Transgender athletes compete in Ottawa to change attitudes in sports

The Canadian Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow us on Twitter: @globeandmail


Is Transgenderism a Mental Disorder or a Right?

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

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


By Deacon Keith A Fournier

Catholic Online (

8/24/2014 (7 hours ago)

Published in U.S.

Keywords: transgendertransgender activsim,gaylesbiangender identity,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated. ‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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:


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.


Transgender Theology Professor, Asked To Leave California’s Azusa Pacific University

‘Heather Clements taught theology at Azusa Pacific University for 15 years, but this past year, he began referring to himself as H. Adam Ackley…. He also said that his insurance was denied when he sought hormone treatment and “top surgery” for his chest area. “They’re giving me privacy to transition but denying medical treatment to do that,” said Ackley, who is 47, has two children and is in the process of getting a divorce.

Read More:

Prof. Robert Gagnon,  Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminarycomments:

‘A Christian Post reporter asked me about transsexualism in general, to which I responded:

The writers of Scripture viewed any attempts at overriding one’s birth-sex as abhorrent, a sacrilege against the structures of maleness or femaleness created by God, and ultimately a rebellion against the Creator who made our bodies. Paul includes in his list of offenders who will not inherit the kingdom of God a group called the “malakoi,” which literally means “soft men” and refers to men who actively feminize themselves to attract male sex partners. Their attempt to become women could range from adopting female-like hairstyles, dress, make-up, and mannerisms to the surgical extreme of castration.

These figures were well known in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman and went under various names (assinnus, kurgarrûs, or kulu’us; the galli). They resemble the group of men referred to in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History as the qedeshîm, literally, “holy (sanctified, consecrated) men” (Deut 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; cf. Job 36:14). Their attempts at transforming their masculinity into femininity, as well as engaging in homosexual practice, are labeled an “abomination” by Deuteronomy (23:18) and the Deuteronomistic Historian (1 Kings 14:21-24). Indeed, Deuteronomic law treats even cross-dressing as an “abomination” (22:5).

Yes, Jesus compared “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven” with “eunuchs who were born so from the womb of their mother” and “eunuchs who were made eunuchs by humans” (Matt 19:12). The comparison, though, assumes that neither the born-eunuchs nor the made-eunuchs (i.e., those castrated against their will) are having sexual relations, since that is the defining feature of the “eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven.” Moreover, neither the born-eunuchs or made-eunuchs have made themselves eunuchs. The only group that Jesus speaks of as “making themselves eunuchs” is that group that does so only in a metaphorical sense, for they do not mar their body or seek to change their sex in any way. Rather, they only forego marriage between a man and a woman, the one permitted venue for sexual relations, in order to maximize their efforts at proclaiming the kingdom of God (Paul makes a similar point in 1 Cor 7:32-35). So there is no justification in these texts for ordaining persons who actively seek to change their own sex.

Paul’s remark in Gal 3:28 that “there is no ‘male and female'” was applied by Paul to the status of women before God, not as a basis for eliminating sexual differentiation or legitimizing attempts to change one’s sex. When applied to the area of sexual intercourse “no ‘male and female'” meant no sex whatsoever, complete sexual asceticism. Jesus taught that in the kingdom of God people will be neither married nor given in marriage. Until that time, in this age, sexual activity must pay heed to one’s birth sex by entering only into a union with the sex or gender opposite to one’s own birth sex.

Transsexuality is in some respects an even more extreme version of the problem of homosexual practice. It is an explicit denial of the integrity of one’s own sex and an overt attempt at marring the sacred image of maleness or femaleness stamped by God on our bodies. Whereas those engaged in homosexual practice dishonor their bodies by treating them as only half intact in relation to their own sex, persons who seek to adopt a gender identity opposite to their birth sex make a total rejection of their birth sex.

There is some evidence that, for at least some persons who embrace a gender identity at odds with their birth sex, a part of that part of the brain identified with sexual functioning may resemble the other sex. Yet other parts of sex-differentiated features of the brain still conform to one’s birth sex, as does one’s chromosomes, genitalia and other external features, and hormones. Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence that any sex-incongruent features of the brain are 100% congenitally determined or operate on a behaviorally deterministic model. Attempts to erase one’s birth sex have a quasi-gnostic feel: the dominant features of the body do not matter.’


Californians jolted by the mental image of children sharing lavatories and locker rooms with opposite-sex classmates

Californians jolted by the mental image of children sharing lavatories and locker rooms with opposite-sex classmates are campaigning to repeal the nation’s first law requiring schools to accommodate transgender pupils.

The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, requires all schools receiving state funds to let children choose between boys’ or girls’ bathrooms, for instance, and participate in sex-segregated sports teams based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex.

Read more: