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:


Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution.

A drastic physical change doesn’t address underlying psycho-social troubles.


 - June 12, 2014.

The government and media alliance advancing the transgender cause has gone into overdrive in recent weeks. On May 30, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review board ruled that Medicare can pay for the “reassignment” surgery sought by the transgendered—those who say that they don’t identify with their biological sex. Earlier last month Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that he was “open” to lifting a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Time magazine, seeing the trend, ran a cover story for its June 9 issue called “The Transgender Tipping Point: America’s next civil rights frontier.”

Yet 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 suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

A man who looks into the mirror and sees himself as a woman Getty Images

With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption “I’m ugly.” These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects’ minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

For the transgendered, this argument holds that one’s feeling of “gender” is a conscious, subjective sense 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. Here rests the support for “transgender equality,” the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents’ rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry’s domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the “recovered memory” craze.

You won’t hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. 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.

We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. 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.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

There are subgroups of the transgendered, and for none does “reassignment” seem apt. One group includes male prisoners like Pvt. Bradley Manning, the convicted national-security leaker who now wishes to be called Chelsea. Facing long sentences and the rigors of a men’s prison, they have an obvious motive for wanting to change their sex and hence their prison. Given that they committed their crimes as males, they should be punished as such; after serving their time, they will be free to reconsider their gender.

Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from “everything is normal” sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. “Diversity” counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. 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.

Dr. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is the author of “Try to Remember: Psychiatry’s Clash Over Meaning, Memory, and Mind” (Dana Press, 2008).


Reconciling With Reality: How to Bring Healing to the Transgender Community

June 05, 2014

Reconciling With Reality: How to Bring Healing to the Transgender Community

Reconciling With Reality: How to Bring Healing to the Transgender Community

In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s masterpiece The Brothers Karamazov, atheist Ivan Karamazov booms, “It’s not God that I do not accept, you understand, it is this world of God’s, created by God, that I do not accept and cannot agree to accept. … I do not accept it and do not want to accept it.”

Although Ivan claims not to be casting judgment on God, he cannot evade the fact that rejection of creation necessarily involves rejection of the Creator. There is no way around it. When we reject God’s world, we reject God. When we judge his design to be inadequate, we subsequently substitute our own design in place of his. And, as creators of our own reality, we become subject to no higher authority than ourselves.

As Jesus noted, no one can serve two masters. We either serve God or ourselves — his design or our design.

When faced with this choice, people often opt for the latter, which should be expected in a world plagued by rampant sinfulness and disordered loves. What might be unexpected, however, is the unprecedented manner in which the media are celebrating the demolition of traditional sexual norms and amplifying the voices of people who are intent on reconciling themselves with their natural inclinations rather than God’s design. That is exactly what is happening among the approximately 1.5 million Americans who identify as transgender and who insist that biological sex doesn’t matter — that only our shared humanness is important.

But God did not create human beings characterized by sexless uniformity. In the beginning, God created them male and female. As embodied beings, our sexual complementarity is a significant part of our humanness.

For the LGBT community, however, biological sex — when not mistaken — is meaningless, and gender identity is a social construct subject to personal discernment. In their interpretation, if you feel like a man, then you are a man, even if your biology tells a different story. Transgender apologists assert that biological facts are superfluous. Your gender is subject to your desire and your choice, which makes you free to create your own reality.

According to advocates of gender choice, God did not make us male and female, we did. And we can change it if we don’t like it. In this new world of “gender fluidity,” we are the designers, and our identity is subject to our choice, which reflects our natural impulses. Alas, subjective feeling is crowned ruler over objective reality. And desire is pronounced king over reason.

The transgender crowd is promoting their worldview in media outlets that reach millions of U.S. households. A brief overview of prominent news stories featuring transgender individuals will give us greater insight into their worldview. How might Christians be able to respond to their rejection of biological reality?

Choosing to live for me

When Janet Mock, formerly known as Charles, underwent sex-reassignment surgery at age 18, he felt that for him “there was no other choice” but to be himself. And for years, even when he was a biological male, he “knew” he was a woman.

While promoting the book Redefining RealnessJanet told Piers Morgan, “I always knew that I was me. I didn’t know that it was about gender or anything other than … the inclinations I just naturally had.”

The entire process of transitioning into a woman was, as Janet recalls, “a step for me to move closer to me. It was a reconciliation with myself. … It felt validating and affirming.”

Throughout the interview, Janet routinely notes that she acted “for me” and “for myself.” “By choosing to live my life for me and cut out all the noise from … people,” Janet states, she was enabled “to live a life that was full and affirming and happy.” These statements are consistent with the entire ethic undergirding the transgender movement.

