday, Mr Dormor said that the biggest catalyst for change had been pastoral situations. Bishops who have met priests who have transitioned, for example, “recognise them as faithful ministers”. Encounters can mean that those who are sceptical “go ‘Hang on, I can see this is right for this person. It is a real thing!.”

He acknowledges that transgenderism is “a rare, complex, and genuinely perplexing problem”, and “particularly challenging to religious traditions that vest differences between the sexes with great theological significance”.

He said: “We need to start with the fact that we are made in the image of God and are all fragile human beings, and we need to give each other and ourselves more time, and pay attention and listen to people’s experiences.”

To access the full Church Times online archive please log in above with your Church Times user email & password

Uncategorized

Public Schools Force Kids Into Transgender Wars

Education

Public Schools Force Kids Into Transgender Wars
In concert with transgender activists, the federal government is pushing schools across the country to let boys expose themselves to girls in showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

By Walt Heyer
December 2, 2015

Recent high-profile demands that schools let boys shower and pee right next to girls are having ripple effects in schools across the country as the transgender wars more militantly encompass young children.

Princeton Public Schools in New Jersey are planning to punish teachers who repeatedly refer to a transgender student with pronouns that correspond with biological reality. The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening schools across Missouri that are responding to the case of Lila Perry by requiring children to either use a unisex bathroom or the one that corresponds to their biological sex. Perry is a 17-year-old boy who wants to expose his male genitalia to girls in a school locker room and be protected by law because he says he is a girl.

State officials in North Carolina and Virginia are defending in federal court a local school board’s policy requiring children to use private bathrooms and locker rooms if they don’t want to use the facilities designated for their biological sex. And parents in Wisconsin seem to have won a temporary reprieve from having their grade-schoolers read the gender-confused missive “I Am Jazz” to “help” children understand a classmate who insists he has a “girl brain and a boy body.”

The Obama administration has made it clear it will put the weight of the federal government behind the aggressors in these conflicts by recently threatening to yank funds from Virginia and Illinois public schools that asked biological boys to dress and shower privately or in the boy’s facilities instead of next to girls.
We Will Only Accommodate People Who Agree with Us

School districts are now being told to accommodate transgender students by allowing simultaneous, unfettered access for gender-nonconforming boys to the showers, bathrooms, and dressing rooms occupied by girls, or lose their substantial federal funding.
The law should not protect boys exposing themselves to adolescent girls, even if the boy identifies as a girl.

The source of this craziness lies in how the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education has chosen to enforce Title IX, a federal law that originated in 1972 to prohibit discrimination in education opportunities on the basis of sex. The Obama administration has unilaterally expanded its interpretation of Title IX to provide the same anti-discrimination protection for gender-nonconforming students, i.e., those who act out as the opposite gender or sex.

I was a child gender pretender who started cross-dressing at five years of age. By the time I was 17, my desire to change genders was powerful. But I never had any desire to expose myself to girls at school. That is just sick. The law should not protect boys exposing themselves to adolescent girls, even if the boy identifies as a girl. Is utter insanity to assist, encourage, or provide trans kids access to cross-gender facilities. Girls need privacy, protection, and freedom from the “gender pretenders” in U.S. public schools.

It is sexual madness and social terrorism to deem the practices of sexual predators as acceptable and foist them on innocent children and adolescents. Why are we elevating the preferences of gender pretenders above those of all others, going far beyond political correctness to sexual madness in schools?
This Started a Long Time Ago

Let’s look back and unmask the founders who started the gender madness we see infiltrating into our public schools today. As I detail in “Paper Genders,” changing boys into girls started in the perverted minds of three abhorrent pedophile activists from the 1950s who were at the forefront of promoting a movement for sexual and gender experimentation:

Alfred Kinsey, a “violently masochistic masturbation addict” who advocated sex between adult men and young boys and became a leading sexology professor.
Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and sexologist who first coined the term “transsexual” in 1954 and for whom the transgender Standards of Care were originally named. Benjamin praised and publicly endorsed his close friend René Guyon, a well-known pedophile.
John Money, a psychologist and pioneer of gender reassignment surgery and friend of Benjamin, who falsified his research and told his patients, young boys, to play sex games with each other and photographed them.

One of Benjamin’s first cases came as a referral from Kinsey, who asked for advice in the case of an effeminate boy who said he wanted to be a girl.

Benjamin first asked for a psychiatric evaluation of the boy. When several doctors examined him and were unable to agree whether Benjamin’s gender change was warranted, Benjamin, undeterred, moved forward. Benjamin provided female hormones and recommended feminizing surgeries.
The boy who wanted to be a girl never acknowledged if the treatment was effective or a failure.

