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.


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.



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.


Dysmorphic Disorder Culpable in Transsexuality

San Clemente Times

Letter: Dysmorphic Disorder Culpable in Transsexuality

SCSQUARED halfJeffrey Herman, San Clemente

There is a mental disease called dysmorphic disorder in which a patient believes that an arm, leg, eye, or other body part is foreign to them and strongly desires to have that portion of their body removed. Rather than attempting to treat this disorder, some surgeons will actually abide by the patient’s wishes and remove that body part.

Up until recently, feelings of transsexuality was an indication of having dysmorphic disorder, but today a certain political movement has convinced the public (and news media) that it’s perfectly normal for someone to pretend that they are of a different gender. Rather than treating the disease, we are instead giving that person special rights and privileges (e.g., boys being allowed to use girls showers and bathrooms). It’s not normal—it’s a mental disorder and should be treated as such.

Our gender is determined by the chromosomes we’re born with: XX = female, XY = male. It’s the patient’s choice to accept that or not, but their choice should not burden society.


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


Public Schools Force Kids Into Transgender Wars


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


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.


Robert Wenman: Some truths on gender change.

Here is some truth on changing gender from someone who knows.I pursued gender transition fully convinced to be a woman in a man’s body despite being a fully matured 6ft. 2in. male with large extremities and no contributory physical medical conditions.
I was initially euphoric having completed the two year true life test, successful sex reassignment surgery and having full legal rights as a female. Many of my then associates had complimented me on my courage.
I had perceived living a new life happily ever having completed my gender journey however happiness and harmony was not to be. I began acknowledging severe emotional difficulties trying to assimilate in society as a woman. Life’s everyday routines once taken for granted became consistent struggles filled with fears and anxieties. I feared using a public restroom avoiding the call of nature as much as possible. I sensed people were staring at me when shopping, walking down a street or in a mall. My heart would pound with fear when encountering groups of young people and I dreaded being addressed as sir on the telephone. I sensed many of my then co workers were laughing at me behind my back, reluctantly cooperating only because of mandated human rights policies. These fears only intensified as I found myself constantly pining for acceptance and affirmation while any critical look or disparaging remark could leave me distressed for days. I eventually fell into a very deep clinical depression requiring antidepressant medication and was questioning how I could go on living life in such a sad state.
This was not supposed to be as I had believed my gender transition to female would bring happiness and harmony. I had blamed a perceived bigoted and hateful society for my issues however in reality my battles were internal as a spiritual war was raging within my conscience and soul. God’s Holy Spirit of Truth was convicting and chastening me in order to bring me to repentance and to the cross of Jesus Christ for forgiveness and redemption.My fears and anxieties were the byproducts of living in bondage to sin and not in truth. I had attempted to remanufacture and usurp my very creation via hormones,surgery and legal proclamation. Additionally I caused harm to my family, friends,associates and a society forced to cooperate with something factually untrue
The Lord granted me grace, mercy and forgiveness, by simply believing on his Son the Lord Jesus Christ as the propitiation for all my sins. I am now a child of God having returned to living in truth in my true birth male identity. I can once again use a public restroom,go shopping, walk down a street or in a mall, talk on the telephone and no longer need antidepressant medication.The Lord Jesus Christ has freed me from the spirit of bondage to fear. I am now thankful for who I am and for the many blessings in my life.
Rom 8: 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,whereby we cry, Abba, Father (16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,that we are the children of God:

Posted with permission of the author.


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

Prof. R. A. J. Gagnon on the Bruce Jenner phenomen

News Feed

The face of the new anti-somatic Gnosticism: The sick national conspiracy to pretend that Bruce Jenner is a woman because he is mentally confused, has surgically mutilated his male body, and received plastic reconstruction surgery to give him a not entirely successful appearance as a woman, to the fanfare of the twisted leftwing elite and with the financial windfall of a reality TV show. For that he gets an award for “courage”: “Shortly after the cover reveal, ESPN announced that Caitlyn, a former Olympian, will receive the Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the EPSY Awards in July.” The man needs help; instead he gets validation for his neurosis. This is not love. This is functional hate.

Continue to respect the stamp of masculine gender that the Creator bestowed on Jenner by using a masculine pronoun of Jenner and his parents’ chosen masculine name for him. “Transgender” is a misnomer.

As if to underscore the complaint and rebellion, “sex reassignment surgery” (SRS)—a benign name for what others might designate intentional mutilation or butchering—is major, painful, and expensive surgery whose results are incomplete at best. One has to go far in an effort to overturn God’s design and even then it is never complete. Typically SRS involves the surgical removal of perfectly healthy internal genitals (testes or ovaries/uterus) and radical alteration of perfectly healthy external genitalia. For male-to-female (MF) transsexuals this involves “vaginoplasty”: gutting the insides of the penis, creating a “vaginal” cavity, and constructing a “clitoris” from the head of the penis…. For MF transsexuals “transformation” also entails painful electrolysis of facial hair and sometimes also electrolysis of body hair, facial plastic surgery, voice surgery, breast implants, and silicone injections in the hips and buttocks.

The superficial character of these attempts at physical reassignment is obvious from the fact that the chromosomal inheritance doesn’t change. Functioning internal genitalia consistent with the new sex cannot be created. The “reassigned” body does not respond by producing its own other-sex hormones (whether testosterone or estrogen). Hormone treatment, through patch, pill, or injection, is lifelong. Fertility is destroyed. For MF transsexuals the new “vagina” must be regularly dilated through the use of dildo-like plastic rods. And even after very expensive and complete procedures most transsexuals still don’t quite look, sound, and act like members of the sex to which they were allegedly reassigned.

Jenner appears to fit the profile of an “autogynephilic transsexual” to a “t.” Autogynephilic transsexuals are, as the name suggests, erotically aroused by the thought or image of themselves as women (auto for “self,” gyne for “woman,” and philic for “loving”; i.e., loving oneself as a woman). They tend to be attracted to women and men, sometimes to one or the other or, if asexual, to neither. Chiefly, however, they are sexually excited by the image of themselves as females with vaginas. As adolescent boys they found sexual gratification through secretly wearing women’s lingerie, looking in a mirror, and masturbating to that image. Since autogynephilic transsexuals as boys engaged in male sports and had male friends, they were not perceived by others to be particularly feminine boys. Typically they have been married to a woman before becoming an overt transsexual, find employment in ‘masculine occupations’ (technology, science, etc.), don’t come out publicly as women until their late thirties or beyond, and have a more difficult time than “homosexual transsexuals” in passing themselves off as women.

Essentially autogynephilic transsexuals are misdirected heterosexuals who have transferred the woman of their desires from outside themselves to within themselves; in short, they are men who are heterosexually oriented to the woman inside them. Anne Lawrence refers to them as “men trapped in men’s bodies” rather than “women trapped in men’s bodies.” For obvious reasons it is not unusual for autogynephilic transsexuals to hide from others the fact that they get sexual thrills from thinking of themselves as a woman.

See further my article, “Transsexuality and Ordination” at http://www.robgagnon.net/artic…/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf

If you want more of this, vote Democratic.

Here she is, Caitlyn Jenner. Bruce Jenner proudly debuted as the woman who she was all along, as she graces the July 2015 issue of Vanity Fair. “Every day you always had a secret. From morning til night. Caitlyn doesn’t have any secrets,” she said in b-roll video of the photo shoot. “[As] soon as th…