One of the characteristics of Orwell's "brave new world" was newspeak. Newspeak allowed the governmnet to use language that meant just the opposite of the real situation. So the war department was called the department of love, etc.
Many people today are lost in a virtual world that has little to do with reality even when it's described as "virtual reality." Instead, people play let's pretend choosing whatever happens to make them feel good at the moment no matter how idiotic. Homosexuals are particularly prone to this as they play wedding and house together and pretend to make babies together which is physically impossible.
It's bad enough when idividuals do this, but when the government starts playing the game as well, the people are literally living in the STATE of insanity. Massachusetts is a perfect example. The Department of Motor Vehicles recently promulgated a policy that allows a driver to designate himself/herself, not with the sex indicated by bodily physical characteristics (i.e. sex organs), but with whatever "gender" he/she feels is the right one. In a letter dated January 21, 2009 sent to Mass Resistance, Rachel Kaprielian, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, wrote that "Under this new policy, it is no longer necessary to submit medical proof of sex reassignment surgery....an individual who wishes to change the gender marker will submit an updated application together with a Gender Designation Change Form, signed by him or her and a medical provider attesting to the gender that the individual considers himself or herself to be."
Consider that identification papers like the driver's license is a legal document. When your child's male teacher comes to school dressed as a woman, will you have any legal right to protest since the state recognizes his right to choose his own gender? When he uses the female restroom, ditto. Those who object will be considered the bigots; we know the drill by now.
Remember the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? We're living it and, unfortunately, the little boy with common sense who said, "Look, the Emperor is naked!" is being gagged and targeted as an intolerant bigot. And, besides, the Emperor feels dressed in glorious clothes so he must be -- right?
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
I think you misunderstand.
ReplyDeleteNote that a medic is involved here, it's not a matter of "feelings", but a difference between biological reality and legal status.
As background reading to try to understand this complex issue, may I please refer you to the Catholic Forum, and the threads Theology of the Body--as it relates to transgender, Is Transgender a Sin?, and What is the Church's position on the Intersexed and Transsexed?.
The situation is this: There are more people than you realise who are Intersexed in various ways, neither wholly male nor wholly female in body, though some are as female in mind as you are. Some were arbitrarily assigned the wrong gender at birth.
Some require surgery to satisfy the legal niceties to change their legal sex. But as this can cost $100,000, (usually only about $20,000), and as some are precluded from any surgery due to other medical conditions (diabetes, heart disease etc) this is a way of making their very difficult lives less irksome - and less dangerous.
Please note that a medic must be involved here to confirm the condition.
Also note that before surgery can be authorised, the person concerned must live in the target gender role for at least a year. This can leave them open to arrest and jail if they have documentation inconsistent with their appearance, and often their biology. Some of it, anyway.
Consider those men born with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3). Their birth certificates say "female" because that's what they looked like at birth. But due to natural changes, they masculinise, and some can even become fathers. That's without surgical intervention, so they can't get their Birth certificates changed.
Or consider those girls being treated for HBS, who are female in every respect but genitalia. They can't get surgery till they're 18 to correct the birth defect, so until that age they are in grave danger of molestation by police who see "Male" on their drivers licences.
I'd be happier if instead of any old medical practitioner, the legislation required a gender specialist, but without extensive changes to all manner of laws, this is not practicable. WPATH - the World Professional Association for Transgender Health - has no formal accreditation scheme in this state, and unlike the UK, there is no official list of specialists.
Please feel free to e-mail me on this issue, I think most of the difficulties are caused by people of goodwill not knowing enough about the hundreds of different medical conditions that in aggregate affect several million Americans. Conditions which are so embarrassing that they remain largely hidden.
A legal truism is that exceptions make bad law.
ReplyDeleteFor readers interested in a good article on Gender Identity Disorder see http://www.narth.com/docs/fitz.html
As regards NARTH....