For the surgeries, the boy and his parents traveled to Germany. They never contacted Benjamin again, so the outcome of the experimental treatment was never known and could have included depression, isolation, perhaps even suicide, given that these frequently happen today with transgenders. The boy who wanted to be a girl never acknowledged if the treatment was effective or a failure. We would think that if the hormones and surgery had been successful the boy would have told Benjamin or Benjamin would have tracked him down to report the success.

Later, colleague of Benjamin who administered hormone therapy at Benjamin’s clinic to 500 transgenders over a six-year period told an audience in 1979 that 80 percent of transgenders should not change genders. The doctor also told the audience there was too much unhappiness and too many suicides among Benjamin’s transgender clients.

Money, the third on our list and a highly respected psychologist, didn’t hide his advocacy of pedophilia. For example, The Journal of Pedophilia interviewed Money. He said it was fine, even desirable, for young boys to have sex with adult men. In private sessions at the prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital, this pioneer of gender reassignment encouraged his first patients, twins, to play sex games with each other at age 7, and photographed them. Only a sick pervert would do this.
He said it was fine, even desirable, for young boys to have sex with adult men.

The boys’ parents had first contacted Money after a botched circumcision destroyed one boy’s penis. Money was able to convince the Reimers that the best penis repair would be surgically fabricating a female vagina so the boy would be a transsexual female. Money had a gender theory he wanted to prove and having twins to use as a test case was his perfect opportunity to make a name for himself in the medical community. Money monitored the twins’ progress for years and published his results about the success of the “John/Joan” reassignment in journal articles that garnered much acclaim.

The sad truth didn’t come out until much later: Money had falsified his findings. The transgender twin acted decidedly male and was depressed and suicidal by age 13. His desperate parents told him the whole story of his upbringing and the boy refused to take any more feminizing hormones and reverted to being a boy, David. But the damage had been done.
The transgender twin acted decidedly male and was depressed and suicidal by age 13.

As an adult, David went public about the folly of changing genders, just as I’m doing today, to discourage people from reassignment surgery. At age 38, David Reimer committed suicide. His brother had died two years earlier from a drug overdose. Money was directly responsible for the death of the Reimer boys because of his reckless disregard of the long-term consequences of the gender change for David and his pedophilic abuse of both boys for his self-gratification. Only Brian’s overdose at age 36 and David’s suicide at 38 could make the pain Money had caused them to finally go away.

The Reimers placed their trust in Money and had no idea what consequences would follow. These three pedophile activists unleashed our current social nightmare. Today, parents of young gender pretenders have been sold down this same river of madness and are unable to see the long-term consequences for their children of changing genders.
Law Should Protect Privacy and Innocence, Not Voyeurism

Public schools are becoming centers for gay, lesbian, and gender-pretender activists and only secondarily fulfilling their purpose as institutions for sound academics. The laws are being interpreted far beyond the original intent of non-discrimination based on gender to where they protect gender pretenders at the expense of the rights of non-trans kids. Gender pretenders are assured access to every school facility and program available to the opposite gender, up to and including girls-only dressing rooms and showers.
Every child’s rights to privacy and protection from exposure to inappropriate opposite-sex nudity are now in jeopardy.

Every child’s rights to privacy and protection from exposure to inappropriate opposite-sex nudity are now in jeopardy. According to these new legal interpretations, if you like your gender and want to keep your gender that’s fine, but you cannot keep your freedom, rights, or protections in public-school dressing rooms or restrooms. The current conflict of interest playing out in school locker rooms between girls born as girls and the self-acknowledged gender pretender trans-kids is real and it is not funny. Non-trans students have lost their right to privacy and parents have lost the freedom to parent and protect their children.

A young boy, by making the simple announcement “I was a boy, but now I’m a girl” can sashay his way into the girls’ restrooms and locker rooms in our schools. Keep in mind this boy still has his dangling boy parts. The accurate term for him is cross-dresser or transvestite. Supposedly the law protects his right to be in the girls’ locker room, to observe girls dressing and undressing, and to expose himself to the girls that are sharing the room.

Parents, pull your kids from school. It’s time for those who are able to home school or put their children in non-federally funded schools where sexual activism and inappropriate co-mingling of boys and girls in private spaces is not tolerated.

Now is the time to pass a law called “The Right to Privacy and Freedom Act” for non-transgender students. Make it punishable for a boy to expose his male genitalia to girls at any time, in any location on public school property, no exceptions.
Changing Genders Is Dangerous, Not Benign

I know from personal experience that changing genders is not harmless. I was told by the leading experts that a surgical change to female would bring relief from my intense psychological struggle. But I wasn’t told it can also tear a person’s life apart.
Studies show that people with gender issues also have other psychological issues 62.7 percent of the time.

