Parakaleo

RSS Feed
A Christian ministry seeking to uphold Biblical values to the transvestite, transsexual and transgendered person.

The girl in the tuxedo

The Girl in the Tuxedo: Two Variations on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

by Jean Lloyd

within Culture, Marriage
Feb 05, 2015 07:00 am http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14388

I came across a photo the other day of a fifteen-year-old girl dressed in a tuxedo, complete with red bow tie and tails, standing in front of a Christmas tree. She was heading for her high school’s Christmas dance, and her parents had taken pictures beforehand.

Why the tux? She had recently heard of a “gender bending” prom at a nearby school, one where all the girls had worn tuxes along with their dates. She was immediately drawn to the idea. However, at her school, she was the only one in on the twist. In the photo, she is attempting to look cool and smug, but her eyes betray sadness. The sexual identity struggles and confusion that had been quietly welling up within her since middle school were finally emerging for all to see.

The photo is from many years ago. I know because I am the girl in the picture. As I think back to that night, I can’t help but wonder how that girl’s life—my life—would have been different if the dance had taken place in 2015 instead of 1985.

I can’t help imagining the scenario that teenagers struggling with their sexuality face today . . .

2015: The Girl in the Tuxedo Goes to the Dance

After the pictures at home are taken, it’s time to head to the dance. Once she arrives, the girl in the tuxedo attracts attention for her bold choice to subvert gender stereotypes through her choice of attire. Members of her high school’s LGBTQ-Straight Alliance applaud her. Later, when she opens up about the confusion she’s been wrestling with surrounding her feelings toward other girls and her own identity, the “Q” (for “Questioning”) component of such clubs is happy to welcome her and inform her about gay sex and identity.

If she resists embracing a lesbian identity, she is encouraged to come out of denial and accept herself for who she is. If she seeks counseling, her therapist hews to a strict, professionally mandated protocol to affirm and validate her identity as homosexual. The counselor tells her that being lesbian is an unchangeable and good part of who she is, even though the girl is experiencing significant distress over the intense emotional and physical draw she feels toward other girls and women.

While she is in therapy, if she mentions wishing to resist these attractions and wonders whether she might develop heterosexually—or at least not identify as gay—it is considered unethical for the counselor to discuss this possibility with her. In some states, such as California and New Jersey, it is even against the law.

If she speaks of her religion and says there are faith convictions at stake that matter deeply to her, the therapist tries to help her overcome her “homophobic” values and free her from the “false consciousness” and oppression to which she is clearly subject.

And if she finally discusses the still unrevealed secret of sexual abuse—the fifty-year-old uncle and the summer six years ago? Exploring its possible connection with her same-sex attraction is forbidden. Any such discussion or treatment must still affirm her same-sex orientation and disassociate the abuse from her sexual development. She is, after all, only fifteen, and must be protected from dangerous ideas that might depress her further and chip away at her fragile self-esteem.

Through social and therapeutic efforts, our fifteen-year-old’s same-sex attractions are reified as central to her very being and personhood. Alleviating her distress about them and encouraging her to accept herself as lesbian is the only option presented to her. She may even be told that she was “born this way,” evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Since she wore the tux to the dance and is seeking a more masculine gender expression, a discussion of possible transgenderism is in order. If she is interested or agrees, a conversation about public restrooms and her right to privilege her “inner sense of gender” may be needed. With her consent, her therapist is legally permitted and professionally encouraged to help her begin socially transitioning from female to male. Eventual sex reassignment surgery is an option, depending on insurance coverage and personal resources.

Now there is no therapeutic imperative to help her accept herself as she is because she was “born this way,” as there would be regarding her same-sex attraction. For biological sex is not sacrosanct, as inner sensibilities or attractions are (faith or moral sensibilities excepted, of course). The subjective trumps the objective.

In 2015, sexual orientation redirection efforts are precluded from discussion, even if she explicitly asks for them. However, if she senses she is transgender, her right to redirection must be honored. If she wishes, she can quickly begin the process of “transitioning” to become a male. This path will involve intensive gender re-socialization, hormone therapy, and if she wants, irreversible amputative and reconstructive surgeries. This is an arduous and painful journey, with many risks and harms, irremediable loss and regret among them. But it is considered worth these risks and pain. She is, after all, only fifteen, and it would be unfair at such an age to limit the horizon of her possible identity paths and the options available to her.

All except one option, that is.

Should she one day desire children—as a lifestyle choice—they can be obtained through adoption or third-party reproduction. Whether the child ever has another social parent is up to her. It’s her child, after all.

And at long last, she—become he—will have what she wanted. Or, if not exactlywhat she wanted, at least what those initial counselors, affirmations, and “freedoms” had left open to her younger self, in flagrant disregard of the long-term possibilities and options they had foreclosed.

1985: The Girl in the Tuxedo Begins a Journey

I was that fifteen-year-old girl in the tuxedo, but my experience was very different from the one promoted by the social values of 2015. What ensued thereafter was a long and sometimes arduous and painful journey of becoming, working out my sexual identity from the cauldron of confusion that surrounded my development.

I have written a little about this journey, wherein I embraced and then renounced an active lesbian life to follow the God who made me and called me by name into His love. I began to trust the One who knew the truth of my identity more than I did, who wrote His image into my being and body as female, and who designed sexuality and set boundaries upon it for my good. I spent well over a decade as a celibate single person. During this time, I felt a wholeness in body, a growing wholeness in my soul, and a greater peace than I could ever have imagined at the age of fifteen. This was more than enough transformation for me, and I was deeply content. However, fifteen years after my tuxedo debut, to my utter surprise, a flicker of heterosexual desire emerged. As I approached forty, I certainly never dreamed I would marry. But now, as I write, I struggle to finish because my youngest child is tugging at my arm. My beloved husband, my children’s father, will soon be home from work.

How grateful I am that the photograph is from 1985, not 2015.

Jean Lloyd, PhD, is a teacher and a happily married mother of two young children.

 

Uncategorized

Transgenders have Untreated Mental Disorders

Uncategorized

Transsexual tradgedy

Leelah“No, of course,
What really matters is the blame,
S
omebody to blame
Fine, if that’s the thing you enjoy,
Placing the blame,
If that’s the aim,
Give me the blame.”
-from ‘Into the Woods’ by Stephen Sondheim’

There’s a time for mourning and a time for finger pointing, and generally they shouldn’t mingle.

Case in point: The recent and well publicized suicide of 17 year old Joshua Alcorn, a high school transsexual going by the name “Leelah”, who posted a farewell message  via Tumblr on December 28, deliberately timed to be displayed after his death. Then  he stepped in front of a tractor trailer near his home in Kingsville, Ohio, horribly ending his young life, decimating his family, and igniting yet another national debate over who’s to blame when young lesbian, gay, or transsexual teens kill themselves.

In answer to the blame question, Joshua’s Christian parents have already become targets of widespread vilification. Browse the net for stories about this and you’ll find headlines like “Conservative Christian Parents Trigger Suicide of Transgender Teen”, “Transsexual Teen Commits Suicide, Blames Fundamentalist Christian Parents”  or “CNN Links Transgender Suicide to Religion of Teen’s Parents”.