Janet’s advice to young people is: “Tap into yourself; know your truth; and surround yourself with people who affirm you and love you for exactly who you are.”

Like the Sophist Protagoras, Janet maintains that “man is the measure of all things.” Janet’s worldview rejects transcendent sources of truth and morality. For Janet, the truth is not just relative — it belongs to human beings, who can tweak the truth and toy with it however they want. Janet conceives of the truth as clay to be molded to his liking. His subjective feelings are correct. The objective facts about his biological makeup are wrong. He has taken control of his own narrative rather than subjecting himself to the biblical narrative and the direction it offers for human sexuality.

Instead of acknowledging human frailty and recognizing the need to be reconciled with our Creator, Janet assumes that he is the holder of truth and that his desires are not subject to falsehood. As a result, he believes he will be healed when he is reconciled with himself — his natural desires.

Christians, on the other hand, assert that healing is effected when we reconcile ourselves with the Creator and his creation rather than our tainted desires. Whereas the biblical worldview contends that humans find fulfillment when loving God — and living according to our nature (including our sexual nature) as it is designed by him — the secular worldview held by the LGBT community maintains that humans find fulfillment when loving themselves, which they do by affirming their native impulses. Whether or not those impulses line up with any external standard — like God’s design, for instance — is considered a non-issue.

Kevin D. Williamson writes in a column on National Review Online, “Having a culture organized around the elevation of unreality over reality in the service of Eros, who is a sometimes savage god, is not only irrational but antirational. … Sex is a biological reality, and it is not subject to subjective impressions, no matter how intense those impressions are, how sincerely they are held, or how painful they make facing the biological facts of life.”

James, the brother of Jesus, warns us that we can be led astray by our desires, which are unstable and untrustworthy when they are not grounded in God’s eternal truth. “Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death,” that is, the death that accompanies our rejection of the author of life (James 1:14-15).

“I just thought that I was a girl”

Laverne Cox is one of the stars on the critically-acclaimed Netflix original series Orange Is the New Black. When the transgender advocate was not selected as one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people, there was an outcry on social media (#whereisLaverneCox). In response to the pressure, Time Magazine has placed Cox on its June 9 cover with the headline: “The Transgender Tipping Point: America’s next civil rights frontier.”

In the interview, Cox says he was bullied for exhibiting feminine traits when he was young. He had no idea why since “up until that point I just thought that I was a girl and that there was no difference between girls and boys.” Now, he says, “I couldn’t imagine my life if I were still in denial or lying, pretending to be a boy. That seems ridiculous to me.”

Fed up with a “binary world” that recognizes only “two genders,” Cox offers a solution: Let go of what you think you know about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman, “because that doesn’t necessarily mean anything inherently.”

Growing up in a single-parent home, Cox never knew his father. Because his mother was so busy “trying to figure out how to put food on the table and clothes on our backs,” Cox says he was unable to establish an emotional connection with his mother. He simply did not feel comfortable talking to her about substantive issues.

Cox notes, “During puberty, the attraction for other boys got really strong. And I learned in church that was a sin.” Unable to connect with anyone in his family or in his church, he sought saving grace elsewhere — in performance, in creativity, and in imagination. Finally, he found affirmation in the LGBT community and felt as if he discovered his place in the world.

In his search for identity, Cox had no influential male figure to whom he could turn for guidance. Without adequate spiritual support, Cox failed to discover his place in the biblical narrative. As a result, he took control of his own narrative, and placed his hopes in the “life-sustaining” outworking of his gender preference.

According to the biblical worldview, meaning is found when we look outward — to God, to his intention for human functioning, and to his ordering of the world. But, according to the secular worldview, meaning is discovered when we look inward. That’s exactly what the transgender community has done. Cox, speaking to a young girl, Soleil, who claims to be struggling with gender identity, said, “I think about when I was that age and my gender was being policed and how deeply painful it was and how it made me feel like I was wrong, at my very core, that every instinct I had, to reach for this and be who I was, was wrong. … We need to protect our children from that and allow them to be themselves.”

Christians are well-aware that there are two selves constantly battling within us — the spiritual self and the fallen self. To which self should we allow our young to remain faithful?

“Why did God make me like this?”

At younger ages, children are admitting discomfort with their biological sex. And in many cases, parents are indulging the feelings of their children. A video currently popular on the Internet shows a 5-year-old girl named Ryland who has decided she is a boy.

Describing Ryland’s story, her parents state that “as soon as Ryland could speak, she would scream, ‘I am a boy!’” Despite her young age, Ryland’s parents began “truly” listening to their child, who would frequently comment, “When the family dies, I will cut my hair so I could be a boy.” “Why did God make me like this?” Ryland would ask. Having listened to their 5-year-old child, Ryland’s parents came to the conclusion that “although Ryland was born with female anatomy, her brain identifies with that of a boy.” From that point on, Ryland’s parents cut her hair, dressed her as a boy, redecorated her room, and started to refer to her as “him.”