Regret happens for a multitude of reasons. (See www.SexChangeRegret.com for some examples.) Studies show that people with gender issues also have other psychological issues 62.7 percent of the time. When the co-existing illness is treated, often the desire to change gender dissipates. By not treating the co-existing illnesses first and instead putting the patient through gender reassignment—hormones and surgery—the medical community does irrevocable harm to the patient’s body and long-lasting harm to his mind.

The harm is deeper for impressionable children and adolescents who experiment with gender-change behaviors and hormones or hormone blockers. Studies have shown that the majority of kids who are gender confused will grow out of it if they are left alone.

If you want your kids to have a psychologically healthy life, do not assist, encourage, or guide them toward a gender change. If they struggle with gender identity issues, do not take them to a psychologist who will push hormones and gender reassignment.
If you want your kids to have a psychologically healthy life, do not assist, encourage, or guide them toward a gender change.

In fact, the best thing you can do for your kid is to grab him or her by the hand and run as fast as you can the other way. Protect them from becoming one of the 41 percent of gender pretenders who attempt suicide like David Reimer or the many who will become lost and unaccounted for, like the effeminate boy who went off to Germany for surgery and was never heard from again. Fifty years of gender change insanity is long enough.

Gender pretenders—also known as trans-kids, crossdressers, or transvestites—should get counseling, not encouragement. Social terrorists who use child transvestites to advance an agenda of sexual perversion should be shut down, not be guiding public school policy.

It’s time for parents and kids to fight against the social terrorism of gender change. It’s time to take schools back from males who wish to expose themselves with impunity in the girls’ locker room.

Walt Heyer is an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery.
Title IX Trans trans activists

Uncategorized

How Should Christians Respond to the Transgender ?

In June, Christianity Today published an article by Mark Yarhouse, a professor of psychology at Regent University in Virginia, on “gender dysphoria.” Gender dysphoria is the APA’s current description of the condition whereby someone perceives one’s “gender” to be other than one’s birth or biological sex. The previous designation in the APA’s diagnostic manual (and in my view still preferable) is “gender identity disorder” (GID).

Yarhouse contends:

1. Church members should address a man who thinks he is a woman by her chosen female name and use feminine pronouns, and a woman who thinks she is a man by her chosen male name and use masculine pronouns.

2. The church should not “treat as synonymous management of gender dysphoria and faithfulness” to Christ. The church should allow those with transgender desires “to identify with aspects of the opposite sex, as a way to manage extreme discomfort.”

3. For the most part, the church should give up on the “culture war” battle on this and other issues. “The church is called to rise above [culture] wars and present a witness to redemption.”

Yarhouse refers to three different lenses for interpreting the issue: Integrity (Yarhouse cites me as a proponent; go here for an online discussion), Disability, and Diversity (full affirmation of transgenderism). Although Yarhouse states that he believes “there are strengths in all three lenses,” he clearly operates with a descending scale with Disability at the top and Diversity at the bottom: “Because I am a psychologist…, I see value in a disability lens.”

Yarhouse doesn’t dump the Integrity lens entirely. “Even as Christians affirm the disability lens, we should also let the integrity lens inform our pastoral care.” He rather sees the disability lens as embracing the Integrity lens but going beyond it and even correcting it, at least at two points. First, “the disability lens also makes room for supportive care and interventions that allow for cross-gender identification in a way the integrity lens does not” (it is this allowance that is the main problem in my view). Second, it “rejects the teaching that gender identity conflicts are the result of willful disobedience or sinful choice.”

This last claim is curious. I for one do not view the mere experience of gender dysphoria as necessarily resulting from active efforts to rebel against God. My approach is not far from Yarhouse on this score: “A person may have choices to make in response to the condition, and those choices have moral and ethical dimensions. But the person is not culpable for having the condition as such.” Where I would qualify Yarhouse is in noting a more complex interplay of nature, nurture, environment, and choices. Incremental choices made in response to impulses may strengthen the same impulses.

Another problem with his “Disability” view is that for the most part people don’t associate a disability with sinful conduct. When people think of disabilities they typically think of such things as physical impairments of mobility, hearing, or sight; intellectual disability or other learning impairments; or health impairments like asthma, epilepsy, or attention deficit disorder. Such non-moral disabilities can be accommodated in all sorts of ways without violating any divine standards.