Joshua’s own last words are, at least in part, fueling the blame. His note describes his Christian upbringing, and his parents reaction when, at age 14, he told them he was transsexual, feeling like a female trapped in a male body. His mother answered that it was probably just a phase, that God didn’t make mistakes, and that a male becoming a female was an impossibility. Joshua saw these words as damaging, imploring other parents to take a different approach: “If you are reading this, parents, please don’t tell this to your kids”, he pleaded in his message, claiming those words only caused him to hate himself.

He further describes his depression over his parents refusal to allow him to live as a female, their insistence on him seeing Christian counselors who didn’t affirm transsexualism, their objections to his “coming out” at school, their subsequent removal of him from public school, and their confiscation of his computer and cell phone when they disapproved of his friends and his behavior. Taking a direct swing at Mr. and Mrs. Alcorn he posted, in a separate message appearing alongside his suicide note, “Mom and Dad, f — you. You can’t just control other people like that. That’s messed up.”

And the Finger Pointing Begins

Predictably, all of this has triggered the wrath of notable voices already convinced that conservative Christians hold destructive views about homosexuality and gender issues, views which should be silenced and the view-holders punished. Columnist and gay activist Dan Savage, for example, says of Joshua’s parents: “They threw him in front of the truck”, “Example needs to be made of them”, and “Charges should be brought (against them).”

And whereas at one time the notion of sex-change was shocking, in a time when culture is shifting towards approval of sex-change surgery, and the notion that gender can be chosen and modified, the visibility of well-known transsexuals makes disapproval of transsexualism, not transsexualism itself, the shocker. After all, if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie seem comfortable with their 8 year old daughter claiming a male identity,  and if Cher’s daughter Chastity Bono transitioned with Cher’s full support to become Mr. Chaz Bono   and if no less an icon than Olympian Bruce Jenner is now in the process of assuming a fully female identity  then what’s the problem?

All of which paints Mr. and Mrs. Alcorn, already devastated by their loss, in a villainous role. And, by extension, all of us who believe the sex assigned us at birth is our intended sex – a non-negotiable endowed by our Creator – are likewise the bad guys if, in fact, this precious youth killed himself because of our beliefs.

All Have Spinned

But did he? Despite the widespread spin indicting conservative Christian beliefs, there’s another option for blame placing. Clearly Joshua was angry at his parents, his last words to them unmistakable proof. But a reading of his suicide message in its entirety also indicts his peers, perhaps even more than his parents, as the “last straw.” On this point let’s allow him to speak for himself. Describing life after his parents allowed him to return to public school, he notes:

I was excited, I finally had my friends back. They were extremely excited to see me and talk to me, but only at first. Eventually they realized they didn’t actually give a s–t about me, and I felt even lonelier than I did before. The only friends I thought I had only liked me because they saw me five times a week.

And noting the cause of his final despair, he says:

I have decided I’ve had enough. I’m never going to transition successfully, even when I move out. I’m never going to be happy with the way I look or sound. I’m never going to have enough friends to satisfy me. I’m never going to have enough love to satisfy me. I’m never going to find a man who loves me. I’m never going to be happy. Either I live the rest of my life as a lonely man who wishes he were a woman or I live my life as a lonelier woman who hates herself. There’s no winning. There’s no way out. I’m sad enough already, I don’t need my life to get any worse. People say ‘it gets better’ but that isn’t true in my case. It gets worse. Each day I get worse. That’s the gist of it, that’s why I feel like killing myself.

Hold on here. “I’ll never transition successfully from male to female”; “I’ll never be happy with the way I look”; “I’ll never have a man’s love; I’ll never have enough friends”; “That’s why I’m killing myself” – where is the parent’s guilt in all of that?

In fact, when the Alcorns restricted him from his friends, Joshua didn’t even attempt suicide. Only after re-connecting with those he thought were friends, and finding them disinterested or unavailable, did he begin contemplating death. And when describing the bleakness of his future, nowhere did he state, “My parents will never approve of me so I’d rather die.” Instead he cited loneliness, lack of true friends, fear of never being loved, and fear that the very sex-change operation he said he wanted might never solve the problem. Those were the last straws, none of which cast any reasonable doubt over Mr. and Mrs. Alcorn.

“Still a Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest” (Simon and Garfunkel)

Scratch a tragedy’s surface and you’ll often find the blamers assigning unfair and inaccurate blame. (Matthew Shepherd’s grisly murder in 1998 comes to mind, a case in which a young homosexual was beaten to death and pundits began blaming Christian disapproval of homosexuality for the murderous behavior of Shepherd’s killers, none of whom went to church or identified as Christians.) As often happens, Biblically based beliefs are assigned the villain’s role in tragedies far more complex than this age of sound bites and political agendas are willing to recognize.

Joshua Alcorn, aka Leelah, would soon have become an adult. The future was wide open; he was free to pursue life on his own terms, male or female identity, homosexual or heterosexual relations. He refused, and we all lose when someone makes such a horrendous and needless choice. But by his own admission, it was the prospect of a hopeless future, not a parentally influenced present, which drove him over the edge.

“Of All Sad Words of Tongue and Pen, The Saddest Are These: ‘It Might Have Been!’ ” (John Greenleaf Whittier)

But could it all have played differently? I think so, and in both a better church and a better world, here’s how.

Mr. and Mrs. Alcorn would have been taught long ago through their church, Christian books, and Christian media, that homosexuality or gender identity problems were issues many Christian families face. They’d have been prepared with Biblically based materials (because such materials were widely available) so they could respond if, in fact, such an issue arose in their own home. They would have realized perhaps it was more than a phase, but they would have also exercised their parental authority (as indeed they did and, to my thinking, properly) by insisting their son associate with peers they approved of, and that he behave in a manner they condoned. Had he refused, they would rightfully impose needed restrictions (which they also in fact did) and the question of seeing a Christian counselor would be settled by their son’s desire for such counseling. They would reassure him of their love, which they also seem to have done.

But at that age the love and support of peers is a primary need, so at their church Joshua would have found friends his own age who’d accept him as he was, welcoming him into their ranks as a brother without trying to make him more stereotypically masculine, but also without encouraging him to embrace any identity other than male and Christian. He would have known he was loved by his Christian friends, who themselves would, through their Junior and Senior High School church curriculums, have been taught how to respond to a friend struggling with homosexuality or gender related problems.

They’d have realized we all struggle with something, and would have viewed Joshua as a fellow disciple bearing his unique cross while they bore theirs. And he, in turn, would have felt that yes, he was perhaps different. But also definitely and strongly loved; a young man who belonged.

And what do I know? Maybe all of that was in place, and he simply refused it.

We Can Do Better

But sadly, I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t. Modern Christians are still woefully ill-equipped to deal with these issues in our own ranks, so we’re losing way too many individuals affected by these issues, who find more tangible answers (albeit the wrong ones) in the world than they do in the Church.

Joshua stated in his suicide note that he wanted his death to count for something. But his life already counted for something, and perhaps the worst part of this nightmare is that he didn’t seem to know it. He said he wanted a better world in which transsexuals are treated like humans, and there we all agree. He also wanted people to legitimize the desire to change sexes, a request we can’t comply with.

But while it’s true that the accusations leveled against his parents and the Church by both he and numerous commentators are unfair, it’s also true that we can do better. There, and perhaps only there, do I find strong agreement with a heartbroken boy who believed he was a girl and saw no hope. May he be the last of such boys, and may we all learn what needs to be learned from Joshua Alcorn’s life and death.

For a copy of my books on Homosexuality and Gender Identity click here

 

Uncategorized

The Transgender Con? Many “Transgender” People Regret Switch

The Transgender Con? Many “Transgender” People Regret Switch

Written by 

“You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” These are not the words of a conservative organization or a fundamentalist preacher, but of former “transsexual” Alan Finch.

Having decided to “transition from male to female” at age 19, the Australian man later regretted the life-rending move and chose to once again live as his true sex approximately 15 years later. And he’s not alone. A growing number of “transgender” people, though once sure they wanted to live as the opposite sex, now wish they’d never had their bodies surgically altered.

Exploring this phenomenon just today, the Federalist’s Stella Morabito writes:

 Everyone has regrets. Some of us have big regrets. Most everyone has some place to go to get help dealing with them.

Except for, say, a guy who had sex-change surgery and now would like to have his penis back. (The one God gave him.)

Morabito goes on to cite a poll showing that even 65 percent of people who’ve had cosmetic surgery — which is relatively minor body alteration — later regret the decision. As she writes, quoting Courtney Love on her lip enhancement procedure, “I just want the mouth God gave me back.”

Yet many regretful “transsexuals” are afraid to open their mouths. Writing about how the scope of “transgender” de-transition desires is hidden, Morabito writes, “The transgender lobby actively polices and suppresses discussion of sex-change regret, and claims it’s rare (no more than “5 percent.”) [sic]. However, if you do decide to ‘de-transition’ to once again identify with the sex in your DNA, talking about it will get you targeted by trans activists.” This is reminiscent of how the homosexual lobby has viciously attacked grown children of same-sex couples all because these people now oppose same-sex child-rearing, which The New American reported on earlier this month.

Some de-transitioning “transsexuals” are speaking out, however. Starting with Finch, he told The Guardian in 2004:

Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.… You fundamentally can’t change sex…. The surgery doesn’t alter you genetically. It’s genital mutilation. My “vagina” was just the bag of my scrotum. It’s like a pouch, like a kangaroo. What’s scary is you still feel like you have a penis when you’re sexually aroused. It’s like phantom limb syndrome. It’s all been a terrible misadventure. I’ve never been a woman, just Alan.

In fact, there even is a website entitled SexChangeRegret.com, which features the stories of people such as Finch. Another such individual is Matthew Attonley, 30, who underwent genital mutilation seven years ago and had since been living under the name “Chelsea” Attonley, but now wants to de-transition. The Daily Mail quoted him as saying last month:

It is exhausting putting on make-up and wearing heels all the time. Even then I don’t feel I look like a proper woman.

I suffered from depression and anxiety as a result of the hormones too.

I have realised it would be easier to stop fighting the way I look naturally and accept that I was born a man physically.

And given that opponents of genital-mutilation surgery are often accused of trying to force people to live a lie, something Attonley said was quite interesting: “I have always longed to be a woman, but no amount of surgery can give me an actual female body and I feel like I am living a lie,” reports the Mail.

Are these people outliers, as “transgender” activists would say? Not according to research. As The Guardian also wrote in 2004:

There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.

The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham’s aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.

… Chris Hyde, the director of Arif, said: … “There’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized — often to the point of committing suicide.”

Morabito cites as a good example of this late Los Angeles Times sportswriter Mike Penner. After announcing in 2007 that he would return from a vacation as “Christine Daniels” and then becoming a “transgender” activist, he decided to de-transition the next year and reclaim his old Penner byline. But he could not reclaim his sanity.

He committed suicide in 2009.

Interestingly, Morabito reports that all “blog posts and bylines by Christine Daniels were mysteriously scrubbed from the LA Timeswebsite,” and his funeral “was strictly private to keep out media.” But even in death, he wasn’t allowed to leave the “transgender” fold. As Morabito put it, “The LGBT community had their own memorial service, but only for ‘Christine Daniels,’ not Mike Penner.”

An even sadder story is that of Belgian Nancy Verhelst, who was distraught after genital-mutilation surgery, saying she felt more a “monster” than a man. But her government had a solution for her cheaper and quicker than de-transitioning. At her request, they murdered her under Belgium’s euthanasia laws.

Morabito cites another such individual who lamented, “I am grieving at how I have mutilated my body,” but there are too many cases to mention here. And this is no surprise given the criteria for recommending an individual for genital-mutilation surgery.

“Gender dysphoria” (GD), we’re told, is a condition in which a person’s body doesn’t match his true “gender.” But there is no blood test for it. There is no identifiable genetic marker. There is no medical exam at all. Rather, the diagnosis is made based on, as PsychCentral.com puts it, “strong and persistent cross-gender identification”; in other words, strong and persistent feelings that you actually are a member of the opposite sex.

Yet such a diagnostic standard would constitute malpractice in any other branch of medicine. Could you imagine a patient telling a cardiologist that he has a strong and persistent feeling he has heart disease and the doctor, on that basis alone, performing bypass surgery? The point is that whatever one thinks of the soundness of the “gender dysphoria” diagnosis, the basis on which it’s made certainly is not medically sound.

No one has to tell this to Alan Finch. He said in no uncertain terms, “The analogy I use about giving surgery to someone desperate to change sex is it’s a bit like offering liposuction to an anorexic.” The phenomenon also could be analogized to “Body Integrity Identity Disorder” (BIID), the sense that a body part — an arm, leg, etc. — doesn’t belong on your body. As with GD sufferers, those with BIID have strong and persistent feelings that their body doesn’t match their mind, and they likewise desire surgical alteration (amputation). Yet while virtually everyone reflexively assumes that BIID is a psychological problem and that the solution is to change the mind, it’s politically correct with GD to insist that the remedy is to change the body. Is this double standard really driven by medical imperatives — or political ones?

Yet “transgender” dogma is so unquestioned today that even very young children are allowed to choose their “gender.” An example is six-year-old girl Ryland, who Parent 24’s Tamar Cloete bills as the “world’s youngest transgender child.” Calling her parents’ decision to allow her to live as a boy “brave,” Cloete writes that this “may be a phase or it might not, but that is all up to the kid to decide.”

Absolutely striking. We would agree that a six-year-old is far too young to decide his own diet, educational program, or bedtime. But we’re to believe he’s mature enough to decide to “live as the opposite sex”?

Cloete says that Ryland’s parents “learnt about a higher suicide/suicide attempt rate among transgender people” and don’t want to lose their child, indicating they’re unaware that “the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people,” as CNS News reported in August. They also are unlikely to know that 70 to 80 percent of children with their daughter’s feelings spontaneously lose them.

Sadly, the consequences of this ignorance can be irreparable. Just ask Paul Rowe, who now regrets his 1989 genital-mutilation surgery. Feeling stuck in limbo, he’d like to be his old self again but says it’s fruitless. “I can never become a complete man again,” he laments. “There’s no turning back.”

And no one knows this better than the original poster boy for ground-breaking “transgenderism,” tennis player Dr. Richard Raskind. Better known by the name he assumed after genital-mutilation surgery in 1975, “Renee Richards,” the physician is quoted as saying in “The Liaison Legacy,” Tennis Magazine, March 1999, “I get a lot of inquiries from would-be transsexuals, but I don’t want anyone to hold me out as an example to follow.… As far as being fulfilled as a woman, I’m not as fulfilled as I dreamed of being. I get a lot of letters from people who are considering having this operation … and I discourage them all.”

Obviously, surgery or not, sexually confused individuals have a cross to bear. But they very well might be happier if they consider the counsel of former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital Dr. Paul McHugh. “‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” he says. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women.” And that’s why he concluded long ago, “We psychiatrists … would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

Uncategorized

Becoming Transsexual: Getting The Facts On Sex Reassignment Surgery

The Grapevine

Becoming Transsexual: Getting The Facts On Sex Reassignment Surgery

transgender
By some estimates, sex reassignment surgery (SRS) transforms up to 25,000 individuals worldwide each year. Reuters

Worldwide some people believe with the firmest conviction that they are not what they appear. Born into the wrong body, they feel themselves to be a boy held hostage within a girl’s body, a girl within a boy’s body. When self-perception (gender identity) and body do not match, a person must adjust either their minds to their bodies or their bodies to their minds. For many, changing their body to fit their minds, a process requiring great effort and resources, is easier to achieve than the reverse. Perhaps this says everything about the strength of our minds and the power of our self-perception.

Specifically, what is required to align the body with the mind is sex reassignment surgery (SRS), where the genitals are transformed into those of the opposite sex. More than surgery, though, is necessary to achieve and maintain the alternate gender identity. In their standards of care, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommend one year of hormone treatment before SRS. Pre-operative hormone treatments tip a patient’s internal chemical balance in favor of the gender they aspire to be and, according to WPATH, it takes about two years before a patient achieves maximum results. While less obviously dramatic than surgery, hormones are crucial to the process of gender reassignment and some people argue they may be dangerous, even beyond the fact that their physical and medical effects are unknown (there is no published data from randomized clinical trials).

Hormonal Regret?

For instance, at least one regret-filled transsexual suggests pre-surgery hormones may be overly persuasive. As the only (known) case of someone who underwent both types of SRS, Charles Kane, formerly Sam Hashimi, offers a unique perspective on gender and some surprising insights. After divorcing his wife, this businessman and father of two began a phase of so-called experimentation with forays into a nightlife scene, which included many transsexuals. Fascinated by this alternative lifestyle, he made his original decision in 1997 to change his gender and become Samantha Kane. However, after seven years of living as a glamorous blonde (including a broken engagement to a successful businessman, much like her former self), Samantha decided she was not really a woman after all and had another surgery to turn herself back into a man, now known as Charles Kane.

According to Kane, he felt Samantha, his female identity, was simply playing a part, and she would never feel like (or be accepted as) a real woman. Worse, Kane feels he made the decision hastily under the influence of the female hormones, which he feels “pushed him” into the surgery. “I don’t think there’s anyone born transsexual. Areas of their human brain get altered by female hormones,” Kane told Nightline. “It really is like brain washing someone into a way of life.”

As intriguing as Kane’s insights may be, he does not appear to be representative when viewed in light of a recent Swedish study. Looking at SRS over a 50-year period ending in 2010, the researchers found a “2.2 percent regret rate for both sexes,” according to the authors, who also noted “a significant decline of regrets over the time period.” Overall, in Sweden, a total of 767 people (289 natal females and 478 natal males) applied for legal and surgical sex reassignment. and of these 89 percent, comprised of 252 female-to-male transitions (FM) and 429 male-to-female transitions (MF) underwent the procedures. If in Sweden, most transsexuals do not regret their transformation. In all likelihood, they may not feel their hormone treatments pushed them into surgery.

How Many Surgeries Are Performed Each Year?

The long-term implications of transsexual surgeries may be difficult to grasp on a global basis. One reason is it is nearly impossible to calculate the number of SRSes performed each year, since private facilities are not subject to reporting requirements. Nevertheless, theSurgery Encyclopedia estimates the number of gender reassignment procedures conducted in the United States each year at between 100 and 500, while the global number may be two to five times larger than that, and these figures include surgeries performed on children born with intersex genitalia. However, in a more recent report, Lynn Conway suggests surgeons perform between 800 and 1,000 MF operations each year — it is unclear whether Conway includes surgeries performed on intersex children — with as many or more performed on American patients overseas.

In Thailand, sometimes referred to as the gender reassignment capital of the world, SRSes allegedly cost about one-third the price of those performed in the U.S. Meanwhile, the hormones necessary for transitioning are sold, like aspirin and NyQuil, as over-the-counter medications. Many believe Thailand has one of the largest transgender populations in the world and, concurrently, one of the most accepting cultures. Unlike most Western countries, which pathologize the condition as gender identity disorder (GID), or gender dysphoria, Thailand shows tolerance for a wider range of gender identity, including the effeminate men referred to as kathoey.

However, in 2009, Thailand began to require two psychological evaluations and a one-year waiting period for patients wishing to undergo sex reassignment surgery in accordance with the guidelines issued by WPATH. In keeping with Thai culture, though, these rules often may go unenforced, especially for the medical tourists arriving from America, Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Middle East for less expensive surgeries.

One of the premier sex reassignment surgery centers in Bangkok, Preecha Aesthetic Institute (PAI) indicates on its website that it has performed 4,259 plastic and reconstructive surgery operations for MF reassignment. Worldwide, MF surgeries are more common than FM surgeries as female to male surgery is less successful for two reasons. According to the Surgery Encyclopedia, construction of a penis is not feasible less than a year after the surgery to remove the female organs, plus, it is difficult to create a functioning penis from much more limited clitoral tissue.

This YouTube video discusses the techniques of MF transition:

By comparison, this YouTube video reveals the surgeries for a transition from female to male:

While the surgery from male to female may be easier, the resulting lifestyle of those who transition may be more difficult (though not for the reasons suggested by Kane). In thisarticle, a sociologist who has interviewed dozens of transmen (FM transsexuals) notes how many believe they are taken more seriously in their careers now that they are men. By contrast, Joan Roughgarden, a biologist who transitioned in the opposite direction, suggests the opposite effect may have occurred in her life. Judging from personal experience, she now believes “men are assumed to be competent until proven otherwise, whereas a woman is assumed to be incompetent until she proves otherwise.” Gender identity may be more fluid today due to SRS and hormones, but in many ways it remains very much a solid trait, with the power to influence our daily experience of life.

Uncategorized

Houston transgender debate ignores scientific claim that transsexuality is a ‘mental disorder’

Houston transgender debate ignores scientific claim that transsexuality is a ‘mental disorder’

by Will Hall | 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (Christian Examiner) — Much of the reporting about the Houston ordinance that grants transgender rights has been about the city’s issuance and subsequent withdrawal of subpoenas demanding materials from five area pastors. Or, it has focused on the lawsuit petitioners filed against the mayor for failing to comply with the city charter and accept City Secretary Anna Russell’s validation of signatures seeking a city-wide vote on the transgender ordinance.

But largely lost in the debate about rights and politics is the science that suggests the Houston ordinance may cause more harm than help for persons with transgender identities.

“Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder,” according to Paul R. McHugh in an editorial published June 12 in the Wall Street Journal.

McHugh, a venerated psychiatrist, researcher and educator, is the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, and served as Psychiatrist-in-Chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from 1975–2001.

He was addressing what he called a movement that was in “overdrive” in “advancing the transgender cause,” and specifically named three instances as evidence: the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ determination that Medicare can pay for “reassignment” surgery; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s stated openness to lifting a ban on transgenders serving in the military; and a Time magazine cover story, “The Transgender Tipping Point: America’s Next Civil Rights Frontier.”

But the controversial Houston city ordinance also was in national headlines at the same time.

Mayor Annise Parker – the first openly lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city – who crafted the ordinance that passed May 28, acknowledged the ordinance included a “gay and transgender section” but argued that it is a “comprehensive ordinance” because it also included protected classes already in federal laws.

McHugh said 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.”

“‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” he said. And he strongly criticized efforts to legalize what he described as the subjective “feeling of gender” that “being in one’s mind, cannot be questioned by others.”

“The individual often seeks not just society’s tolerance of this ‘personal truth’ but affirmation of it,” he wrote. The end result is a demand for “transgender equality” including government payment for medical and surgical treatments, “and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.”

Proponents for the controversial ordinance, which initially contained a provision allowing biological males to use women’s restrooms, did press on these very points.

“Transgender people didn’t choose to be transgendered,” said James Quinn, described May 15 by freepresshouston.com as “a gay man who came to speak about his experiences with discrimination.”

“Religious people chose to be religious” Quinn added. “Why don’t we protect what is a part of somebody rather than what somebody chooses?”

“Shouldn’t we make our city welcoming to all citizens?” he asked.

The article also called for “the little protections” such as the right to use any public restroom, saying fear of using the restroom caused many transgender individuals to resort to “keeping buckets under their desk at work” or just not going at all.

Despite the loss of that provision with an amended ordinance, the article celebrated that “Parker kept gender identity and orientation protection for hiring, firing, and housing.”

McHugh cited science, not political or social views to support his conclusions about transsexuality.

“When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned,” he said.

Moreover, he described the policy change at Johns Hopkins University in 1979 after tracking transgender people who had surgery with those who did not. He said most of the surgical patients described themselves as “satisfied” but that their “psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

On those results, Johns Hopkins Hospital stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, “since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” he wrote.

Recent research by the prestigious Karolinska Institute in Sweden appears to vindicate the decision.

In a long-term study that followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery, researchers found transgender individuals began to experience increasing mental difficulties about 10 years after having the surgery. Notably, this cohort experienced a suicide mortality rate almost 20 times more than the nontransgender population.

McHugh’s conclusion is “The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.”

The lawsuit to force Houston to allow a city-wide ballot initiative was filed by two pastors, a physician, and the former chairman of the Harris County Republican Party, and, was filed in the Harris County District Court on August 4.

Max Miller, pastor of Mount Hebron Missionary Baptist Church; F.N. Wilams Sr., pastor of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church; Steven Hotze, founder and CEO of Hotze Health & Wellness, Hotze Vitamins and Hotze Pharmacy; and, Jared Woodfill, candidate for chairman of the Texas Republican Party, sought an immediate injunction to allow Houstonians to vote to keep or reject the ordinance.

Having missed the Aug. 18 deadline for calling a November vote, the plaintiffs now must wait to see if the District Court will allow any of their requests to: suspend enforcement of the ordinance, force reconsideration by the city council, or call for an election on whether to repeal it. The case is set for January 2015.

Read more: http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/houston.transgender.debate.ignores.science.that.transsexuality.is.a.mental.disorder/47554.htm#ixzz3IidHafZe

Uncategorized

A Dubliner undergoing transgender treatment died by suicide, an inquest heard.

Gareth Naughton

PUBLISHED26/08/2014 | 18:53

  • The Dublin Coroners Court, Store St. Pic Tom Burke.
The Dublin Coroners Court, Store St. Pic Tom Burke.

Nikita Keane (26) was found hanging in her home at The Coppice, Woodfarm Acres, Palmerstown in Dublin 20 on July 16 last year.

She was undergoing transgender treatment and had changed her name by deed poll. Throughout the inquest held at Dublin Coroner’s Court, Ms Keane was referred to by her birthname Keith Hannigan at the request of the family.

The inquest heard that Ms Keane was discovered by childhood friend George Langan when he and his partner went to visit at around 5pm.

He said that the curtains in the window were pulled closed which was unusual and when his partner knocked on the door, she got no answer. He climbed onto a flat roof to investigate further and, from there, he saw the deceased hanging in the bedroom.

Death had occured a number of hours earlier, the court heard, with a copy of that morning’s Star newspaper found in the house and bills paid at the post office first thing in the morning. A goodbye note was also found.

At post-mortem, the pathologist gave the cause of death as hanging. No drugs, alcohol or medications where found in the toxicology screen.

The inquest heard that the deceased had attended Tallaght Hospital in June 2012 having been the the victim of a serious assault from which she made a full recovery.

Coroner Dr Brian Farrell said that reports from the hospital indicated that the deceased was known to doctors as “Ms Nikita Keane”.

The deceased had been undergoing transgender treatment at Loughlinstown Hospital, he said.

He told the family the death would be registered under the legal name of Nikita Keane with the birth name included in brackets to connect it to the birth certificate.

He returned a verdict of death by suicide.

source:http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/assault-victim-26-undergoing-transgender-treatment-died-by-suicide-inquest-finds-30539042.html

 

Uncategorized

Transgender athletes compete in Ottawa to change attitudes in sports

The Canadian Press

Organizers say the 22-kilometre race along the Ottawa River marked the first time that openly transgender athletes competed in rowing in Canada.

Enza Anderson and Savannah Burton, who first took to the water only two months ago, are part of a five-person team dubbed Team TRANS-fusion.

They finished fourth out of five teams, with a timing of just over two hours, about 10 minutes behind the first-place rowers.

The team’s introduction to rowing was part of a pilot project at Toronto’s Hanlan Boat Club, which sought to attract transgender people to its Learn-to-Row program.

Anderson, 50, said she stayed away from sports for most of her life, wary of the discrimination that transgender athletes can face.

“For me the experience has been very emotional,” she said. “You never know when you go into an environment like this if people will accept you.”

She said it’s a reality that all transgender people face on a regular basis.

“Going to gym has always been my worst nightmare, because I’ve heard horror stories about the change-room dilemma,” she said. “I want to do my workout and not get hassled by anybody.”

Rowing has become an outlet for Anderson, who said the boat club has provided her with technical know-how and a new hobby.

“I never thought I’d reach 50 because of all the struggles of transitioning, and trying to survive and trying to make a living and function like everybody else,” she said, crying.

“Finally participating in an activity that’s so welcoming,” she said. “I think I’m really lucky.

“I’m female and I want to participate as a woman in a sport, not be categorized as male.”

Helen Kennedy, executive director of the human rights advocacy group Egale Canada, said the boat race is “pushing the boundaries for basic equality.”

“It’s a very courageous thing that they’re doing,” she said.

Despite the increasing awareness of transgender issues, Kennedy said, systemic homophobia and transphobia still plague the sports world.

“We need to have a broader conversation about this,” she said, adding that whether it’s Olympic-level competition or grade-school gym class, an individual’s participation in sports is often limited by societal gender roles.

The hope of Sunday’s boat race is to give young transgender individuals, and those currently transitioning, a chance to “see themselves in something significant,” she said.

Team captain Adrian Cornelissen spearheaded the pilot project at Hanlan Boat Club and said respect and acceptance are essential to creating a successful team.

“Not only do we have to row in synch, but there will be different moments when team members hit the wall,” he said, adding that the half-marathon will take about two hours.

Cornelissen estimated there would be between 10 and 15 teams on the water, including singles, doubles and team boats, set to launch from the Ottawa New Edinburgh Club.

His idea for a transgender-inclusive rowing team was sparked by a desire to see role models for transgender youth, he said.

“It’s the fact that they’re part of a team. There are three women and two men in the boat, it just so happened that two of the women are from the trans community.”

He added the program was made possible because of a well-defined policy of acceptance at the boat club, and a focus on inclusive recreational rowing for all skill levels.

“I would not have been able to do that in other clubs because their focus is very different,” he said, adding that the program has put the issue of transgender discrimination at the forefront. “It’s making sports organizations now take a look at their own policies.”

Burton, 39, said her love of sports took a back seat when she recently transitioned from male to female.

Before her transition, she had been a competitive dodgeball player, white-water kayaker and baseball player.

“I was ready to go back to sports,” she said, adding that her hope is to create visibility around transgender athletes. “I know when I was a kid there weren’t any trans athletes out there at all.”

Burton said societal discrimination is a daily struggle for transgender people.

“Even just walking down the streets sometimes, people stare, people say things,” she said. “It’s really tough on some people.”

Follow us on Twitter: @globeandmail

Uncategorized

Is Transgenderism a Mental Disorder or a Right?

In a culture where freedom has been redefined as a right to choose anything and liberty has degenerated into license, the newspeak of the age has declared the instrumental use of the body of another to be sexual freedom. It is not freedom. It turns people into objects of use and degrades the dignity of human sexuality. Sadly, the same spirit of the age fails to recognize the integral unity of the human person, body, soul and spirit, and has turned the human body into a machine with parts which the revolutionaries think can simply be interchanged.  Removal of genitals and attachment of artificially constructed ones which are absolutely incapable of ovulation or conception, does not change the structure of reality. The removal constitutes mutilation and the construction of artificial organs with no reproductive function does not alter the gender or sex of the person. Medical science confirms that our identity as male or female affects even our brains. In addition, even the physical appearance must be sustained by massive doses of synthetic hormones.

Pope Emeritus Benedict was absolutely correct when he said, - the profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. - Gender is a gift. It is also a given. The dangers of the Gender Identity Movement are becoming increasingly clear.Pope Emeritus Benedict was absolutely correct when he said, – the profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. – Gender is a gift. It is also a given. The dangers of the Gender Identity Movement are becoming increasingly clear.

 Highlights

By Deacon Keith A Fournier

Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

8/24/2014 (7 hours ago)

Published in U.S.

Keywords: transgendertransgender activsim,gaylesbiangender identity,


WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) – In an article in the Wall Street Journal published on June 12, 2014,   Dr. Paul R. McHugh, wrote about a medical fact, sex change or what is now routinely called “sexual reassignment surgery” is what he called “biologically impossible“. He also referred to what is routinely called “transgenderism” as a mental disorder.

Dr McHugh is a distinguished service professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins and served as their chief psychiatrist for almost three decades. He further opined that those who promote sex change operations are not helping but hurting people with this disorder.

One of the few members of the secular Press with the courage to report on this now politically incorrect topic was Michael W. Chapman. In an article in CNS News entitled Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;’ Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’  Chapman  wrote:

“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.”

“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.”

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.”

I have written on the issues involved in this entire matter frequently.  As expected, I have been also pilloried by some involved in a small segment of the homosexual equivalency community who simply will not accept any other opinions other than their own.

However, the facts are the facts and the tragedy which is being unleashed by what is now called the Gender Identity Movement is too dire to not contend for the truth. The words of creation recorded in the Book of Genesis, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1:27) are being rejected and the consequences are evident in a culture which is spinning out of control.

The proponents of a feigned ability to change the nature of reality claim that changing gender is now another one of those multiplying new-found rights in a society which has nearly lost its mind. Following the  pattern of their cultural revolutionary agenda, they have used verbal engineering to prepare the way for social and legal engineering, all intended to foist their ideology on us all.

The proponents of this new cultural order are now well on the way to compelling us to succumb to their brave new world or face the consequences. In an address to the Roman Curia on Thursday, December 21, 2012, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI exposed the falsity and social danger of what is now called gender theory in the circles of the cultural revolutionaries. Here is an excerpt:

The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question.”

“He quotes the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne na?t pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.” 

“The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, which serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God.”

“This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will.”

“The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him.” 

“Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defense of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.”

We live in an age rushing headlong into darkness while it professes to be enlightened. The words of the apostle Paul ring true, our culture is “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25). Pope Emeritus Benedict was correct. His insights provide clarity in a cloud of confusion. In a world with no givens we are losing one of the first gifts, the gift of our identity as male or female. As a result we are becoming impoverished and not liberated.

We now regularly read stories of transgender athletes and we are supposed to hail their choice as some sort of act of bravery. We are repeatedly told we must accommodate the idea this idea that people can choose their own gender identity. Children can now choose their gender identity in California. If they are too young to do so, then parents can do it for them.

In July of 2013 the Washington Post recently featured an article entitled Transgender at 6: For Tyler and his parents, no second thoughts about parents who made such a choice for their little girl, allowing her to act like a little boy.   Transgender activism seeks to restructure the social order to reflect the false idea that gender is malleable.

A Reuters news story of March 23, 2011 entitled “Transgender New Yorkers sue over birth certificates”showed how these activists are using the Courts to enforce their cultural agenda:

“A group of transgender residents filed a lawsuit against New York City over what they say are burdensome requirements for them to change the gender on their birth certificates. The city’s birth certificate requirements amount to discrimination for transgender residents, said Noah Lewis, an attorney representing the residents in the case. New York’s Health Department requires residents to show proof of surgical procedures in order to change the gender status on a birth certificate.

“But the lawsuit, filed by the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund in state Supreme Court on behalf of three residents, said many transgender people cannot afford the surgical procedures. Instead, a note from a doctor verifying someone’s transgender status should be sufficient, it said. The requirements mean many transgender people cannot get up-to-date or usable identification, Lewis said.”This subjects them to harassment and discrimination. They can be laughed at or turned away doing everyday transactions like going to the DMV (the Department of Motor Vehicles) or applying for jobs,” he said.

“One of those suing the city, Joan Prinzivalli, said she would like to get the surgery the city requires to prove she is female but she is unable to for health reasons. “This policy is unfair to me and to other transgender people who just want IDs that match who we are,” she said. City attorney Gabriel Taussig said the Health Department would review the group’s concerns. “We are very sympathetic to the petitioners’ concerns and recognize that this is a complex issue,” he said.

“The Health Department must be satisfied that an applicant has completely and permanently transitioned to the acquired gender prior to the issuance of a birth certificate.” Birth certificates for transgendered people in New York were an issue earlier this month when the city made an apology to a transgendered couple asked to show birth certificates when getting married because the clerk claimed they did not appear to match the people in their photo IDs. They threatened to sue because state laws do not require couples to show birth certificates when getting married.”

A  March, 2011 article in Mercatornet featured an article written by Babette Francis, the National and Overseas Coordinator of Endeavour Forum Inc., a pro-life, pro-family NGO which has special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN. The article, entitled “Gender bending: let me count the ways” revealed that gender identity activists have succeeded in pushing the Australian Human Rights Commission to recognize 23 genders.

“In the beginning there was male and female. Soon there was homosexuality. Later there were lesbians, and much later gays, bisexuals, transgenders and queers. But anyone who thinks LGBTQ  is the full count of contemporary sexualities is sadly out of date. For example, the transgendered have for some time been divided into those who are awaiting treatment, those have had hormone treatment, those who have had hormones and surgery, and those who have had hormones and surgery but are not happy and want it all reversed. “

“Enter the Australian Human Rights Commission with some exciting new developments. In an extraordinary document entitled “Protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity”, the AHRC has come up with a further list of “genders” which they require us to recognize, and on whose behalf they want our federal government to pass anti-discrimination legislation.” 

“To date (by the time you read this, the AHRC’s family of sexualities may have increased and multiplied) these are: transgender, trans, transsexual, intersex, androgynous, agender, cross dresser, drag king, drag queen, genderfluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, third gender, third sex, sistergirl and brotherboy. (No, I don’t know what “neutrois” means).” 

“So if we add these genders to the LGBTQ list we get 23 in all, not to mention the divisions within the transgendered group. For PR purposes, however, the “gendered” community now identifies itself as LGBTQI (the “I” stands for “intersex”.) Rather than abbreviating I think they should add all the other letters of the alphabet, then we would all feel protected and not discriminated against.

“Being Indian by birth and having married an Australian of Anglo-Celtic origin, I am all for diversity, but I am not going to commit to “neutrois” until someone tells me what it means. Once the government passes proposed legislation, presumably businesses will be required to provide designated toilets for each gender, and Equal Opportunity Gender Identity (EOGI) units will ensure compliance with federal legislation.”

These articles simply reflect where this is all headed unless we expose it and oppose it. The operative word in all of this is the word gender.  Cultural revolutionaries are intent on redefining the word. Then, using the Police Power of the State, they want to insist that people be guaranteed a right to somehow choose their gender and change their mind at whim. In effect, they seek to engage in a cultural revolution.

Babette Francis mentioned a book in the gender identity movement, “Trans People in Love“, co-edited by Katrina Fox, an Australian activist, who “wrote an emotive piece for the Australian Broadcasting Commission recently entitled “Marriage needs redefining.” In it she insists that all the “gender boundaries” surrounding marriage must be removed. “A more inclusive option,” she begins, “is to allow individuals to get married whatever their sex or gender, including those who identify as having no sex or gender or whose sex may be indeterminate.

We also face an increase of what are wrongly referred to as Sex Change or Gender Reassignment surgeries. Though those who suffer from Gender Identity Disorder (GID) deserve empathy, the facts remain; no such surgery can accomplish a change of gender or sexual identity. In effect, they mutilate the body and destroy the bodily integrity of the person. Every single human cell contains chromosomes which identify whether we are male or female. That cannot be changed. It is a given. In fact, it is a gift.

In a culture where freedom has been redefined as a right to choose anything and liberty has degenerated into license, the newspeak of the age has declared the instrumental use of the body of another to be sexual freedom. It is not freedom. It turns people into objects of use and degrades the dignity of human sexuality. Sadly, the same spirit of the age fails to recognize the integral unity of the human person, body, soul and spirit, and has turned the human body into a machine with parts which the revolutionaries think can simply be interchanged.

Removal of genitals and attachment of artificially constructed ones which are absolutely incapable of ovulation or conception, in the case of a transsexual male who tries to be a woman, or the generation of sperm, in the case of a transsexual woman trying to be a man, does not change the structure of reality.

The removal constitutes mutilation and the construction of artificial organs with no reproductive function does not alter the gender or sex of the person. Medical science confirms that our identity as male or female affects even our brains. In addition, even the physical appearance must be sustained by massive doses of synthetic hormones.

In 2002 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church issued a letter sent without public release to every Bishop. It clearly stated that such surgical procedures do not alter a person’s gender and that in no circumstance are baptismal records of such individuals who have undergone them to be altered. Further, the document made clear that no one who has undergone such a surgery is eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter the religious life.

At the time the letter was received from Rome, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., was the President of the U.S. Bishops’ conference. He sent a letter to all US Bishops in which he wrote “The altered condition of a member of the faithful under civil law does not change one’s canonical condition, which is male or female as determined at the moment of birth.” The Bishop was absolutely correct.

The Gender Identity Movement insists upon the recognition in the positive law of a such a so called new-foundright to somehow choose one’s gender. This is a biological, psychological and ontological impossibility. Yet, the advocates of this movement insist upon laws which accommodate, fund, and enforce this right. Those involved in the activist wing of the movement want to compel the rest of society to recognize their vision of a brave new world or face the Police Power of the State.

Pope Emeritus Benedict was absolutely correct, “the profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious.” Gender is a gift. It is also a given. The dangers of the Gender Identity Movement are becoming increasingly clear.
—–

Deacon Keith Fournier is Founder and Chairman of Common Good Foundation and Common Good Alliance. A married Roman Catholic Deacon of the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, he and his wife Laurine have five grown children and six grandchildren, He serves as the Director of Adult Faith Formation at St. Stephen, Martyr Parish in Chesapeake, VA. He is also a human rights lawyer and public policy advocate.

Uncategorized

Transgender advocates seek to redefine everyone!

How The Trans-Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everyone

By    23, 2014

The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans don’t fully understand.

Did you think only women get pregnant? Or only women get abortions? Planned Parenthood and NARAL—ironically both pro-abortion organizations that self-identify as champions of women’s rights—may soon be trying to change your mind about that.

One signal comes from a little petition drive that goes by #protransprochoice. It urges both Planned Parenthood and NARAL to adopt language more “inclusive” of transgender persons and to acknowledge “gender-non-conforming” people. Both pro-abortion organizations, which have been longtime supporters of the LGBT lobby, tweeted back supportive replies.

 So what does this mean and why should we care?

Well, maybe Exhibit A should be Oprah Winfrey introducing us to “the first pregnant man” in 2008. This would be a woman named Tracey who “transitioned” to being Thomas by having a double mastectomy with a dose of hormones to produce facial hair and such. Thomas thought it would be nice to have a baby someday, and so decided to keep “his” vagina, uterus, and ovaries intact. But for some reason, even though Thomas was legally documented as male, she (oops!) needed a sperm donation. (Life isn’t fair.) In any event, when pregnant, Thomas was happy to pose nude (mostly, anyway) for the camera.

Thomas has since had two more children and in 2012 decided to undergo surgery for a more complete transition to a male bodily appearance. She now lectures on “trans fertility and reproductive rights.” Most do not understand what a seismic shift in language is being pushed here. In this scheme of things, using the pronoun “she” to refer to a person who goes through pregnancy and gives birth to a child is grounds for punishment.

Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere ‘social constructs.’

So what does it all mean? At root, this isn’t really about people like Thomas. It’s mostly about everybody else. It’s all about changing you and your self-concept. As fringy as they may sound, injecting such lies into our language—“the pregnant man” and the push to separate the word “pregnancy” from the word “woman”—are clear signals that we are moving steadily towards erasing all gender distinctions in the law.

And why should we care? Because erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human. A new legal definition of human—as neither male nor female—would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere “social constructs.”

We should especially care because we are well on the way to enacting such laws already. In November, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The law is based on the assumption that one’s perceived “gender identity” does not always “match” your sex “assigned” or “designated” at birth. So, the thinking goes, the law should allow a more ambiguous array of gender identities: male, female, both, neither, or something else entirely. It’s not an overstatement to say that ENDA is a huge step, mostly under the radar, to codify a new definition of humanity.

It’s all about changing you and your self-concept.

In the Senate, every Democrat and ten Republicans voted for ENDA: Senators Ayotte, Collins, Flake, Hatch, Heller, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey. So all that remains is for the House of Representatives to take up ENDA (which hasn’t happened just yet) and follow suit.

(I have a modest proposal. If and when ENDA is taken up by the House of Representatives, members might consider proposing an amendment that allows equal treatment for a neglected category of oppressed: those who suffer from discrimination based upon age identity. It would simply extend the logic of gender identity laws. You can read more here at The Federalist: “If We Can Pick Our Gender, Can We Pick Our Age?”)

It’s About Control, Not Rights

The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans (especially certain senators) don’t fully understand. How else to describe a crusade with such far-reaching consequences for First Amendment rights? The legal destruction of gender distinctions will inevitably dissolve family autonomy, thereby uprooting freedom of association. Free expression becomes “hate speech” if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol. Freedom of religion takes a direct hit any way you look at it.

Under the guise of “rights,” the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State. Once we allow the State to refuse to recognize that children result from the male-female union, we grant the State more power to separate us from our children. As power becomes more centralized in the State, the individuals and institutions of the State, inevitably flawed, end up owning our personal relationships. With weakened mediating institutions—family, churches, private associations—we lose the buffer zones that stand between individuals and an encroaching state.

Free expression becomes ‘hate speech’ if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol.

Contrary to popular belief, this push to eliminate distinctions of sex from law and replace them with variable and sundry perceptions of gender does not do what it promises. It doesn’t simply provide us with a panoply of gender identities from which we can choose, like the 50-something identities available on Facebook  Rather, it’s the setup for a gender vacuum. As you enter this vacuum of gender-neutrality, less and less separates and protects you from the State.

Let’s think this through a bit more. If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete. The elites pushing same-sex “marriage” have known this all along. If you thought it was really marriage equality they were after, see point three in this Federalist article, “Bait and Switch.”

If we agree to change language to suit the transgender lobby, we ultimately agree to destroy in law the entire basis (sex distinctions) for the only union that can result in autonomously formed families. The implications for privacy and personal relationships are vast, and we need to understand that.

Under the guise of ‘rights,’ the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State.

If you think you’ll be able to cultivate and preserve strong personal relationships in this new matrix, you are mistaken. That can’t easily happen in a system in which your familial relationships are not acknowledged or respected by the State. This gender-neutral scheme obliterates the template for the family as a unit. And if the family is no longer accepted as a union that originates through the union of male and female, there is no real basis for the State to recognize any family as an autonomous unit. Without any such obligation, children become more easily classified as state property and our personal relationships are more easily controlled by the state. If that sounds totalitarian, that’s because it is.

The legal erasure of gender distinctions, especially as they relate to the conception, gestation, and birth of children, would effectively cut us off from our spouses and children in the eyes of the law. How can it be otherwise? Yeah, maybe in the bargain we’ll retain the right to “freely” call ourselves male, female, or other. But once we’ve in essence sold our birthright, this is nothing more than a bowl of pottage.

Where Are We Now?

While Americans have been distracted by same-sex “marriage,” transgender activists have been quietly changing laws all across the nation to redefine humanity on their terms. In fact, the enactment of gender identity laws has in many cases outpaced same-sex marriage legislation. So far they’ve passed in 18 states, the District of Columbia, and about 150 municipalities 

But now the “transgender revolution” is going on offense. In the past few weeks, a virtual blitzkrieg of drag has rained down upon us from the media. Here are just a few items in the lineup:

It’s ironic that those leading the charge for the transgender revolution would claim there is only one right side to history. Nevertheless, none of this should surprise anyone who has been paying attention. The whole movement has been prepped by the push for genderless marriage. The Supreme Court’s Winsdor decision last year, and its consolidation by activist judges striking down state laws on marriage, has been the cue the transgender movement has been waiting for.

After all, the “T for Transgender” in LGBT has been around for decades, custom-built into the LGBT agenda. If you think this is the end of the line, you’re kidding yourself. There is much, much more to come.

How Deep Are We Into This Transgender Thing?

There’s no end in sight. On the surface, the transgender package, with its assortment of gender identities, to many still resembles a fringe movement, or a passing fad. So lots of folks have been duped into thinking that the purpose of it all is to grant equal rights to a minority demographic. But it’s really about changing the language, and thereby redefining us all.

If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete.

Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda.

So how might an elite impose “collective belief formation” upon an unwitting public? It’s about marketing, of course, injecting memes (an older term is “hype”) into public discourse in order to build opinion cascades. An interesting academic look at this is in a Stanford Law Review article by Cass Sunstein and Timur Kuran on “availability cascades.” It explains how you can take an implausible idea and make it seem plausible by raising its availability in public discourse. Once you’ve shaped public opinion through all the usual channels—Hollywood, academic, the media, and so on—then the road to public policy has been nicely paved.

Of course, we see these things applied by mass marketers like Oprah Winfrey and talk shows like “The View” that serve to shape and mold and cajole “new ways of thinking” into the mindset of millions of listeners.

The Role of Linguistic Fascism in the Cult of Transgenderism

We can’t underestimate the role of the language police in forcing compliance with any agenda that hides under the “civil liberties” claim.

Transgender advocacy groups seem to hold very high and specific requirements and expectations from the public and media in terms of how they expect to be understood and talked to. GLAAD’s Media Advisory Guide contains a long checklist of “do’s and don’ts” when one is talking to or referring to a transgender person. Pronouns, of course, are a very touchy subject. Other lists are put out by various advocacy groups, including Transgender Equality, the Human Rights CampaignGender Spectrum, and a Cal Berkeley group, to name but a very few.

Forcing changes in our language forces changes in our thoughts.

These convoluted lexicons foisted upon a docile public are daunting. And they’re no doubt meant to be. Interestingly, use of such linguistic gymnastics happens to be an essential device in teasing out a cult mindset.

Margaret Thaler Singer, an expert on cults, has written about the role of rhetoric in stifling independent thinking among cult members: “As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group’s jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members’ thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. . . . . One large international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. . . . One can search from term to term trying to learn this new language.”

According to Singer: “Orwell reasoned that if a government could control all media and interpersonal communication while simultaneously forcing citizens to speak in politically controlled jargon, it could blunt independent thinking.”

As we navigate the labyrinths of identity politics, we must never forget that forcing changes in our language forces changes in our thoughts. And in the case of gender identity, this means accepting language that universally redefines—or perhaps more accurately, un-defines—us all.

Read whole article: http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/23/how-the-trans-agenda-seeks-to-redefine-everyone/

Uncategorized