ReplyDeleteIn January 2005, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy White ruled against the state of Arkansas. Furthermore, he called Rekers' testimony "extremely suspect." He also accused Rekers of testifying solely for promoting his "own personal agenda."
In 2008, Rekers was also an expert witness in a case defending Florida's gay adoption ban. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said "Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy."
Despite this, not only is Rekers currently a member of NARTH's scientific advisory committee, but he is also listed as one of the organization's officers.
No less than 7 psychologists have written formal letters of complaint to NARTH because of the distortion and selective quoting of their work on the NARTH website.
For example, Dr Lisa Diamond's video testimony.
Dr Warren Throckmorton, whose works NARTH continues to quote, has disassociated himself from NARTH because of their apologetics for slavery, and advocacy of bullying at school as a means to ensure gender conformity. NARTH, to its credit, has removed the articles defending slavery and bullying, but still advocates the drinking of gatorade as a useful therapeutic measure to prevent homosexuality, and still retains the authors of these articles as its main scientific advisors.
On January 29, 2008, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) sponsored an educational program entitled, “The Myth of ‘Conversion Therapy’ and the Pseudo Science of NARTH.”
Held in Minneapolis at the House of the Beloved Disciple, this program featured two local licensed psychologists, Jeffry G. Ford and John C. Gonsiorek, who shared their perspective on the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH)
At one point, the question was asked: “How do the people involved with groups like NARTH respond to the reality that every major professional organization in the behavioral sciences disagrees with them?”
Unfortunately, NARTH continues to be regarded as a reliable source of scientific knowledge by less imformed members of the Church. This has done the Church a great deal of harm.
Hi mary - sorry but you are talking nonsense. you cannot understand what it is like to be transsexual anymore than you can know what it is like to be a fish. Being trans is as much a fact as having blue eyes. Try practising true christian values and keep a lid on spreading bogus bigotry dressed up as doctrine instead of christian love.
ReplyDeleteSarah
Your remarks would equally well apply to the Catholic Church. Consider the recent flap over the SSPX bishop Richard Williamson. The fact that someone in a group makes a dumb statement doesn't discredit the entire group.
ReplyDeleteYour quoting of a court decision is also questionable. The courts have given us a library of bad agenda-based laws promoting homosexuality. Attacking and discrediting a reputable scientist is not beyond them.
And the scientific groups are just as prone to pushing an agenda and attacking scientists who refuse to toe their party line. The intolerance toward scientists who believe Intelligent Design is a legitimate theory can testify to that. They are denied tenure, publication, and vilified by the evolution demagogues.
The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders as a political move. Homosexual activist, Franklin Kameny, played a major role in the manipulation that brought it about.
http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
Kameny now shills for bestiality "as long as the animal doesn't mind." http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060403.html But his obvious agenda hasn't kept him out of the Smithsonian for promoting the politically-correct idea of sodomy as a "civil right."
After going to your website, I found that you have an agenda as well defending your decision to live as a woman despite having the biological identity of a man. So I have to take your comments with a grain of salt and a hefty skepticism which I recommend to my readers as well.
As for Catholic teaching, forum "threads" are not a persuasive source. The Catechism (2357) says, "[T]radition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstance can they be approved." The Church urges compassion for individuals, not acceptance of the disorder.
Life is filled with difficult challenges, pain, and suffering. Certainly unnatural desires, whatever their form, are part of the pain of the human condition. I wish you well.
Sorry, Sarah, but you are the one talking nonsense. What's your definition of Christian love? Mine is scriptural. As Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." The sixth commandment forbids lust and sexual sin in all forms. Be honest, homosexuals are not talking about living chaste lives when they promote their agenda. They want everyone to say what they are doing is right and good. Kameny framed the slogan, "Gay is good." No it isn't. It's disordered. God can use evil inclinations to bring about good, but those who are activists for sodomy are not promoting the good.
ReplyDeleteYour argument that one has to do or be something in order to comment on it is what's bogus. I don't need to drive drunk, commit adultery, abuse my grandchildren, or shoplift to know that all those things are wrong. Accusing me of bigotry is simply the typical ad hominem attack used against anyone who objects to the gay lifestyle.
Of course you have a right and obligation to comment on things that you deem important Mary. As do those of us that do not agree with your assertions. Sarah did indeed make a salient point. You have no understanding of what it means to be transexual. You have no concept of the depth and breadth of the condition nor its impact on our lives. It is a matter of life or death to us. I am speaking of the ability to live and breathe and function in the world. It is a global, human condition that exists in cultures that have no concept of the word "sin". It is real and deadly (in this culture) and we deal with it as best we can. In my case, as with many tens of thousands of my transexual brothers and sisters, transition into our real gender is a journey of peace, contentment and joy. This is not about a moment of "feeling good". It is about a lifetime of being real and living our truths. We are here and we are real, Mary. We are your neighbors, your colleagues, your fellow church members (yes, some of us are Catholic and continue to worship in the faith). We fly your planes and build your houses and fix your cars and design your computers and litigate in court and check you out at the grocery store and sell real estate and teach children at all levels and preach in churches and police your streets.
ReplyDeleteWe will never let you nor anyone else take away our right to hold jobs, live peacefully where we desire, obtain health care, and worship where we please.
Perhaps you shoud take some time to get to know us, Mary. We are really no different than you. We struggle with the same things you do. Money, children, jobs, faith, health, growing old. These are human things and common to us all.
I know quite a few Catholics, Mary. How many transexuals do you know?
After going to your website, I found that you have an agenda as well defending your decision to live as a woman despite having the biological identity of a man.
ReplyDeleteActually no. The medical diagnosis is "severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman". That diagnosis was arrived at before treatment, based on tests of my biology.
I agree that a single court decision alone is questionable. Two less so.
You really have to examine what you think is most probable - that every other professional organisation is wrong, or that NARTH is a credible source.
Every Catholic researcher in the area has condemned NARTH for its distortions.
Your quote from the Catechism is wonderful, but completely irrelevant. It deals with homosexuality, not transsexuality.
Are you aware of the Vatican policy on the issue? The sub secretum letter sent to bishops, which allowed that sex reassignment was morally permissible under some circumstances - circumstances which are true for every operation performed under the WPATH Standards of care?
One very important thing I must mention. That while we have differences here, on matters both of biological fact and theology, you show true Christian compassion. I hope to match your example.
Sara Law said, "We will never let you nor anyone else take away our right to hold jobs, live peacefully where we desire, obtain health care, and worship where we please."
ReplyDeleteWhy would I want to do that? This is the kind of language and accusation that the gay community calls "jamming." Always make your oponent out to be a homophobic oppressor. It makes me question your honesty, frankly, because I haven't said anything to indiciate I want to do any of those things.
Zoe Brain said, "Every Catholic researcher in the area has condemned NARTH for its distortions."
ReplyDeletePlease be specific. In googling I can't find these condemnations and NARTH has a long list of physicians on its scientific advisory committe and its website lists. WPATH, on the other hand, seems to be primarily made up of social workers. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the field.
As for the "Catholic" Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities, it is not an official organization of the Church and has no standing whatsoever. It is one more agenda-driven gay group. It quotes dissenter Joan Chittister on its website,features the rainbow flag (the symbol of gay activism) and promotes gay pride. Its condemnation of NARTH is meaningless and agenda-driven.
EWTN has a statement condemning transgender surgery in its question area. http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum5&recnu=14&number=545079
I could not find the letter you mentioned online. I suspect it has to do with true cases of hermaphroditism. According to the National Institute of Health true hermaphroditism (where a child is born with both male and female sex organs) is a "rare disease" which NIH defines as affecting fewer than 200,000 in the U.S. population of about 300 million.
I don't think you are talking about hermaphroditism and there is no scientific evidence for transexualism that I'm aware of. So we are back to people "feeling" like they are the wrong sex which is a gender identity disorder like homosexuality.
I pray for those who suffer from these things, but the discrimination these days seems to be more against Christians who oppose creating special rights for the so-called LBGT community.
Ms. Kreitzer,
ReplyDelete"WPATH, on the other hand, seems to be primarily made up of social workers."
Did you look here:
http://www.wpath.org/committees_disorders.cfm
or here:
http://www.wpath.org/committees_scientific.cfm
I think the reason why you got the idea that WPATH was made up of mostly social workers was that you only looked at the Public Policy, Advocacy & Liaison Committee list, which is the first list that comes up when you click on Committees.
Ms. Kreitzer,
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment about the Catholic Church: I must agree that it is unlikely a significant number of Catholics condemns NARTH.
Start with Dr Warren Throckmorton on the subject, as he's the person that NARTH most often quotes, and who gave him an award in 2002.
ReplyDeleteThis post for example. Or this one.
Dr Throckmorton has been roundly condemned by virtually all Gay activists for daring to suggest that 1) Some Gays may not be happy to be gay, and wish to change, and 2) That in a few cases, this may be possible.
Where he differs from NARTH is that he insists on actual proof, evidence, rather than "what should be", and sees that in many cases, change is not possible.
As regards the Vatican's "sub secretum" letter, all we have is second-hand reports from the Catholic News Service. They are available via the URLs I gave in my first post, and I'm sorry that you haven't read them. A copy of the report is available here..
Unfortunately, the Vatican's 2000 position is largely based on hypotheses that have been debunked, and in a very few areas, on results that have been found to be deliberately falsified. I urge you to look through PubMed yourself, and evaluate the weight of evidence for yourself. We are hoping that the situation will be re-examined in the light of new evidence, but suspect that it will take some considerable time.
I read through the threads you recommended and they are mostly your own skewed interpretation of Catholic teachings with no doctrinal references at all.
ReplyDeleteI also looked at some of the PubMed items on-line. There is by no means the clear scientific support for "transgenderism" you claim as this article illustrates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010463?dopt=Abstract
The fact that you fathered a son, even with help, is pretty clear proof that you are a male. Many couples have difficulty conceiving. But there is no woman on the planet who will ever be a father and no man who will ever be a mother despite the media game of claiming that women who pretend to be men and bear children are "male pregnancies." They are not. It is all just part of the dreamworld so many live in today.
I commend you for your shrewdness in presenting your views. You remind me of John Riggins who played running back for the Redskins in the 80s. He took that ball and bulled his way through no matter what the opposition did and he usually made a touchdown. (He is the only player who could ever get me interested in watching a football game from beginning to end.) That bullish approach has been very successful in imposing the homosexual worldview on the culture.
I'm offering my daily rosary for you and the others posting on this thread. I pray that we all "meet merrily in heaven" as St. Thomas More said. And I respect your decision to live chastely.
Ms. Kreitzer,
ReplyDeleteThis article that you posted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010463?dopt=Abstract
Are you saying that this article disproves transgenderism the same way that the David Reimer case is said by some to disprove transgenderism, in that if it is proven that people are not psychosexually neutral at birth, then transgenderism is itself disproven because of that?
Regarding psychosexual neutrality at birth, if such thing exists, I shall preempt Zoe Brain's posting of this:
ReplyDeletehttp://aebrain.blogspot.com/2008/05/transsexual-causation-american.html
"4) Milton Diamond's early research, summarized in the paper "A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior," which argued against the prevailing theory put forward by John Money, the psychosexually-neutral-at-birth theory, which postulated that gender identity was determined solely by social factors related to the sex of rearing. This paper is available at: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/intersex/qrb_201.html"
Just because people are not psychosexually neutral at birth does not disprove transgenderism--in fact, that people are not psychosexually neutral at birth is strong evidence against NARTH's argument for reconstructive therapy.