Even depression and anxiety (cited as parallels to gender dysphoria by Yarhouse) are not as directly or severely related to the desire to sin as a desire to pursue a gender identity at odds with one’s biological sex (and in what sense do we accommodate to depression and anxiety?). My concern is that Yarhouse’s use of the disability label might have the unintended effect of accommodating sinful choices.

Yarhouse further argues that “it is an act of respect, even if we disagree, to let the person determine what they want to be called.” He adds that “redemption is not found by measuring how well a person’s gender identity aligns with their biological sex, but by drawing them to the person and work of Jesus Christ, and to the power of the Holy Spirit to transform us into his image.” While I believe Yarhouse’s advice is well intentioned, I respectfully disagree.

First, is this not rather distant from the biblical language on these matters? Cross-dressing is called an “abomination” to God in Deut 22:5. Paul includes “soft men” (malakoi) in the offender list in 1 Cor 6:9-10, which in context designates men who attempt to become women (through dress, mannerisms, makeup, and sometimes castration), often to attract male sex partners. The fact that Paul includes such persons among those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” suggests that acting on a desire to become the opposite sex can in fact affect one’s redemption.

Further, what will be the effect of encouraging church members to address persons with GID as the sex that they are not? What will be the result of requiring them to accept whatever manner of transgender display of appearance offenders deem essential to their well-being? For some it will mean silencing a conscience correctly informed by Scripture and science. For others it will further confusion about sex and gender already promoted in the world, undermining the church’s resistance to the bonds of sin.

I have no doubt that Yarhouse is aiming for the redemption of those with gender dysphoria. Yet it may be instructive to reflect on Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 5 not only for the sexual offender but also for the offender’s impact on the local church: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (v. 6). Although Yarhouse refers obliquely to wise counsel from church leaders, he allows the offender to call the shots. Paul rather recommends temporary remedial discipline for the persistently impenitent in order to minimize the harm done both to the offender and to the church (vv. 4-5, 9-13). The church’s complicity in sexual delusion benefits no one, least of all the offender.

How far should Christians following Yarhouse’s suggestions go? For example, can a man who feels that he is a woman use the church’s restroom for females? Can he expect the church to respect his choice of romantic partner, whether a woman (in a pretend lesbian relationship) or a man (in an actual homosexual relationship)? Can he even compel the pastor’s performance of his marriage ceremony to either sex, claiming that otherwise he will feel estranged from the church? And what if the offender has children distressed and confused by his wrong choices? Denise Schick, director of Help 4 Families Ministry, writes courageously about the added stresses put on her adolescent development by a father obsessed with becoming a woman:

As an adolescent, I had to be careful about how I dressed. I always had to ask myself how he would react to my outfit. Would it make him so envious that he’d “borrow” it (without my consent, of course)? I began to hate my body. It was a constant reminder of what my father wanted to become. When I began to wear makeup, I had to block out the images I had of him applying makeup or eye shadow or lipstick. He was destroying my desire to become a woman.

In allowing those with transgender desires “to identify with aspects of the opposite sex,” even at a church service, won’t the church be contributing to the distress and confusion of their children?

Yarhouse would certainly prefer that persons with gender dysphoria make peace with their biological sex. He thinks counseling should be directed to “how best to manage gender dysphoria in light of the integrity lens” and advising persons with GID to explore their other-sex desires “in the least invasive way possible.” I have no doubt that his desire is to be loving to persons experiencing this distress. Yet it is possible to be sensitive, gentle, and loving without forcing the church to act as if the lie is the truth.

Lastly, should the church abandon the “culture wars”? Should we stop combatting society’s efforts to persuade vulnerable children in the schools that one’s perceived “gender” need not correlate with one’s biological sex? Is it wrong to try to prevent the state from punishing believers who can’t support a transsexual agenda? Is it a societal good to require schools and businesses to permit males who think they are females to use female restrooms? I submit that the church still has a role to play in terms of being salt and light for the culture at large in matters of sexual ethics.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics.

Uncategorized

Transgender is: ‘a Mental Disorder’: Psychiatrist

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’

By Michael W. Chapman | June 2, 2015 | 1:34 PM EDT

Dr. Paul R. McHugh. (Photo:

Johns Hopkins Medicine)

(CNSNews.com) —  Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.

Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.”

While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

Time magazine, June 9, 2014,

cover story,  The Transgender Tipping Point:

America’s Next Civil Rights Frontier. (Photo: AP)

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

Pro-transgender activists. The

Obama administration announced

in May that Medicare will

now cover transgender surgical

procedures. (AP)

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

Michael W. Chapman
Michael W. Chapman
Michael W. Chapman
source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change
Uncategorized