Jeff Whittington, Ryland’s father, said that they are continuing the work of Harvey Milk, whose work on behalf of the LGBT community broke down barriers, “allowing people to see them for their authentic selves and be true to themselves.”

The confusion surrounding gender identity will only increase as transgender individuals bolster their presence on television. On MTV and Logo this fall, Trans Teen: The Documentary, hosted and produced by Laverne Cox, will share the stories of four transgender teens who come out to friends and family. Tyra Banksis producing a show for VH1 – TransAmerica – that will follow the lives of five transgender women. And Laura Jane Grace, a singer for punk band Against ME!, will be featured on an AOL web series, So Much More.

Biblical Insights

How would Jesus heal our sexual brokenness?

“Now a leper came to him, imploring him, kneeling down to him, and saying to him, ‘If you are willing, you can make me clean.’ Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, ‘I am willing; be cleansed.’ As soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed. And he strictly warned him and sent him away at once, and said to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing those things which Moses commanded, as a testimony to them’” (Mark 1:40-44).

“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of me’” (Matthew 11:4-6).

“Now it happened, as Jesus was dining in Levi’s house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to his disciples, ‘How is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?’ When Jesus heard it, He said to them, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance’” (Mark 2:15-17).

In scripture, when Jesus healed people’s bodies, he restored proper functioning. By enabling the eyes to see and the ears to hear, Jesus eliminated flaws, deficiencies, and abnormalities, thereby allowing existing bodily components to perform the tasks they were designed to perform.

In Mark chapter 1, when Jesus heals a leper, he tells the recipient of his grace to present himself to the priest, to follow the Law of Moses, and to officially re-enter society. Jesus has cleansed and restored this outsider precisely so that he can participate fully in Jewish community life in accordance with the divine law. Here, Jesus shows that the healing he offers is consistent with the divine law. When he restores the leper, he makes it easier for him to live out his faith.

A few verses after Jesus is depicted restoring the leper, the scribes and Pharisees criticize Jesus for dining with tax collectors and sinners, that is, outsiders typically shunned by faithful adherents of the Jewish religion. In response, Jesus says, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but the sinners, to repentance.” Here, Jesus acknowledges that the people with whom he is conversing are, in fact, sick, and their path to redemption requires repentance.

Thus, Jesus vindicates his strategy by noting that he is not encouraging his dining partners to indulge their most basic impulses, but to rise above them and to find restoration in godly living. Jesus’ message was not, “Reconcile yourself to yourself for the kingdom of heaven is near,” but, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” Repentance requires us to reconcile ourselves — and our desires — with God’s truth and to bear fruit in keeping with that 180-degree turn from sin to salvation.

A person whose gender at birth is contrary to the one they identify with is diagnosed by the American Psychiatric Association with “gender dysphoria,” according to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

Let’s suppose that a transgender individual, that is, someone with gender dysphoria, sought hope, healing, and reconciliation in the person of Jesus Christ. How would Jesus respond? Would Jesus heal him in accordance with his bodily constitution (as he did every other person whom he encountered by helping their existing features to function optimally)? Or would Jesus miraculously effect a change that is impossible even for modern science and change the person’s biological sex so that it is more consistent with his perceived gender identity?

There is no scriptural indication that gender identity and biological sex are distinct. That is a modern concept. An encounter with Christ restores us so that we are better equipped to adhere to God’s designs, not our own designs. Since our sex is a divinely instituted feature of our humanity, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus would heal those with gender dysphoria by enabling them to live comfortably within the masculinity or the femininity they were granted at birth.

Some statistics indicate that 1 percent of humans are intersex, meaning they have indeterminate sexuality. Meanwhile, about 0.5 percent of the population is transgender. Just as, in the medical field, doctors use the ideal, healthy specimen as the standard, we too should use the ideal case as our norm.

For Christians, the norm for healthy sexuality is established in the Genesis creation story, where masculinity and femininity are not social constructs but designations made by God. From a scriptural standpoint, our maleness and femaleness are two ways of being human. When a man and a woman form a one-flesh union in marriage, the fullness of our sexuality and — to a certain extent — our humanness is realized.

Even after sex-reassignment surgery, it is impossible for a Y chromosome to be turned into an X chromosome. Even after a sex-change operation, transwomen cannot have children. Biological realities can’t be altered. No matter how hard we try, we can’t change the truth to match our desires.

