Sunday, March 21, 2010

Capitol Hill Catholics

Gender Identity Disorder

Legalizing Deception:

Why “Gender Identity” Should not be added to Anti-discrimination Legislation

by Dale O’Leary

 

Certain national and international groups are pushing for the addition of “gender identity” and “gender expression” to anti-discrimination laws. According to activists, gender identity  is defined as: “An individual’s self –perception or inner sense of being a man, a male, a woman, a female, both, neither, butch, femme, two-spirit, bigender, or another configuration of gender. Gender identity often matches the gender typically associated with the person’s anatomy but sometimes does not” and gender expression refers to: “Any combination of how someone outwardly presents external characteristics behaviors that are socially defined as masculine or feminine, including dress, mannerisms speech patterns and social interactions.”[1]

For example, a bill introduced in the Maryland legislature reads as follows: “An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation …may not refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation because of the person’s ….gender identity.” This would mean that males dressed as females could use women’s restrooms and locker rooms.

Such legislation is designed to give legal protections to those who reject the sex they were born and want to be publicly accepted the other sex – the so-called ‘transsexuals,’ ‘transgendered,’ ‘gender queer,’ transvestites, and others. Such persons deceive themselves, deceive others, and are being deceived by mental health professionals and surgeons. The public is being deceived by the media and activists into believing that so-called ‘transsexuals’ were born with biological problems that are remedied by surgery and that it is possible to change your sex.

No one can change sex; it is written in DNA on every cell of our bodies. The people demanding “gender identity and expression” protection are physically normal men or women, but according to the “gender” ideologues, what matters is not what sex you really are, but what sex you want to be or think you are,. People could be sanctioned for simply using the correct pronouns when referring to a person who is obviously male, but wants to be female.

The following quote from an interview on with Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, author of a collection of essays titled: Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses demonstrates the effect such lies have on the culture:


In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.  One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed.[2]

            One lie leads to another. A clearly a male person presents himself in public as a woman. He has had surgery and hormone treatments to perfect his impersonation and he demands that we pretend this makes him a woman. He wants us to use female pronouns when speaking of him and to allow him to use the ladies’ restroom. He also wants to change his birth certificate and drivers’ license. While some persons who present as the other sex are obviously not the sex they pretend to be, others are able to deceive their sexual partners without informing them of their true sexual identity.

            Persons who present themselves in public as the other sex say they need such protections because they are afraid of violence. This fear is real. When someone is deceived -- particularly in such a personal matter has the sex of an intimate partner or potential spouse – anger is an understandable reaction.  Violent acts can never be condoned, but if such legislation is passed those who have been deceived will be denied any legal recourse and the deceivers portrayed as victims.

The circle of deception created by this “gender ideology” begins with those who want to be the other sex deceiving themselves. As children they may have been wounded, traumatized, abused, or rejected. They fell into envy and fantasy, imagining “If I were the other sex, I would be safe, loved, valued.” This envy grew into an obsession. They coveted the body parts of the other sex, and despised their own bodies. The idea that they were “transsexual” may have been suggested to them by a mental health professional or they may have seen reports of “sex changes” in the media. They deceived themselves into believing that this would be the answer to all their problems. While some may simply want to be the other sex, others may actually come to believe that they really are the other sex, that nature made a mistake and gave them the body of one sex and the brain of the other. Such a delusion is very difficult to treat, particularly when the person learns that there are surgeons able to fulfill their fantasy and create the appearance of the other sex.

While those applying for surgery may insist that they have the brain or soul of the other sex, they really don’t know what it means to be the other sex. Most can only present  a very stereotyped image of their desired sex. They have to constantly monitor their own gestures and mannerisms. They are excited when they are able to deceive others – to pass -- but admit that they are often not accepted as the other sex. They want the government to force people to go along with their deception, but even if such laws are passed they will only be able to fool some of the people some of the time.

While persons who want to be the other sex desperately want to believe that they were born with this problem, there is no evidence for this. Some men and women who want to be the other sex failed to identify with their birth sex as children. This condition, known as childhood gender (sexual) identity disorder (G[S]ID), is a preventable and treatable. Even without treatment most children with G[S]ID grow out of it; however, a small number persist in their desire to be the other sex.

