Gender Identity Is Not About Sexual RightsOn Jun 18, 2013 1 Comment
Gender identity has become a central focus of sexual rights, school anti-bullying campaigns and workplace equity. Most Americans know or have family members that are homosexual. But many are not familiar with “gender transitioning” and “transgender” medical protocols, the risks involved and what science informs the politicized debate.
This is a difficult topic that must be addressed within a respectful and reasoned dialogue, a dialogue that is research-based because gender transitioning is central to the goal of non-discrimination bills (to legalize same-sex/gender marriage) that are working their way through municipalities and state legislatures throughout the United States. Even the more conservative states are vulnerable. It is within this framework that this report was compiled. I welcome your respectful comments. – Cherilyn Eagar
Meet Navy Seal Chris/Kristen
I recently watched the Anderson Cooper interview with retired Navy Seal Christopher Beck, now transgendered “Kristen” Beck, and was suprised at the cavalier attitude – the poker face – that Anderson maintained throughout the nearly 60 minute interview. You can watch a clip here:
Anderson portrayed an air of acceptance. No questions were asked about this father’s two children he left behind, now without a father and role model, because of what does appear to be a narcissistic obsession with sexual/physical appearance and gender confusion that rose to the level of an aggressive hormone replacement therapy called “transitioning.” Society appears to be as accepting of this dubious medical protocol without analysis of the side effects, and overshadowed by a false need not to offend.
During the interview, Christopher/Kristen was asked which was the real “Chris/Kristen.” He responded that who he was as Kristen was the “real” him.
However, DNA doesn’t lie. Sex change doesn’t lie. If you’re male, you still have that x-y chromosome combination. If you’re female, you’ve got two x’s, with rare exceptions.
How much do you know about HRT (hormone replacement therapy)? If you’re a post-menopausal woman, you know what a conservative regimen is. Extra estrogen is needed to replace the loss. But the trans-gender regimen is estrogen replacement on steroids (literally).
It takes an aggressive and unproven dose of hormones to “gender transition” from the physical appearance of one gender to the other. Here’s a video example (this was one of the more G-rated videos to be found):
If a man wants to be a woman, he is “transitioning.” It can take up to three or four years.
The Obama administration originally intended to force the single-payer brand of socialized health care infused with gender equity language but that was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Presently, HRT for gender transitioning and sex change surgeries are not readily covered under the accepted insurance plans in the ACA. But read on because what is beginning to happen may re-write the ACA regulations in the future, and taxpayers may be paying for unproven medical procedures down the line through Medicaid expansion.
Politically Protected Risks
For several years health reports here and journals here, and reiterated again here, have cautioned menopausal women against pursuing HRT. Over time, it has been discovered that estrogen can cause dangerous cardiovascular and other trade-off side effects. Gender-transitioning HRT protocols are much more aggressive.
Teenagers, college students and adults of parenting years especially need to know that gender transitioning through HRT is a serious matter with these and other heightened health and emotional risks. Gender-challenged males may believe they will become liberated by transitioning into the woman they always wanted to be, but they may not know that in doing so, they are making decisions that may have long-term consequences they may regret one day.
For example, the aggressive hormones required for a man to transition into a woman can remove their ability to have heterosexual relations (including homosexual sodomy). And, they can become sterilized – permanently. In this medicine gone mad, UK NHS studies are being done to test “chemical castration” on 12-year old lesbian and gay children to prevent them from going through the natural puberty of their DNA for those who want to transition.
It’s truly a brave new world.
Rather than accepting gender transitioning as a civil right, the medical industry must put science and common sense first and place gender confusion where it squarely belongs: in a psychiatrist’s office and under qualified therapy. While I recognize this is all very un-PC and that such therapies have been outlawed in California, forcing psychiatric and counseling businesses to close, the risks of radical HRT are, in fact, validated in responsible medical journals. To their credit, these brave doctors have ventured to write about the medical-scientific realities, at the risk of being labeled “bigots” or “repressing” people’s gender.