Perhaps we should try a different strategy. Perhaps we should change our desires to match the truth — God’s truth — even when it doesn’t suit our existing tastes and preferences. Then, looking outward instead of inward and accepting the world that God has made, we might finally find the fulfillment — the inner peace — we are looking for.

Reprinted from: Summit Ministries


Bradley Manning is not a woman!

Dennis Avner was not a tiger, and Bradley Manning is not a woman. Mr. Manning, who upon his sentencing for his role in the WikiLeaks case announced that he desires to live out his days as a woman called Chelsea, is what he is, and no amount of pronoun play, psychotherapeutic doublespeak, or wishful thinking can make it otherwise.

That is even true in California.

On July 24, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it had reached an agreement with the public-school district of Arcadia, Calif., for the resolution of certain “sex discrimination” claims. The case involves a girl who desires to use boys’ facilities, such as restrooms and locker rooms, to be housed with the boys in “sex-specific overnight accommodations at a school-sponsored trip,” etc. In doing so, the DOJ cites Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, in the department’s words, “prohibit discrimination against students based on sex.” But the girl is not being discriminated against because of her sex. Even the DOJ implicitly concedes as much. Rather, the problem is her “gender identity,” which is, the DOJ reports, male. Having invoked those magic words, the DOJ is empowered to commit violence upon language and reason both, describing its investigation into “allegations of discrimination against a transgender student based on the student’s sex,” that being the sex of a student “whose gender identity is male and who has consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years,” and who henceforth “will be treated like other male students.”

The DOJ has placed its imprimatur upon a fantasy involving a legendary creature: the person of one sex trapped in the body of a person of another sex.

It is not an entirely new legend, nor one without some basis in reality. The Roman emperor Elagabalus is (according to the seriously dubious historical resources available to us) said to have offered half the empire to any physician who could effect a sex change upon his person (“by means of an anterior incision,” in the wincingly clinical phrase of Cassius Dio), but, having failed that, had to content himself with cross-dressing and referring to himself in the feminine. Times being what they were, the Romans could put up with a great deal of depravity from their emperors, but were said to have been particularly piqued by Elagabalus’s insistence that he was the empress of Rome intending to make his husband (a favorite slave) the emperor. The emperor Nero had ordered the sex change of a male slave who resembled a woman he favored, according to an almost certainly fictitious account. The myth of Tiresias we all know, as well as the many classical characters, such as Attis, and Jupiter, who assumed female form when seducing Callisto. (The offspring of that union produced Arcas, namesake of Arcadia, both the one in Greece and the one in California.) There are tales of sex change in theMahabharata. And we have the real-world experiences of those such as François Timoléon, abbé de Choisy, the notorious French cross-dresser, who wrote in his memoirs: “I thought myself really and truly a woman. I have tried to find out how such a strange pleasure came to me, and I take it to be in this way. It is an attribute of God to be loved and adored, and man — so far as his weak nature will permit — has the same ambition, and it is beauty which creates love, and beauty is generally woman’s portion. . . . I have heard someone near me whisper, ‘There is a pretty woman,’ I have felt a pleasure so great that it is beyond all comparison. Ambition, riches, even love cannot equal it.”

The abbé de Choisy is the sort of man that Dr. Paul R. McHugh had in mind when he wrote: “When you discuss what the patient means by ‘feeling like a woman,’ you often get a sex stereotype in return — something that woman physicians note immediately is a male caricature of women’s attitudes and interests. One of our patients, for example, said that, as a woman, he would be more ‘invested with being than with doing.’ It is not obvious how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia nervosa that she is obese despite her emaciated, cachectic state. We don’t do liposuction on anorexics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely, the fault is in the mind, not the member.”

Dr. McHugh became a controversial figure in the 1970s when he was the chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University and set about dismantling its “Gender Identity Clinic,” which was established in 1965 and performed what we all have agreed to call “sex-reassignment surgery,” a term that begs the question. Sex is a biological feature that is present at the level of DNA. That fact is known even to Barack Obama’s Justice Department, which in April disclosed through an anonymous leak (of course) that it had discovered “female DNA” at the site of the Boston-marathon bombing. The ladies and gentlemen at Eric Holder’s disposal did not ask the DNA whether it identified as male or female, but instead took a look at the chromosomes, which answered the question for them. A sample taken from any man or woman could be used in precisely the same way, regardless of how that person self-identifies. Feminists have long argued that biological sex and social gender should be considered disconnected, but as a matter of law (and more than law) we are expected to treat them as a unified phenomenon: Eric Holder’s DOJ argues that the case in Arcadia is one of sex discrimination, even though there is no serious question as to the sex of the girl in question. By this standard, not only is it sex discrimination to treat a girl as a girl when she desires to be treated as a boy, it is sex discrimination to maintain such categories to begin with.