Not all persons who want to be the other sex suffered from obvious symptoms of G[S]ID as children. Some males are autogynephiles, who began in adolescence to engage in paraphilic transvestite fetishism. A paraphilia is a sexual attraction to something other than another person, in this case a man is sexually aroused by to the image of himself as a woman. As unhappy adolescents, these males engaged in masturbation wearing their mother’s clothing and fantasizing about being women. Many autogynephiles marry, have children, and engage in male-typical careers, while secretly engaging cross-dressing. For some autogynephiles, cross-dressing is not enough; they want to perfect this image through surgery. One autogynephile explained that these are men who want to become what they love.[3] After surgery many autogynephiles continue to be sexually attracted to women and insist they are lesbians. It is interesting to note that some radical feminists are offended by the stereotyped images of women these men present. Some feminist groups have restricted their gatherings to women born as women and living as women.

Those who are obsessed with the idea of being the other sex often resist therapy. They refuse to look at the psychological reasons for their desires. Some mental health professionals, frustrated by their inability to treat this disorder and concerned about their clients’ obvious dysphoria, are willing to go along with this deception. They give in to their clients demands and recommend a surgical solution to what they as therapists know is a mental health problem. They deceive their clients into believing that a “sex change” is possible.  

The “sex change” surgeons know they can’t change a persons’ sex, they can only create a non-functional appearance of the other sex, but they also know they will be well paid for their skill and so go along with the deception.

The news media report glowing tales of how John became Jane and is now entirely happy. Reporters use the new names and incorrect pronouns. Headlines read “The Pregnant Man” when the reality is that a woman who had her breasts removed and received male hormones to induce beard growth became pregnant by artificial insemination. Doubters are labeled “transphobic.”

Public officials go along with the deception, letting persons who want to be the other sex to falsify their driver licenses and other documents, even some who have not been surgically altered.

Those who go through mutilating surgery – who sacrificed so much to achieve their fantasy -- have to continue the deception even though their unrealistic expectations are often not met.[4] Anne Lawrence, a post surgery autogynephile, explains how the fantasy breaks down:  

 

Autogynephilic transsexuals may also find it harder to fully identify with women after transition than before, because the difference they inevitably observe between themselves and natal women become harder to rationalize after transition. Before transition, these differences can be attributed to the necessity of temporarily maintaining a socially acceptable masculine persona: after transition, when this excuse evaporates, autogynephilic transsexuals may be forced to confront reality. Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals often seem to expect that, with enough effort, they will be able to pass undetected as natal women after transition; but because their appearance and behavior are rarely naturally feminine, this expectation usually proves unrealistic. [5]

 

            Lawrence also points out that when autogynephiles are not accepted as the sex they want to be they can be vulnerable to narcissistic rage, which is defined as the “disproportionate, compulsive pursuit of revenge that seeks to obliterate both the offense and the offender.”[6] Extend legal protection to persons who want to present themselves as the other sex need will give these narcissistic autogynephiles the right to pursue legal sanctions against those who will not go long with the lie that they have changed their sex. Given that “transsexuals” suffer from a “fundamental disorder” in their sense of self and are prone to narcissistic rage[7], there is every reason to believe that they will use such laws to ruthlessly attack anyone who speaks the truth.

            If you want to understand the full potential of such wrath, consider the case of John Michael Bailey, whose book The Man who would be Queen provoked retaliation from a small group of persons who didn’t like being labeled autogynephiles. They used the internet to make outrageous accusations against Bailey, attacking his children, trying to turn colleagues against him, and to have him fired from his job.[8]

Lawrence applies the following clinical description of narcissistic rage to Bailey’s opponents:

 

…need for revenge, for righting a wrong, for undoing a hurt by whatever means, and deeply anchored, unrelenting compulsion in the pursuit of all these aims… There is utter disregard for reasonable limitations and a boundless wish to redress an injury and to obtain revenge… The fanaticism of the need for revenge and the unending compulsion of having to square the account after an offense…The narcissistically injured… cannot rest until he has blotted out [the] … offender who dared to oppose him, to disagree with him.

 

Even if only a small number of autogynephiles are prone to narcissistic revenge, they could cause incredible harm to anyone who speaks the truth. They would see injury everywhere, file complaints, and institute lawsuits.

The laws adding “gender identity” to anti-discrimination legislation would allow men and women with serious psychological disorders, some of whom are prone to narcissistic rage and revenge to use the law to persecute business owners who are attempting to protect the privacy of customers in restrooms and locker rooms.

If “gender identity” is added to anti-discrimination legislation, the lie of “sex change” will be taught in the schools. It won’t be long before we will have children’s books about how Johnny’s daddy is now Johnny’s mommy and everyone is living happily ever after. Teachers and other school personnel will expect to be accepted in whatever form they appear. Mr. Brown will come back after summer vacation as Miss Brown.

Confused children with G[S]ID who need treatment are already being pushed down the path to surgical mutilation. Schools are being told that if an elementary school boy or girl believes that he or she is the other sex; everyone should go along with this fantasy. The school should allow these troubled children to change their names, dress as the other sex, and use the restrooms of the other sex. Other children will be punished if they object or speak the truth.

And it gets worse. In some places, at age 11 these children who think they are the other sex are given puberty-blocking hormones so that secondary sexual characteristics do not appear. Then they are given hormones proper to the other sex, so that at age 18 they can be surgically mutilated. In other words, the entire educational, psychological, and medical establishment is conspiring to see that these children never receive proper treatment. There is no research on the long-term effects of these hormone treatments on developing the bodies and brain. Do we really believe that 11-year-old children have the judgment necessary to decide to permanently surrender his sexual identity and reproductive potential?

It seems like such a small change – just add “gender identity” to anti-discrimination laws, but such a change discriminates against the truth and endangers children.  We have an obligation to oppose it with all our energy.

One way is to stop using their language. Their words distort and deceive. I am currently working on Lexicon for the profamily movement. We need a common vocabulary so that we can speak the truth about the human person.  

 

 

If you are interested in participating in the development of such a Lexicon or would like to view my suggestions, email me at dalemoleary@yahoo.com and request the paper “Don’t Say Gender When You Mean Sex.”

 

 

 

 

 



[1] GLSEN Jump Start Guide, “Gender-Related Terminology List.” [www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/000/966-1.pdf]

[2] Jamie Glazov (2005) “Our Culture, What’s Left Of It,” Frontpage Magazine, August 3.

[3] Anne Lawrence, (2007) “Becoming what we love: Autogynephilic transsexualism conceptualized as an expression of romantic love,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50, 506-520.

[4] J. Michael Bailey (2003) The Man who would be Queen: The Science of Gender-Bending and transsexualism, Washington, DC: John Henry Press

[5] Anne Lawrence (2008) “Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism,”  Archives of Sexual Behavior,  37: 457-461

[6] H. Kohut (1971) The analysis of self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders, (NY: International Universities Press; H. Kohut (1972) “Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic age,”  Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,  27:360-400.

[7] Lawrence, Ibid. A, Beitel (1985) “The spectrum of gender identity disturbances: An intrapsyhic model,” in B. W. Steiner, (ed) Gender Dysphoria: Development, Research, Management (NY: Pleum) pp. 189-206; U. Hartman et al (1997) “Self and gender: Narcissistic pathology and personality factors in gender dysphoric patients: Preliminary results of a prospective study,”  International Journal of Transgenderism,

http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtcf0103.htm

[8] Alice Dreger (2008) “The controversy surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen A case history of the politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age,” Archives of Sexual Behavior,  37: 366-421.

What's the Big Deal about Ex-Gays?

http://www.untwistedtruth.com/search?updated-max=2010-02-19T10%3A47%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=2

What's the Big Deal about Ex-Gays?


The small, all volunteer organization PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) is once again making national news. They are supporting a shareholder's resolution at Disney (yes, that Disney) asking the media giant to include former homosexuals under their anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation.

PFOX has successfully taken powerful school systems like Montgomery County, MD, ( a suburb of Washington, DC) to federal court for pushing unsafe and untrue sexuality classes on their students.

PFOX brought mega-union National Education Association to the Superior Court of DC for blocking PFOX for years from even exhibiting at NEA national conferences while welcoming gay groups to train teachers.

In order to continue to ban PFOX from the national conferences, NEA argued that they could discriminate against PFOX and ex-gays due to their right to freedom of association.  PFOX did not get to exhibit in the future but forced NEA to admit in court what PFOX already knew: the NEA and gay activist groups like GLSN and PFLAG that target K-12 schoolchildren are in bed together.

Something else happened that the NEA forgot to mention in press releases:  The Court ruled that ex-gays are also protected from discrimination by the same laws that apply to gays.  PFOX forced the Goliath union out of the closet and set legal precedent--not a bad's day's work!

PFOX is the only ex-gay group in the nation to sign-on in support of California's marriage amendment. They participate in press conferences against federal hate crimes legislation.  Fox News reported that PFOX has confronted the mighty American Library Association.

(The ALA vets and recommends books for inclusion in K-12 libraries. They routinely reject anything written by or about ex-gays. Meanwhile, children's books on gay penguins, lesbian mommies, and details of homosexual initiation with  an older man get their imprimatur.) 

Why is this small Virginia-based group taking on mega-issues, mega-unions, and now Fortune 500 companies when ex-gay ministries like Exodus have walked off the public policy playing field? (PFOX is neither a therapeutic or counseling organization.)

Both the Left and the Right scratch their heads about PFOX. The Left wonders, "Who do they think they are and how can we silence them?" Some on the Right wonder, "Who do they think they are and do they know what are they doing?"

What do marriage amendments, hate crimes, school curricula, and library books have to do with the PFOX mission of supporting and advocating for 'ex-gays?'  And why this bizarre idea that ex-gays be covered by sexual-orientation anti-discrimination policies.

First, all the ex-gay ministries and support in the world will not keep up with K-12 schools, library books, and teacher unions that continue to promote homosexuality as normal and healthy to millions of children each day. 

Second, ex-gays are targeted for ridicule, economic harassment, and silencing.  Any discussion of changing one's homosexual attraction unleashes a spew of vitriol denouncing the bigotry and ignorance of such 'hateful' speech. If ENDA, Hate Crimes, same-sex marriage, and the rest of gay legislative laundry list become law, the next step is hateful speech becomes hate speech.

If saying change is even possible becomes illegal hate speech, exactly what many gays are pushing for, ex-gay ministries who support change will close-up shop.  All professional therapeutic or research support to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction will become unethical if not illegal.

In the last few years, radicals in the American Psychological Association almost succeeded in banning all  therapeutic support  for change as unethical--regardless if that is the patient's expressed desire.  Only pressure from ex-gays and their supporters demanding that patients rights to self-determination be respected defeated the gay action.


Not Hard to Imagine:  The Future is Already Here.

A Christian photographer passes on doing a 'gay wedding.' A single girl renting out an extra bedroom chooses not to have a lesbian roommate. They are sued, fined and ordered by the court to sensitivity training

Did the gay complainants have ample other choices?  Yes.  The constitutionally enumerated right to religious freedom of the defendant?  Does not matter.  Private property and personal rights of the young woman?  Does not matter.


eHarmony offers heterosexual match-making based based on years of psychological research on successful marriage.  It is not a generic dating site.  It has no research on same-sex relationships.  Doesn't matter. Ditto, Ditto.  The founder is an evangelical Christian.  Doesn't matter. (More likely, that is exactly what does matter.)

A New Jersey gay files for discrimination.  eHarmony is not found guilty but to end litigation agrees to launch a homosexual matching service called Compatible Partners.  Still doesn't matter:  Gays in California then file a class action suit claiming a 'separate but equal [site]' is discriminatory.

What does matter is that these are not future events. They already happened.  Jurisprudence does not exist in a vacuum. What is the legal trajectory after ENDA, Hate Crimes, and wide spread same-sex marriage?  The obvious result would be further  forced compliance by the courts to validate homosexuality in every manner .

Where would this leave those who want to leave homosexuality?   Or ex-gays?  Or un-affirming parents or teachers?  Is it so hard to imagine discrimination complaints followed by court ordered therapy to cure 'homophobia'? ( Remember, whether or not charges of homophobia  are untrue...doesn't matter!)


That's where public policy and PFOX intersect.  The underlying precept to pro-gay policies is that there is no such thing as ex-gays. This implies that anyone, including ex-gays, who believes change is possible are either mentally ill or prejudiced against gays.

Policies that protect the 'right' to be gay must also protect the right to become ex-gay.   If leaving homosexuality were mere science fiction, why don't gays ignore protection for ex-gays as meaningless?  Instead, they fight tooth and nail against any protection for ex-gays as a conspiracy to discriminate against gays, i.e. ex-gay is discrimination..  Hence, PFOX's strategic advocacy for inclusion of ex-gays in sexual orientation policies.  Q.E.D.

Gays are Self-Evident Proof, Ex-gays are Just Crazy.
 
Homosexuality is still not proven to exist as anything other than a mental perception.  The 'science'  that proves the innate nature of gayness is that gays self-identify and behave as gays.  We are told that we must accept homosexuality as normal and healthy even for ourselves or loved one and pass pro-gay protections against those less enlightened.


Gays set a little different level of scientific rigor for ex-gays. Ex-gays must prove that they were born gay and they must  also prove that they are no longer gay . That is, ex-gays must first prove what gays have failed to prove in four decades and then prove the null hypothesis to what has not been proven in the first place.

(No-no-no.  It doesn't work the say way in case your wondering.  Self-identifying as ex-gay, claiming to have less or no same-sex attraction  and behaving that way is not proof.  That's just ex-gay right wing ignorant crazy talk.)

PFOX fights for policies to keep the road to self-determination open for those who choose it and against policies that threaten it.  It's kind of like insurance or a constitutional amendment protecting marriage: you have to have it before you imagine you could ever need it. 

Because in spite of being assured that change is impossible and against all odds, thousands of homosexuals do start the journey each year to conquer their unwanted same-sex attraction.

It is a daunting, arduous trek. Some do not reach the life-changing goal they set. Gay activists exploit these most intimate personal disappointments as proof positive of the folly for all.

But many do reach their destination.  They leave homosexuality behind.  That truth is a lighthouse in the perfect storm of sexual politics. They prove to gays, parents, and lawmakers that self-determination in one's own sexual nature is possible.    They prove change is possible.

And that's a big deal.

 

From a teacher

 

This is an interesting "two mommies" story that I have been following.  Years ago, at least 15 years ago, I took a stand against what the sex ed classes were teaching at the middle school where I was employed.  Our students were being taught that the definition of a family is " any group of two or more people who love and care about each other."  This is not only totally wrong, it is an outright lie that is being taught and has been taught now for a long time to our children here in the United States.  The definition of a family has always been:  "people related by marriage, blood or adoption".   Sex education programs and homosexual activists have tried to change the meaning of the word "family".  You and I know the correct definition. We need to proclaim this definition everywhere so that our children will again know the truth about the definition of a family.  And also so that those who are teaching lies will be discouraged and stopped.

 

Linda

 

What proportion of heterosexuals is ex-homosexual?

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/products-page/scientific-articles/what-proportion-of-heterosexuals-is-ex-homosexual

Psychol Rep. 2002 Dec;91(3 Pt 2):1087-97.

What proportion of heterosexuals is ex-homosexual?

Cameron PCameron K.

Family Research Institute, Inc., P.O. Box 62640, Colorado Springs, CO 80762, USA.

How many heterosexuals are 'ex-homosexuals'? In 1984, a random sample of Dallas adults indicated that 8 (2.7%) of 294 currently heterosexual men and 4 (1.0%) of 393 currently heterosexual women said that they were ex-homosexual. Of an urban sample from 5 additional cities, 0.5% of current heterosexuals reported that they had been homosexually 'married'. It thus appears that perhaps 1-2% of heterosexuals are ex-homosexuals. Proportionately more adults than teenagers and more men than women moved from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Of the 18 who changed, 12 became heterosexual and 6 bisexual, suggesting that perhaps two-thirds of those who abandon "being" homosexual 'become' heterosexual and a third 'become' bisexual. Because labeling oneself 'homosexual' is so mutable and value-laden, the term 'omnisexual' is suggested.

PMID: 12585518 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

Advocate for ex-gay equality

Sign up to become a supporter of PFOX in our future corporate shareholder resolutions:

 

http://www.moxyvote.com/advocates/pfox

 

Spread the word at corporate America – exgays deserve the same rights and respect as everyone else. 

Do you think ENDA will hurt children?

What do YOU think?

 

http://www.endahurtskids.com