Johns Hopkins has experience with sex change (“reassignment”) surgeries and discontinued the practice. Paul McHugh, MD, the head of the psychiatric department, and his colleagues explained their reasons why here and urged their discontinuance from tracking the results over several years. McHugh noted that the psychiatric problems did not disappear post-surgery, but rather, were more likely to intensify.
Of course there are legitimate – but rare – cases of “intersex” children born with both male and female genitalia. Fortunately modern medicine is capable of correcting the abnormalities, but that too can become an ethical and legal issue. In this instance, the baby was taken into foster care and the hospital performed a sex reassignment surgery turning the boy into a girl. Eight years later the adoptive parents are suing the state and the hospital because the female is clearly leaning male. How tragic. Why the doctors didn’t wait to perform the surgery is questionable, because as these children grow, typically the dominant sex becomes apparent. Why the doctors didn’t assess the DNA and the presence of an XX or XY or XXY chromosome combination is also a concern.
Medically speaking, this is a question of sex and the medical definition of sex – not politicized notions of gender now creeping into non-discrimination bills.
Gender and Psychiatric Confusion
This political definition for gender is a definition I reject. Gender confusion is indeed a medically-recognized psychiatric disorder called GID – Gender Identity Disorder. In December 2012, the progressive-controlled American Psychiatric Association board rewrote the manual and redefined GID as “gender identity dysphoria.” That means emotionally depressed or discontented. I’m not sure who’s more confused – the APA board or the patient they are attempting to help. As the Chairman of the Brigham Young University Psychology Department explained to me recently, accredited universities are required to teach psychology majors these questionable protocols and politicized rules of psychiatric law.
On the opposite side, representing scientific evidence or lack thereof, NARTH is a credible website of psychiatric and psychological professionals where you’ll get scientifically-evident medical common sense. They are being silenced by the activists putting pressure on the field.
In general taxpayers ought not to be required to pay for the uber-narcissism of young men and women so transfixed on their own sex and sexuality. The trouble is, taxpayers have not been paying attention, and have allowed popular science to replace the scientific method. Lawmakers fear they won’t get re-elected if they don’t replace time-honored common sense with a false notion of tolerance.
Every year since 2005 non-discrimination bills in Utah have appeared, but they go nowhere. Many people say, “What could be wrong with not discriminating in housing and employment?”
However, in 2013 for the first time in Utah, a non-discrimination bill was sponsored by a Republican Senator Steve Urquhart, from St George, Utah. Another first: it passed the Senate Economic Development Committee. Fortunately it was held up in rules and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.
Non-discrimination in the workplace and in housing is not the goal. The goal is writing the protection of gender identity into the law and thereby legalizing same sex marriage. “That’s preposterous! How could that happen?” you ask. It’s quite logical.
First, consider the history: The APA, I assume knowingly, gave the Gender Identity Disorder label an upgrade to Gender Identity Dysphoria, bringing the non-discrimination debate closer to legalization. it would have been much more difficult to “legalize” a mental disorder.
Second, in every state that has legalized same-sex marriage, non-discrimination laws preceded it. Here’s one way it’s happening in Utah:
The text of this particular Utah bill in 2013 stated that if a person had a “sincerely-held” belief about their gender identity (e.g. “I really, really, really deeply believe that I’m a woman even though I was born with an X-Y chromosome and my DNA says I’m a man.”), then it must be protected. This language was straight from the Massachusetts non-discrimination law and it applies to the education code as well.
Here’s what happens:
When gender identity is protected by law using this language, the law protects everything transgender. For example, in public places supported by tax dollars, a third bathroom is appearing along with the traditional “Men” and “Women” bathrooms called “Gender Neutral.” However, many in the GLBT campaign consider even a third bathroom arrangement to be a form of discrimination, setting them apart from the gender to which they identify.
Health care providers are also at risk of being sued unless they provide protocols to which they do not either morally or scientifically subscribe.
If we continue to protect mental disorder/dysphoria and legalize it with “sincerely-held” beliefs about gender identity, we will soon see companies threatened with lawsuits that force businesses to designate an additional bathroom for the gender-challenged and if they get their way, LGBT identifying employees may demand they use the same facilities. It will be a cold day in hell before I, as a woman, allow a gender-confused man into the ladies room, thank you. Years ago, during the Equal Rights Amendment debates, we argued that the proposed language would lead to “unisex” bathrooms. We were laughed off the stage. Who’s laughing now?
As with all the other progressive arguments during that decade, the worst of our concerns has been realized. Already in the District of Columbia, businesses and restaurants are required to provide a gender-neutral single-occupant restroom. Federal OSHA regulations do not yet require this specification, only that bathroom facilities are available for all employees. But that will change under non-discrimination laws.
If this were happening in my office building, it would need to be remodeled to accommodate such a protection. Granted, as a woman I do not want a man to enter my bathroom space in a public setting, no matter how much that man “sincerely” believes he’s a she. And I appreciate the fact that a separate facility would be provided for my protection as well.
But this is bureaucracy at its best, causing more regulations and costing the private sector more. Who pays for that? We do. The consumer. It raises the cost of living and contributes to the increasingly unfriendly domestic business environment in the United States, sending more jobs and businesses overseas.
As if that weren’t troubling enough, the issue has become a hot button at the high school level. The Huffington Post reported on a legal challenge in Maine in which a 15-year old twin boy that believes he is a girl has claimed discrimination and “bullying” because he can’t use the girls’ restroom. Cases exist where parents of children as young as six years old are “identifying” as the gender opposite their biological DNA and are suing schools for discrimination.
For now a solution in college dorms and campus buildings is the “gender neutral bathroom,” as reported at the University of Massachusetts, but it appears to be an experiment not yet proven to be the long-term solution to “equality.”
The Wall Street Journal reported on the havoc taking place in high schools where gender identity has disrupted normal activities and entire high schools are being labeled “transgender high schools.” In Dallas, traditional activities such as homecoming kings and queens are being challenged. One high school co-ed identified as a man plans to undergo a sex change at age 18. She wanted to run for Homecoming King. But in San Diego, it actually happened: the first lesbian homecoming queen – and king. This is being praised and protected in public school, at taxpayer expense, even though it undermines the religious liberty of the majority to speak out against it – on moral grounds.
Where is this Going?
But this is really not about bathrooms or prom queens/kings. It’s a journey to a destination. I was one of six invited to testify at a hearing during the 2013 Utah legislative session against the non-discrimination bill. I entered the packed room with media buzzing around and greeted friends and “foes” alike. A dear man – a homosexual who everyone loves in Utah – was among them. With a disappointed glance he walked up to me and said, “I sort of know where you stand, Cherilyn, but I’m disappointed.” We hugged each other and I said, “You’re my friend, and this is not personal. The line is drawn at marriage, and this is the next step toward that goal.” Yes, we disagree on this issue. He is one of many gay friends I’ve had throughout my life, especially in the theatre world in which I have spent so much of my time. But the line I draw is marriage.
Another gay friend, an attorney with whom I’ve worked with for many years to preserve marriage between a man and a woman discussed the question of what rights homosexuals do not have by law. He said, and I agree, “The law allows anyone to contract with and bequeath to anyone else.” [even an animal] He continued: “There is no way in which the law discriminates against me. I reconciled this dilemma years ago.” Health care is available, and inheritance and hospital visitation can be clearly defined in wills and trusts.
To reiterate: that line of demarcation, the definition of that special relationship that produces a child is called marriage, and it is reserved for the mom and dad for the protection of the child.
The Real Goal: Protect Gender Identity to Legalize Gay Marriage
When a man can declare that he sincerely believes he’s a woman and wants to marry a man, and non-discrimination laws are in place to protect gender identity, the logical conclusion is that same-sex marriage has just been de facto legalized. All a man needs to say is, “I have a sincerely-held belief that I’m a woman, and I want to marry that man.” At a recent event, the homosexuals present confirmed this to be true.
States and municipalities might do well to consider defining gender on the basis of DNA and the chromosome combinations that determine gender, rather than politically correct ideology and whether tomorrow a man may sincerely believe he is a woman. In this way, any challenge brought forward in a Court of law would need to be backed up with scientific evidence.