We have created a rhetoric of “gender identity” that is disconnected from biological sexual fact, and we have done so largely in the service of enabling the sexual mutilation of physically healthy men and women (significantly more men) by medical authorities who should be barred by professional convention if not by conscience from the removal of healthy organs (and limbs, more on that later), an act that by any reasonable standard ought to be considered mutilation rather than therapy. This is not to discount the feelings of people who suffer from gender-identity disorders — to the contrary, those feelings must be taken into account in determining courses of treatment for people who have severe personality disorders. But those subjective experiences do not render inconsequential the biological facts: A man who believes he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, no matter the intensity of his feeling, is no such thing. The duty of the medical profession is not to encourage and enable delusions, but to help those who suffer from them to cope with them. It is worth noting here that as a matter of law and a matter of social expectation, the fiction of sex change is treated as the paramount good: We are not expected to treat those who have undergone the procedure as men who have taken surgical and hormonal steps to impersonate women (or vice versa) but as people who have literally changed sex, which they have not — no more than Dennis Avner, the famous “Stalking Cat” who attempted to physically transform himself into a tiger, changed species.

Unhappily, we are poised to move in the opposite direction. Medicare currently does not cover sex-reassignment surgery, but it is considering changing that policy. In March, the Department of Health and Human Services solicited public comment on the possibility of reversing the government’s policy of not paying for sex-reassignment surgery. It quickly withdrew that proposal after media reports, but is reviewing an administrative challenge to its characterization of sex-reassignment surgery as “experimental” and therefore ineligible for Medicare coverage.

Even if we were to believe that a course of medical mutilation could make someone happier, this therapy seems often not to be therapeutic. A large number of those who undergo sex reassignment, as many as one in four by some estimates, pronounce themselves unhappy with the procedure. Dr. McHugh in a 1992 essay wrote about its long-term consequences: “Age accentuates the sad caricature of the sexually reassigned and saps their bravado. Some, pathetically, ask about re-reassignment.” Dr. James Bellringer, a British physician who has performed hundreds of sex-reassignment surgeries at the Charing Cross Hospital gender-identity clinic, points out in defense of the practice that about one-fifth of those who are denied the procedure attempt suicide; but a study conducted by the British National Health Service found practically identical — 18 percent — suicide-attempt rates for those who had undergone the procedure. (Mr. Avner, whose feline transformation also took a toll on his personal life — “Being a tiger is more important to me than humanity, which is difficult for many women to cope with” — was found dead of an apparent suicide.) The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility, which advises the NHS on the effectiveness of treatments, conducted a broad review of the research literature and “found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective,” according to the Guardian, the liberal newspaper that commissioned the review. A study by the scholarly journalBJUI (formerly the British Journal of Urology) found that some 24 percent of those who undergo reassignment reported that they were unhappy with the cosmetic results, and 20 percent reported that they were in general dissatisfied with the procedure. Those numbers would be high for nose jobs or breast implants; they are sobering for a course of therapy that involves elective amputations.

On that subject, elective amputations of healthy arms and legs are quietly offered as “treatment” for something we are expected to call Body Identity Integrity Disorder, which is “characterized by a burning and incessant desire to amputate an otherwise perfectly healthy limb,” in the words of Mo Costandi, a neurobiologist who writes a science column for the Guardian and advocates the procedure. The stories of these amputees trapped in amputationless bodies will sound familiar. “To date, there have been approximately 300 documented cases of BIID,” Mr. Costandi writes. “Most of these are male, almost all of whom desire amputation of a limb on the left side of the body. More often, it is the arm that is affected rather than the leg. All of these so-called ‘wannabe amputees’ know exactly where they want the limb to be cut off, to the millimetre, and almost all of them remember seeing an amputee at a very young age and thinking that they should have been born like that themselves. ‘When I was 3 years old, I met a young man who was completely missing all four of his fingers on his right hand,’ said one 21-year-old female BIID sufferer, ‘and ever since that time I have been fascinated by all amputees, especially women amputees who were missing parts of their arms and wore hook prostheses.’” Another patient says, “My left foot is not part of me.” (But it is.) There is a sexual component in many (but not all) of these voluntary amputations, a fetish documented as far back as in Richard von Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia Sexualis (1906).