The Moral Case for Discrimination
After the six testimonies were completed in that Utah legislative hearing about the non-discrimination bill, we listened to what the committee would say. At the end, Senator Stuart Reid took the microphone and the room went silent as he spoke the most profound words of the day. He addressed the issue of discrimination as a moral dilemma.
We all know this in our hearts, but he broke the silence in this legislative setting. Yes, we do discriminate. We discriminate with the clothes we buy, the food we eat, the décor in our homes, the books and movies we prefer, the churches and schools we attend, the friends we keep, and who we decide to marry.
As a Mormon mom, I have a right to discriminate by teaching my children that I birthed the set of values I want them to believe in and the kinds of activities in which they should participate. I discriminate on these matters because they are part of my moral values – at the deepest level of conscience. It is my First Amendment right to choose moral values and in fact, that is the original intent of the Founders who crafted our rule of law. I believe parents have that unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness under the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God upon which standard this nation was founded.
I do not subscribe to the post-modern definitions given such words as “tolerance,” “acceptance,” “inclusion,” “equity” or “civil right” as they are used in today’s classrooms. Yes, Virginia, there is a right and a wrong. It’s not required of me to tolerate someone that routinely uses vulgar language in my presence, or that drinks alcohol or watches pornography and then abuses me. We make discriminating choices daily for our safety, sanity, health and general well-being.
But by so discriminating, I do not call my homosexual friends vulgar names. I don’t leave pornographic messages on their cell phones or in emails. I don’t spray paint their driveways with swastikas or slash their tires or smash their car windows because they advocate for gay rights. And I don’t threaten their lives and income.
Even though some of them have done all of this to me.
After that legislative hearing in Utah, the crowd gathered in the hall. As I mingled I gave Senator Jim Dabakis a hug, our one and only (at least to my knowledge) gay Senator. I consider him a friend – a friend I rarely agree with politically, but a friend. He was upbeat.
Then Brandie Balken, the Executive Director of Equality Utah, approached me with conviction and said, “You know it’s only a matter of time. We are going to win this one, and when we do, in five years you’re going to look back on this day and question why you ever opposed it.”
I said, “Five years will not make any difference. I’ve been defending marriage and family my entire life.”
Who Are We Protecting Anyway? Adults or Children?
Americans are becoming increasingly eager to join the transgender rapture of “inclusion,” “tolerance,” “anti-bullying,” and the “coexist” Kumbayah chorus. Are we surprised? That’s what they’ve been taught in public schools. Let it be remembered that it’s not about the adults. It’s about the children.
Children don’t need confused adults to communicate confusion during their formative years. They need stability, solid values and direction. Every child needs a mom and a dad to model for them a balance and to show, by example and with their teaching, their love of – and the advantages of – their own gender.
I watched Chris/Kristen as he talked briefly in that interview about his two sons, and then we saw his little boys in the background for only a few moments. This is a moral tragedy. They have been stripped of a father by his own choice, at the expense of those children.
To the Christophers/Kristens of the world, these questions must be asked:
Should selfish, narcissistic sexual wants, needs and desires – and even dysphoria and mental disorder – be placed legally above the needs of those vulnerable children who need a mom and a dad to give him or her a healthy, stable and balanced role model to follow?
Should marriage be redefined as an institution that provides adults pleasure to the exclusion of the needs of children?
Listen to a 13-year old whose speech about why she needs a mom and a dad shook up the protestors who were listening to her and that went around the world.
Here’s what Amelia – only 13 years old – is saying: It’s not about you, adults. It is about the children and their need to be born and raised in a home with both a mom and a dad. Marriage is not about a relationship for adult pleasure or sexual desire. It’s about nurturing us.
Show me any other environment or relationship that provides children stability and balance better than a mom and a dad – in general, and I’ll show you a real, live … unicorn.
I draw the line of discrimination at the definition of marriage. If you agree, or if you are among the gender-confused or just confused about the entire gender discussion, join us on Wednesday, June 26 at South Towne Expo Center in Sandy, Utah at 7 pm for a Celebration of Marriage. Together, with open hearts and minds, we come together to be educated and to protect this environment for our children.