As with the invention of “personhood” in the abortion debate, we have created a metaphysical category — “identity” — in order to avoid talking about physical reality. In the case of sex-reassignment surgery, it is gender identity; in the case of those who want their left legs removed, it is body-integrity identity. The latter may seem shocking and exotic, but the former is no more defensible. But the question of sex reassignment is linked rhetorically and politically to the question of gay rights, though homosexuality is an entirely distinct and separate phenomenon under the emotional shadow of civil rights. It is a measure of the intellectual degradation of our times that the physical reality of these cases is considered, if it is considered at all, a distant second to the subjective impressions of people who are, not to put too fine a point on it, mentally ill and in need of treatment.

We cannot think because we cannot speak. Having lost the words for things, we lose the things themselves. The word “gender” as a replacement for the word “sex” is a new development in the English language, dating from the early 1960s, not coincidentally the period during which the normalization of sex reassignment began to gain real momentum. “Gender” is a linguistic twin of the word “genre,” the two descending in parallel from the Latin “genus” via the Old French “gendre.” This was partly the natural evolution of the language — as the word “sex” began to denote erotic acts themselves, there was an opening for a word to describe the categorical differences between the male and the female. But it is not an accident that a literary term received the promotion over a scientific one: “Gender” overtook “sex” linguistically at the same time that “gender,” which denotes male-female differences that are, in the debased language of the time, “socially constructed,” overtook “sex,” which denotes male-female differences that are biological, as a guiding consideration. Every battle in the war on reality begins with the opening of a new linguistic front.

That leaves us in the unhappy position described by Dr. McHugh: “The zeal for this sex-change surgery — perhaps, with the exception of frontal lobotomy, the most radical therapy ever encouraged by twentieth-century psychiatrists — did not derive from critical reasoning or thoughtful assessments . . . [but from] the ‘illusion of technique,’ which assumes that the body is like a suit of clothes to be hemmed and stitched to style.” And not just the body: The family and society are as much the products of evolution as the body is, and attempting to reconstruct them in the image of the Venus de Milo — arms optional — with contempt for the underlying reality will yield ghastly results.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review and author of the newly published The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be AwesomeThis is adapted from an article that ran in the August 19, 2013, issue of NR.



Transsexual in legal battle for birth sex to ‘be forgotten’

Transsexual in legal battle for birth sex to ‘be forgotten’


A man who is living as a woman is battling the Government in court in an attempt to erase records identifying him as male.

Government lawyers say there is no need to remove the transsexual’s history and its policies on the issue strike the right balance.

However, the 44-year-old claims the current system breaches human rights laws.


Known only as “C” for legal reasons, he is challenging the process used by job centres at a case in London’s High Court.

Currently the Department for Work and Pensions processes records of transsexuals under a special, more secure, format.

This means only those with authorisation from a manager can see a claimants’ full record.

It says this balances C’s legal rights while allowing the Department to do its work.


C has a Gender Recognition Certificate and claims he experienced “intrusive and humiliating interactions” at job centres.

C’s lawyer commented: “She says her previous gender identity as male should be forgotten, except where it is strictly necessary.”

The Scottish Transgender Alliance is helping C’s legal team gather more evidence and has described the legal battle as a “test case”.


Last week a newspaper columnist criticised the “spreading cult of relativism” in the wake of the Eurovision Song Contest being won by a male who wants to be described as female.

Conchita Wurst sings in a dress and was referred to as a woman by the media.

Brendan O’Neill said that just because Wurst wants to be described as “she” when performing, “does that mean we all have to comply with this rather strange demand, no questions asked?”

“Does objective reality – the fact that there are biological differences between men and women, and that the vast majority of humankind decides whether someone is a man or woman by those biological attributes – count for nothing in the face of one person’s wish to be known as something he is not?”, he posed.

Read More:

Also: Transgender woman in landmark legal battle to force government to ‘forget’ her identity as a man before sex change (, 2014


Bob McCoskrie: Gender agenda confusing children

Bob McCoskrie: Gender agenda confusing children

NZ Herald: 9:30 AM Friday Apr 11, 2014
A child’s desire to change sex can be a symptom of other disorders that can be treated. Sex-change operations cannot change a person's chromosomes and make a man into a woman or vice versa. Photo / Getty Images

Sex-change operations cannot change a person’s chromosomes and make a man into a woman or vice versa. Photo / Getty Images

There has been no shortage of media reports lately regarding gender change – even of children.

Last year, the parents of a 7-year-old girl made the decision to start a process which would culminate in medically stopping the onset of female puberty. The media report said she was “born into a girl’s body”, – as though this was somehow an accident. At age 6, the little girl reportedly told her parents: “I’m not a girl, I think I’m a boy.”

The Human Rights Commission has published guidelines to recognise the rights of children as young as 5 to use the changing room, play in the sports team, and even share bunkrooms on school camps that match their gender identity.

In Australia, a threatened anti-discrimination lawsuit by a parent of a 9-year-old transgender child has opened the door to Queensland schools introducing unisex toilets, change rooms and sports teams.

British school inspectors praised schools for supporting their cross-dressing students. Children as young as 4 have been labelled as “transgender” and permitted to dress as the opposite sex.

In January, California became the first US state to give rights to transgender students as young as kindergarten-age, requiring public schools to allow those students access to whichever restroom and locker room they want and to choose whether they want to play boys’ or girls’ sports – based on their “self-perception” and regardless of their birth gender.

Our children are being indoctrinated with the message “Gender refers to how you identify, someone can identify as male, female, in between, both, or neither.”

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association has told secondary schools that “Gender identity refers to what a person thinks of as their own gender, whether they think of themselves as a man or as a woman, irrespective of their biological sex”, and that schools must not only recognise these forms of diversity, but affirm them.

What has been noticeable in all these media reports and government documents has been the deafening silence in terms of a critical analysis of whether this is in the best interests of children.

The current trend in treatment – changing genders – fails to take into account the possibility of deeply unresolved psychological issues that, when treated first, could avoid the need for any change in gender.

What the child really needs is affirmation of their unique personality and appropriate treatment for their unhappiness and other emotional issues.

To think that drugs and a surgeon and a knife can change gender is mythical. And to allow a child to make that type of decision is downright dangerous and ultimately harmful to the child.

A 2007 Dutch study found that 52 per cent of the children diagnosed had one or more diagnoses in addition to gender identity disorder, including anxiety disorders and behavioural disruptive disorders. The desire to become the opposite gender was not gender identity disorder but was symptomatic of other psychiatric illnesses.

Gender change does nothing to resolve these issues. One study suggested most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty.

To then claim all gender changes as successes ignores the high prevalence of suicides, regret, disappointment, medical problems, and adults who return to their birth gender. It fails to acknowledge the psychiatric literature which demonstrates it is possible to help these children learn to embrace the goodness of their gender.

And when adults encourage children to turn up to school confused about their gender and which toilet to use, it confounds the whole school community.

A child’s gender at birth is an objective biological reality, and is entirely consistent and unambiguous. It’s a boy! You have a girl!

Yes, there can be ambiguous genitalia, brought on by chromosomal imbalances. But these rare and difficult cases are not at all similar to the great majority of gender change cases paraded before us in the media.

Gender change surgery will not change the chromosomes of a human being in that it will not make a man become a woman, capable of menstruating, ovulating, and having children, nor will it make a woman into a man, capable of generating sperm.

American professor of psychiatry Paul McHugh, whose studies of transgender surgery brought the procedures to an end at Johns Hopkins University said: “Treating these children with hormones does considerable harm and it compounds their confusion. Trying to delay puberty or change someone’s gender is a rejection of the lawfulness of nature … Children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes.

“Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions, second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons.”

He concluded “We psychiatrists would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

The majority of children treated by those with expertise in this area are able to embrace the goodness of being male or female.

Walt Heyer, author of Paper Genders, felt he should have been a girl at the age of five years, had gender change surgery as an adult, and lived as a female for eight years until he realised surgery doesn’t change your DNA birth gender.

He says: “The struggle with gender issues evolve out of psychological issues. The gender issue is only a symptom of something of a much deeper problem within children, as it was in me.”

The real question, which the media haven’t asked, is: are we happy to continue accepting the “choose your gender” approach with young children, and continue compounding the confusion?

As a parent of two girls and one boy, I’m not.

Bob McCoskrie is national director of Family First.



Girl, 7, confused about step-parent after woman became transgender male and grew beard, Family Court hears

Now the Family Court has ordered that the child, 7, spend Father’s Day, alternate weekends and other times with “Mr Brown”, who had been in a lesbian relationship with her mother.

Mr Brown, who had lived with the mother, the child and her older sibling for almost three years, now lives with another transgender male.

The court heard that as a woman Mr Brown had been in an on-off relationship with the child’s mother and they were together when the little girl was born.

The mother, who already had another child, had travelled overseas and become impregnated by a man of unknown identity during a period of separation, before the couple reunited.

After another brief split, the couple lived together with the two children, and even had a “commitment ceremony”.

But a month later Mr Brown began identifying as transgender and decided to have hormone treatment to prepare for surgery to transition to a man.

The Family Court heard a few months later Mr Brown told the children he was transitioning to male and the couple separated.

The mother and the two children went to live in her parents’ home and initially Mr Brown spent a few nights a week with the children, until the mother reduced that time.

Mr Brown began a relationship with a transgender male and in 2012 changed the name on his birth certificate to a male given name, the court heard.

A month later he underwent “gender affirming surgery” to remove his breasts, the court heard.

Soon after there were consent orders made that the children live with the mother and the child spend two nights a week with Mr Brown.

A family consultant told the court the child said she sometimes called her “Dad”, “Mum”, or a European term for “my Mum” or used Mr Brown’s male name.

She said Mr Brown felt like a father to her.

The court heard the child suffered from anxiety and was stressed by the family situation.

Justice Watts accepted she had a meaningful relationship with her mother and Mr Brown, and made orders allowing him weekend and holiday time with the child.

“I find that it is likely on balance that the child will see (Mr Brown) in the role of parent and because he has a beard she will in her mind probably over time accept him as a “father” or “Dad”, the judge said.

Read more:


Facebook: Over 50 gender identities on offer for users

Facebook users can now choose their gender from over 50 different options including ‘transsexual’, ‘gender fluid’ and ‘two-spirit’.

The social networking site announced the update following consultations with homosexual and transgender rights groups.

The gender options, including ‘bigender’, ‘androgynous’, ‘pangender’ and ‘neither’, are only available to those using English (US) language settings.


The new settings also offer users the option of three preferred pronouns: him, her or them.

Facebook said the changes are aimed at giving more choice in how people describe themselves.

Brielle Harrison, the software engineer who worked on the project, is himself in the process of having a sex-change.


He said: “All too often transgender people like myself and other gender nonconforming people are given this binary option, do you want to be male or female? What is your gender?”

Harrison said the change means that for the first time, “I get to go to the site and specify to all the people I know what my gender is”.

But an American family-support charity has criticised the move.


Jeff Johnston, an issues analyst for Focus on the Family said, “it’s impossible to deny the biological reality that humanity is divided into two halves – male and female”.

“Those petitioning for the change insist that there are an infinite number of genders, but just saying it doesn’t make it so. That said, we have a great deal of compassion for those who reject their biological sex and believe they are the opposite sex”, he added.

Currently, Facebook targets advertising according to the sex of the user – but for those who change their identity to something neutral, ads will be targeted based on the pronoun they select for themselves.

The site has 1.15 billion active monthly users around the world.


Read more:


Number of kids seeking a sex change rises by 50% in a year

Number of kids seeking a sex change rises by 50% in a year

Wed, 30 Oct 2013

The number of children wanting a sex change in 2012 saw an increase of 50 per cent compared to the previous year, according to The Times newspaper.

This comes as the Royal College of Psychiatrists urged services to work better so that children can have the operation quickly when they turn 18.

It came in guidelines for treating adults who are seeking a sex change.


Figures reported in The Times show that last year 208 children were referred to specialist clinics, up from 139 in the previous year.

But research shows that a high number of people who undergo sex change surgery go on to commit suicide.

Professor Chris Hyde, a medical professor from the University of Exeter, said that though his findings were from a decade ago it is “likely” the same issues remain today.


He said: “While no doubt great care is taken to ensure that appropriate patients undergo gender reassignment, there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatised – often to the point of committing suicide.”

Some suggest the transsexual suicide rate is as high as 31 per cent.

And it was reported last year that Britain’s youngest sex swap patient decided to revert back to living as a man having taken hormone injections to make him look like a woman.

The 18-year-old was scheduled to go through with a sex change at the beginning of this year.


Professor Kevan Wylie, who led the development of the new guidelines, said there has been a “seismic shift in attitudes” towards sex change therapy.

He said: “Among adolescents there are an increasing number of referrals because the internet and social media mean people are aware of and understand their symptoms and are then looking for help.”

He said most clinics are increasingly seeing young people, and the issue is “more prevalent than people perceive it to be”.


Prof Wylie said there is “quite a lot of evidence that people do well if they transition early because they can get on with their life.

Earlier this month, press in Belgium reported on a woman who ended her life after her sex change did not meet expectations.

Nancy Verhelst, known as Nathan, was euthanised under the grounds of “unbearable psychological suffering”.

source: Christian Institute.


Born in the wrong body: The transgender struggle

Transgender people and their advocates are asking society to take these internal gender identities seriously, and to respect their right to make a transition. They’re calling it “the next civil rights frontier.” Sixteen states have passed laws that ban discrimination against transgender people in housing and employment. In August, California enacted the nation’s first law allowing transgender K-12 schoolchildren to pick which bathroom and locker room they use, and whether to play on boys’ or girls’ sports teams. But advocates say the fight for acceptance has just begun. As an example, they point to the derision that greeted the recent announcement by Bradley Manning, a U.S. soldier convicted of leaking secret documents to WikiLeaks, that he was transgender and would henceforth identify himself as Chelsea. The Army said it would not provide Manning with the hormone therapy she’s requested, and she will be jailed with male inmates at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Read the full story: