As we head towards St Andrews Day (a day when the Free Church holds a day of prayer for the nation) I want to spend each day this week thinking about the state of our nation and the church within it. There is much to pray for. We begin with the Transmania sweeping out nation.
“Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat” (Those who God wishes to destroy he first makes mad”. This is supposed to have come from Euripides. Whatever the source we are seeing an outworking of that destructive madness in our society just now – and its a spiral that seems to be escalating downwards at an ever-increasing rate.
Take the following stories from this past week alone:
1)Gender Recognition Consultation Published –
The Scottish Government published their Review of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Two things stood out for me. Firstly how skewed the whole consultation was – it was a self-selecting group with a large number of trans groups (including the Brazilian Trans alliance – quite what they have to do with Scotland I’m not sure) responding. This did not stop the Herald running the false headline “Scots support gender self recognition”. Secondly the degradation of language continues in the Scottish Government with its Orwellian gobbledygook type reports. Take this gem from section 9.
9. There was also a concern that the proposals represent a general erosion of the identity or the rights of natal women. More specific concerns were raised that trans women would be eligible to take natal women’s places on all- women short lists, on the boards of public bodies, or for other employment, quotas or awards. Potential problems for the future of women’s sport were noted, including at both a professional and amateur level.
There you go women. You can no longer be referred to as women – you are a sub sect known as ‘Natal Women”!
2) Ordinary People Fight Back
The Times ran an article yesterday “Activists Challenge ‘Transgender Ideology’ Sweeping Schools’ which reported on the interesting and unusual case of the Haddington branch of the SNP questioning the government’s adoption of LGBT Youth Scotland’s advice to schools (advice which includes such gems as parents should not be told if a child wants to change gender). Of course the Haddington branch will be slapped on the wrists and told to shut up as the party damage limitation machine kicks in, and the feminist leader of the Haddington branch will be told to go back into the kitchen where she belongs and not bother her pretty little head with things she cannot understand! Yours truly was quoted in the article:
David Robertson, a former moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, said: “The Haddington SNP branch is quite right and brave to challenge the government’s wholesale adoption of the militant trans agenda. The advice in the guidance is harmful and totalitarian, and the adoption of the radical transgender agenda is an attack on women. It’s about time that others spoke up.”
3) Stonewall Continues Their Indoctrination and Intimidation
Meanwhile Stonewall continue their campaign. Staff in my local NHS have told me that in order to get a Stonewall award they are all to be lectured on Queer Theory and how to be pro-Trans. Will the NHS diversity programme allow a different point of view? Or would that be too diverse? The Telegraph reporting on the debate in Parliament and the way that Trans-activists shut down debate gave us this fascinating detail –
The BBC is, belatedly, engaging with this properly too. Woman’s Hour has this week been broadcasting conversations on different aspects of the sex-gender puzzle. Tuesday’s show was supposed to see Helen Lewis, a New Statesman journalist, debate with Bex Stinson of Stonewall, the biggest trans-rights lobbying group. But Stinson refused even to speak directly to Lewis, who has written about the potential conflict of interests between transwoman and those born female.
4) Our Civic Institutions have Been Captured by Trans Ideology
Brendan O’Neill as he so often does hits the nail on the head – There is no Such Thing as a Trans Kid –
It isn’t only the still small number of kids who are trans-diagnosed who are impacted upon by the transgender ideology. All kids are. The problem here is not some all-powerful trans lobby – it’s the unwillingness of institutions to withstand the transgender worldview. Schools are embracing the new religion of gender-neutrality and are encouraging their charges not to prejudge people’s gender and to believe that sex at birth is irrelevant in comparison with what you feel. The binary that has traditionally allowed children to negotiate an otherwise confusing world – between female and male, mother and father, girl and boy – is being erased, leaving kids socially bereft, uncertain, and re-engineered to think in the way the new elite thinks they should.
5) How Queer Theory Became University Policy – in this revealing article Michael Biggs, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford shows the terrifying extent to which the McCarthyite tendency of Queer Theory activists has taken over – funded by taxpayers money dished out by ignorant, cowardly, virtue signalling politicians.
The establishment of an official doctrine on gender identity is an unprecedented threat to academic freedom. Sex and gender should be subjects for robust research and vigorous debate. Instead, scholars who query the new orthodoxy of queer theory are subjected to vicious harassment and intimidation. Almost all are women, and many incline towards radical feminism. The culprits are ultrawoke students—most do not identify as transgender but style themselves as ‘allies’—and some feminist academics. They can claim, however, that their aggression is licensed by university policy. After all, universities have granted one particular group extraordinary power to control intellectual discourse. ‘If a trans person informs a staff member that a word or phrasing is inappropriate or offensive,’ warns University College London, ‘then that staff member should take their word for it, and adjust their phraseology accordingly.’
6) The Arts Establishment (and the Church) Continue the Propaganda
The Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh wants to get in on the fun and demonstrate just how radical and risqué they are with their show – the Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven – where Jesus returns to earth as a trans woman. Oh how daring! Oh what jolly fun! I look forward to the Traverse producing the sequel where Mohammed returns to earth as a trans woman! When someone objected this was the reply they got –
**”The Traverse is proud to be presenting _The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven_ as part of our programme this December. We believe it is an important piece of work which speaks to one of our organisation’s core aims, to represent different world views and a variety of experiences.**
**The play’s writer and performer, Jo Clifford, is a Christian who attends church weekly – this work is a piece of devotion which draws on her extensive knowledge of the source texts. Jo is respected and supported by many faith groups and the piece has been performed in churches of many different denominations around the UK. Jo has even appeared on _Songs of Praise_ and is regularly asked to join academic debates and discussions, recently travelling to Cambridge University to address academics and students of a new discipline of theology, trans theology.**
The Traverse would not of course in one of their core aims to represent different world views and a variety of experiences, allow biblical Christianity to be represented on stage or let people experience that. But how depressing, if not surprising, that ‘faith groups’, Songs of Praise and Cambridge University are suggesting there is a ‘trans theology’.
7) Children are being abused and manipulated in schools and through social media –
Channel 4 had an amazing programme which showed the extent of the manipulation and abuse – Trans Kids – Its Time to Talk The most disturbing part for me was watching the Trans activists attacking and disrupting a feminist meeting – they really do hate (natal) women. The programme also made clear that the internet and YouTube channels are a key factor in this abuse of children.
And then there is the indoctrination and abuse going on in schools. Take this report from the Mail on Sunday –
The school where SEVENTEEN children are changing gender
By Sanchez Manning
AN astonishing 17 pupils at a single British school are in the process of changing gender, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
Most of them are autistic, according to a teacher there, who said vulnerable children with mental health problems were being ‘tricked’ into believing they are the wrong sex.
The whistleblower says few of the transgender children are suffering from gender dysphoria – the medical term for someone who feels they were born in the wrong body – but are just easily influenced, latching on to the mistaken belief they are the wrong sex as a way of coping with the problems caused by autism.
Earlier this year, The Mail on Sunday revealed that a third of youngsters referred to the NHS’s only gender identity clinic for children showed ‘moderate to severe autistic traits’. It means that 150 autistic teenagers were given puberty blocker drugs which stop the body maturing.
The teacher says she felt compelled to speak out to protect pupils, many of whom she believes could already be taking the powerful drugs and may go on to have life-changing surgery. She believes schools and some politicians have swallowed ‘hook, line and sinker’ a politically correct ‘fallacy’ peddled by a powerful transgender lobby.
She has asked The Mail on Sunday to conceal her identity for fear of dismissal after almost 20 years as a teacher.
But in a shocking interview, the woman, who we shall call Carol, tells how: l She was advised to keep parents and other teachers in the dark if a pupil claimed to be transgender;
■ Older pupils at her school who changed gender ‘groomed’ younger, mainly autistic children to do the same;
■ One autistic teenager is soon to have a double mastectomy;
■ Pupils who say they were born the wrong sex mimic transgender YouTube stars who Carol believes are partly to blame for convincing vulnerable children they have gender dysphoria.
Or this report from the Telegraph – In 10 years, we’ll ask how we allowed the trans lobby to hijack childhood
When I ask whether it can really be true that children could be sent off to consult with gender clinics without the parents’ knowledge, she explains that, currently, “the confidentiality of a trans child actually trumps everything, including a parent’s right to know. And if a school believes a child is mature enough to understand the implications of what they’re doing, they don’t need parental consent.”
Added to this, “if a child comes to school and tells the teachers ‘my parents are anti-trans’, the school can call in social services and treat it as a safeguarding concern under emotional abuse. Theoretically, the child could even be taken away.”
In ten years, I believe we’ll look back and ask: how did we let this happen? How did we foist our own complex adult neuroses on children? How were we so blinded by PC ideologies? But before that, we’re all likely to ask ourselves and each other many more times: “Where have all the grown-ups gone?”
8) The Maddest Headline
Nothing illustrates the madness of society more than this headline in the New York Times this week – My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy
And it shouldn’t have to.
The State of our Nation
These articles and stories are just a few from the past week. We are rapidly moving into a State where children are going to be manipulated and abused by the State system and anyone who dares to challenge this will find themselves threatened and ostracised. Someone asked me yesterday what can we do? We must not give in to this intimidation and bullying. If you are a parent then protest every time your school tries to indoctrinate your children. If you are a worker question every time you are forced into Stonewall indoctrination as your employer tries to show how ‘woke’ they are. If you are a politician – it’s time to speak up. You cannot go along with this State sponsored child abuse. If you are a pastor – make sure your people know what is at stake here. Do what you can in terms of offering advice in terms of reading. Make sure you are compassionate and helpful to those who are victims of this ideology.
I began with the saying of Euripides, let me finish with the saying of Paul from Romans 1;24 “God gave them over….”. I have no doubt that God has given us over to the foolishness of our own thinking. Our elites are leading us down the road to a madness which will destroy our humanity. Only when we remember our Creator will we be able to save the Creation – including ourselves.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22 KJV
After all the fuss about “The Handmaiden’s Tale”, it would be ironic if “natal women” were one day similarly imprisoned and forced to breed children for an élite of men and women-with-penises instead. I suppose the patriarchy will never stop finding ways of reimposing “natal male” domination – and I note I haven’t seen that term even mentioned yet. It’s men and trans women all along who are providing the aggression, while trans men are mainly kept off the stage. It’s almost as if they are still being treated as women, isn’t it?
And again: what more cunning way to stop autistic children from reproducing, than disabling their reproductive organs? Eugenics, that old classic man-as-God power grab – and while you’re concentrating on the State’s involvement, commerce will quietly sell “designer children” behind your back, and dispose of the “fails”.
Oh, and by the way – the position of “Queen of Heaven” is already occupied – although “Queen-Mother” would be more strictly accurate. But Mary is used to being rudely thrust aside…
Trans women are a tiny percentage of the population so it seems unlikely.
“Trans women are a tiny percentage of the population so it seems unlikely.”
On their own: yes.
Holding a cause in common (the “right” to have children when you haven’t a womb) and pooling funds and activism with gay, straight/misogynist and queer men? Not so isolated.
We already see celebrity gay couples “having children” by way of anonymous receptacles paid, if at all, a not particularly generous sum – and straight men of means have sold and exchanged their daughters for generations in pursuit of the same end – obtaining offspring without, as far as possible, the requirement for women.
In a world where work itself is paid more and more begrudgingly by those who demand it, why should other slaveries be any more unimaginable?
Hopefully the idea will remain in “what if?” land where it belongs.
Karen
The vast majority of surrogacy is for straight couples, not gay couples or trans women.
I think if you are going to make a moral case against surrogacy then you should make it against all surrogacy, but this is not particularly an issue related to trans people (especially as half of trans people have wombs!)
In the UK, its illegal to pay surrogates.
Um, and where is the church’s prophetic voice?!? Has it missed all the memos? Many thanks David Robertson — superb, as always.
Where was the church’s prophetic voice in 2004, when it might have been possible to prevent this happening in the first place, as opposed to trying now to turn the clock back?
“Queen of Heaven” – that position is already occupied, but not by Mary, according to the Bible. The “Queen of Heaven” is probably Asherah, a false goddess. How very apporpriate given the title and intent of this performance.
” “As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger. Is it I whom they provoke? declares the LORD. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? ”
(Jer 7:16-19, ESV)
” But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.” And the women said, “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?” Then Jeremiah said to all the people, men and women, all the people who had given him this answer: “As for the offerings that you offered in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your officials, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them? Did it not come into his mind? The LORD could no longer bear your evil deeds and the abominations that you committed. Therefore your land has become a desolation and a waste and a curse, without inhabitant, as it is this day. It is because you made offerings and because you sinned against the LORD and did not obey the voice of the LORD or walk in his law and in his statutes and in his testimonies that this disaster has happened to you, as at this day.” Jeremiah said to all the people and all the women, “Hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who are in the land of Egypt. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: You and your wives have declared with your mouths, and have fulfilled it with your hands, saying, ‘We will surely perform our vows that we have made, to make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings to her.’ Then confirm your vows and perform your vows! Therefore hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who dwell in the land of Egypt: Behold, I have sworn by my great name, says the LORD, that my name shall no more be invoked by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, ‘As the Lord GOD lives.’ ”
(Jer 44:17-26, ESV)
There are plenty of false “Kings”, none of which mean there is not a real one.
And Mary is only what she is through her relationship with her Son – not a goddess or even a Queen in her own right. (Something we understand in England, where we have had both kinds of Queen and know the difference.) But no King is likely to be pleased by disrespect or belittling of his mother.
I would like to imagine her, healthy countrywoman that she was, having a great big belly laugh at some of the more extravagant compliments paid to her. And also remembering just who stood beneath Jesus’s feet, quietly enduring to the last, when all but one male disciple had fled.
I for one do not begrudge being one of the “all generations” who call her Blessed.
And wish you her Son’s peace.
My point is simply that “Queen of Heaven” is a very appropriate title to apply in light of its Old Testament usage. No disrespect intended on my part for Mary; one most favoured, theotokos.
The writer and performer of the play “The Gospel According to Jesus, Queen of Heaven” is promoting a false Jesus and teaches of a false god through their “trans theology”. In applying the title “Queen of Heaven” to their false Jesus, this person is applying a title given to a false goddess in the Old Testament, where the Israelites were condemned for rebellion in worshiping her. Just as those who follow this false Jesus and False god will be condemned, unless they repent of their rebellion.
Being an Englishman (one who has pledged allegiance to and served, in a minor role, our present Queen) I’m aware of the nuances of the titles of royalty.
David,
As always, the Christ centred voice of dissent. Thankyou for speaking up and speaking well.
With you
It is unnerving that a Government can wholeheartedly endorse the transgender order in the full knowledge of what it speaks to so many people, who are not bigoted, unthoughtful, ignorant people. I regard with disbelief that anyone in such a position should so freely encourage this mischief, with no accountability or culpability for the consequences. We are about to see a practice upon those most vulnerable, who are to be fed a severe, toxic decision, parading as “choice” and a “liberation”, by students of political ideology who have broken through to the decison makers minds, be they politicians or the media. We are surely only in the early stages of many further diversions from traditional thought.
God alone can rescue us from this.
Could you please define what you mean by transgender ideology – do you mean the acceptance that trans people exist or something else?
Please try to keep your comments sensible. No one is denying trans people exist. If you want to know what Trans ideololgy is you could read the many posts I have done on the subject or Ryan Andersons wonderful book – When Harry Became Sally…
David, I don’t think that you can say accurately that “no one is denying trans people exist”. I think that there is a severe lack of clarity what anybody means, by saying that “trans people exist”. Occasionally, there are those who give explanations as to what it means to say that there exist “trans people”, such that you or I would want to deny immediately that such people existed.
I was hoping for a definition.
If you agree that trans people exist then I don’t really see what the point of this whole blog post is.
@ Peter Jermey: One “point” of David’s blog post (in my opinion, not necessarily in David’s opinion), is that the *interpretation* of the phrase “trans people” is ideological, as is the truth value of the assertion that “trans people” (thus or anyhow interpreted) “exist”. I have addressed you directly and at adequate length about that lack of clarity in your contributions that mention the “trans people exist” shibboleth. My impression is that you have ducked that issue, preferring to go off at a tangent, talking instead about “intersex people”.
What are “trans people”, in your opinion?
John
Scroll up to see my definition
You offered a purported explanation of what you meant by a “trans person”, to which I replied, “What does it *mean*, in your conception, to experience being of a gender at odds with one’s apparent birth sex? I don’t *understand* what these words *mean* together, in *practice*. … Are you saying that there are people who are exceptional in some respect? If so, it would help to pin down what is exceptional about these people, if you were to begin by explaining what you think the general rule is, to which these people are the exception.”
You haven’t replied to that.
Definition is pinning something down, not “defining” a short phrase nobody understands (though some think they do) with a longer phrase nobody much thinks he understands in the first place.
John
I’m really sorry, but I’m at a loss as to understand what you are asking. I think my definition is pretty clear and understandable. If you are asking what it feels like to be trans then I have no personal experience, but I can attempt to imagine, listen and try to understand.
Do you believe that “trans people exist”? If so, what do you mean by “trans people”?
Do you not realise that your decision as to what the phrase “trans people” means, when you use it, and whether “trans people” thus defined “exist”, expresses aspects of your personal trans ideology, which may well be different from mine, or David’s, or anybody else’s?
Within your own trans ideology, what are “trans people”?
Now do you understand what I am asking, at last?
Please just explain what you think the phrase means, to be a “trans person”. I ask that you deal thoroughly with that basic question, before charging ahead, volunteering your unwanted answers to more advanced questions (such as whether “trans people exist”, which advanced questions cannot even be interpreted until several stages *after* you have condescended to give us your explanation of what you mean by the phrase “trans person”.
You tried once to provide the definition of “trans person” I had asked for, and which I am now asking for again, but the practically meaningless string of words you composed raised more questions than it answered. Please try again.
“I’m really sorry, but I’m at a loss as to understand what you are asking. I think my definition is pretty clear and understandable. If you are asking what it feels like to be trans then I have no personal experience, but I can attempt to imagine, listen and try to understand.”
I am asking what the expression “trans people” means. Agreement on that is a pre-requisite to an agreement as to whether “trans people exist”, a proposition that you raised, in those words. Nobody can concede or deny that “trans people exist” without a definition of the phrase “trans people” in the first place. You have sought to skirt over this vital first step of any dialogue.
Speaking for myself, I can neither confirm nor deny (not “accept”) that “trans people exist”, because I do not know what that sentence *means*. Indeed, I do not think that it has one universally agreed meaning, so that those who disagree as to the truth or untruth of that sentence, can at least agree about what it is that they disagree about, or even be sure that they do disagree about anything real. Finally, I think the combination of an opinion as to what “trans people exist” ought to mean, if there was a universally agreed meaning, and an opinion as to whether trans people exist (the sentence thus interpreted) amounts to a transgender ideological position.
By trans people I mean people who experience being a gender at odds with their (apparent) birth sex.
What’s an apparent birth sex?!
What does it *mean*, in your conception, to experience being of a gender at odds with one’s apparent birth sex? I don’t *understand* what these words *mean* together, in *practice*.
Are you saying that there are people who are exceptional in some respect? If so, it would help to pin down what is exceptional about these people, if you were to begin by explaining what you think the general rule is, to which these people are the exception.
The sex written on your birth certificate.
I say “apparent” because it is not always correct. Most people who come under the intersex umbrella have an incorrect sex recorded at birth.
So you are allowing 0.001% of the population to determine your use of language?! “Yes mum, its a boy – apparently” said no one ever!
What has “the intersex umbrella” (as you call it), got to do with “trans people” (whatever you mean by *that* unclear term)?
Presumably “apparent birth sex” is the genital arrangements visible to those present at the birth – when the child itself is not able to have a view one way or the other.
Even before the modern “trans” era, doubtful cases and actual misidentifications were not unknown. I believe such things were usually resolved on a case-by-case basis, according to the severity of the error and how quickly it was picked up (i.e. the level of trauma likely to be inflicted by a late change).
My late wife taught a child in Africa who was what would nowadays be called “intersex”. She was of the opinion that “she” was wronged when she was subjected to genital mutilation surgery in infancy. The ethical objection to non-consensual genital mutilation of minors is consistent, top make them fit more easily into the God-made “binary”, is consistent with the Nashville Statement. I question whether this phenomenon has anything at all to do with what are nowadays called “trans people”.
John
Firstly, the difference between male and female is not just in the genitals and not just physical. Surgery on small children does not make them fit the stereotype and often this has led to lifelong trauma for individuals – especially if they were not informed of what had been done to them. I heard one lady’s story – she had only found out in her 50s after struggling with gender issues her whole life. She found out by asking for her medical records.
In my definition of trans, I said “apparent” birth sex because not all intersex conditions are noticed at birth (for example some are at the dna level). It’s certainly the case that at least some trans people are actually undiagnosed intersex without realising.
You are not the only person who mentions intersex people, whenever the topic of trans people is raised. This distraction tactic is, however, destructive of sensible discussion of the ethical problems posed by the claim that there “exist” so-called “trans people”.
I am still waiting for clarity from you as to what you mean by “trans people”.
“You are not the only person who mentions intersex people, whenever the topic of trans people is raised. This distraction tactic is, however, destructive of sensible discussion of the ethical problems posed by the claim that there “exist” so-called “trans people”.”
To be fair, John, I think I was the one who first mentioned intersex, in connection with historical practice and in direct response to David’s question as to what was meant by “apparent” birth sex. In the absence of more in-depth modern scientific knowledge and DNA tests, I would take it to be that sex “apparent” to the observer at the point of birth, where the child itself can have no awareness or choice one way or the other.
And intersex people, it seems, are “apparently” having their own special issues co-opted – in the word of this correspondent whose letter I’ve seen this week, “instrumentalised” – by the various interest groups and their opponents trying to claim them for one side or other of the various arguments.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/30-november/comment/letters-to-the-editor/letters-to-the-editor
I am not surprised that Sara Gillingham complained that intersex people were being “instrumentalised”. I have remarked in the past that if I were intersex, I’d probably be pretty fed up with being used to make an off-topic point in flawed-argument support of the LGBT lobby’s pleadings for special treatment of “trans” people, and in fact lumped in with “trans people”, as though having an intersex condition was simply a special case of “being trans”, part of the same spectrum, which it isn’t.
I would have been disappointed, if, on reading the relevant letter, I had discovered what you claimed was the case was true, namely that Sara had accused various interest groups and their opponents of trying to claim them for one side or other of the various culture wars that are raging. In my experience, it is always pro-trans protagonists that insist on trotting out intersex people, as though they were members of the trans community, no better than men like Bruce Jenner. It is never transphobic people who do this.
Intersex people are not mascots for pro-trans lobbyists or for transphobic people either. But it doesn’t follow that transphobic people are just as guilty as pro-trans people of trying to use intersex people as their mascots. Only one of the two sides does that.
I didn’t bring up intersex people particularly. I merely gave my definition of a trans person. My definition touched on intersex, but only to distinguish from intersex.
I think there needs to be more research done before anyone can confidently say exactly where the line between intersex and trans is. Our bodies and minds are not entirely separate things.
Thanks for that. However, you still haven’t dealt with my main point. ‘What is a “trans person”?
I have to say that after initial reservations I now find myself increasingly disturbed by the trans agenda, particularly after reading of a Brighton school apparently boasting about the number of transgender pupils it claims to have. Of course all things being equal, the maths is such that an average sized secondary school might have one or two. And particularly disturbing that many of the pupils involved are vulnerable for other reasons. One can’t help wondering whether numbers of trans pupils might not soon appear in school league tables as evidence of a schools progressive and inclusive pedigree. Not that one can joke about, at least not if one wants to avoid the full opprobrium of the liberal left.
What particulary interested me was the piece from the NYT. I found it fascinating, thought provoking and painfully honest. It speaks in as affecting way about the difficulty of gender dysphoria as anything I’ve read. One cannot but feel sympathy for Ms Chu. And I guess that’s where we can go wrong in that by challenging the ridiculous excesses of trans ideology we forget where it all started: with the real pain of individuals that feel trapped inside their own body. Im not saying of course that you’re guilty of that – I don’t think you are although I sometimes take issue with some of your language – but others do. Paradoxically the trans ideologues have lost sight of this too in that in their insistence that gender has no basis in biology they deny the experience of those trans individuals whose point is that gender is exactly about biology.
I think what impressed me most about the article is its recognition that happiness will not come as a simple consequence of an operation. And I appreciated its suggestion that the experience of pain might be as much a human right as ‘the pursuit of wealth, health and happiness’, if indeed we think about it in that way. If I may speak personally, digressing slightly, I have bipolar disorder for which the prescribed treatment is lithium and other mood stabilisers. Bipolar patients are frequently non-compliant with the treatment precisely because it evens everything out. Sometimes you feel nothing. You’re desparate to feel something, even to feel rotten. So I understand what Ms Chu is getting at when she says she wishes to go through the operation notwithstanding that by itself not only will not make her happy, it will bring with it all manner of other problems. I would find it difficult to argue against a person with so well a thought out position on the harsh realities of gender dysphoria. It’s all a long way off the often vicious insistence of ‘allies’ that gender in meaningless and can be decided on a whim.
It’s to be hoped that Andrea Long Chu finds whatever it is she hopes the operation will give her. One can only wish her well. Meanwhile perhaps the ideologues need to get back to basics and to the people with the very human stories of anguish as transgender individuals the whole transgender rights movement is intended to help. I fear that a great deal of the rhetoric may have rather trivialised a very serious issue.
Alex, I found your comment very interesting and thoughtful. I think gender dysphoria is something the church needs to be more aware of and as you say this issue should not be trivialised. It is anything but trivial to change your body to suit your mind – and evidence shows that it can result in suicidal tendencies. What seems to be taboo though – is working hard to change the mind to suit the body – banned even. Why? Why should that be considered cruel – yet gender reassignment seems so drastic and permanent? I don’t think I could ever encourage a person to undergo such treatment – I would have to see the answer as lying in coming to terms with your gender of birth. You didn’t say whether you were a Christian Alex – but some Christian approaches to bipolar disorder are effective. Is that going to be banned too? Just because some zealots take a simplistic approach to change – and think that people can be changed by a zap and a prayer – doesn’t mean that God doesn’t intervene in power, love and healing – sometimes! Anyhow, seeing as you shared something of your own struggles – I hope you do find God’s love and healing. You have shown yourself to be caring and thoughtful. The danger is in suggesting that there are easy answers to any of our problems. There are no easy answers.
I think it would be more accurate to suggest that trans therapy is controversial rather than taboo. There have been mainstream TV programmes promoting it so I don’t think that it is something that is too fearful to be discussed.
In CBT therapists try to remove anxiety about a particular issue by encouraging the brain to associate it with calm. I can see how this may work in removing anxieties about gender, but it will not change experience of gender.
I am not trans and cannot speak for them, but it seems to me that if this worked then most trans people would seek it out. Unfortunately, as with gay conversion therapy (which is actually the opposite of CBT) there are many charlatans out there and people uncomfortable with the whole notion of trans people are too quick to believe in easy fixes.
“Unfortunately, as with gay conversion therapy (which is actually the opposite of CBT) there are many charlatans out there and people uncomfortable with the whole notion of trans people are too quick to believe in easy fixes.”
Why is it “unfortunate” that there are many people who are uncomfortable with the whole notion of trans people and too quick to believe in (what you call) easy fixes? My value judgment is that *unfortunately* people are not *sufficiently* uncomfortable with the whole notion of trans people, and too slow to seek lasting fixes of the underlying problem, instead gravitating towards bogus quick fixes that involve sexual fraud and male and female genital mutilation. People need to be stimulated to think through the important issues a little more deeply, and galvanised into revulsion against so sinister a deception.
From the transphobic point of view (my own), transitioning gender is a bogus easy fix that trans people are too quick to believe in, distracting them from addressing the underlying problems of which gender dysphoria is a superficial symptom.
The threat that the trans movement poses to the well-being of those outside the movement – the real threat that makes transphobia a reasonable defence mechanism against a clear and present danger – is not that the new “trans” doctrine makes a novel linguistic distinction between sex (given, biological, innate and immutable) and gender (now considered for the first time in history to be a choosable social construct, albeit closely correlated with sex, so that most people are cis rather than trans in present social conditions). The threat comes from the privilege sought, and the absurd decision of the state to grant this privilege (and to punish those who expose the truth), for trans people to be allowed, encouraged and empowered to deceive the innocent victims as to their immutable sexes, when “acquiring” their acquiring genders .
If it were not for that threat, it was be far less unarguable that trans behaviour affects nobody except the trans people who choose it. Trans behaviour is evil, at least to the extent that those who transition their genders seek to deceive others as to their sexes. The state should protect society from such fraudsters, not empower them.
John
Sorry to not be clear.
I’m saying it is unfortunate that so many people uncritically accept the claims of fraudulent therapies.
Not all trans people have surgery to make their bodies conform more with their experience. I don’t think any trans person would describe their surgery as a quick fix as it is neither a quick process nor a fix!
I think that any moral response to surgery has to be considered alongside the fact that surgeons perform very similar surgery on small children who are intersex without their consent and alongside the fact that a great many non trans people also have appearance altering surgery to reduce discomfort or merely to enhance their image.
I know three trans people (that I know of) and none of them very well. Two are social acquaintances, one is a colleague. I’m sorry but I really struggle to see them as threats. I suspect also that you probably wouldn’t realise that they were trans unless you were told.
“I’m sorry but I really struggle to see them as threats. I suspect also that you probably wouldn’t realise that they were trans unless you were told.”
It is in my not realising that someone is trans that one very serious threat lies.
Hi Martha, thanks for your reply. I don’t want to make this about bipolar – or any other complaint – because I mentioned it only by way of analogy. What I’m more interested in is the suggestion that might be some form of specifically ‘Christian’ therapy as it ‘non-Christian’ therapy, whatever it is, must be avoided. Like most psychiatric illness, bipolar disorder is treated with a combination of medication, therapy (usually some form of CBT) and lifestyle changes. It’s incurable but can be managed to some extent. I have heard Christians say that bipolar disorder is merely lack of faith – the double-minded person James refers to – but such ridiculous views are easily set aside. So what’s my point?
Treatment for bipolar – and for GD – is about managing the condition in the best way for the individual concerned. Hopefully the overall approach will have been properly tested although the details will depend on the patient’s particular circumstances. For some gender dysphoric individuals, hormones and surgery may be a good choice while for others hormones without surgery may be preferred. And yet others might seek help to live with their condition without other intervention. The difficulty is that it can be difficult to know whether a more radical treatment could be effective until it has been tried. But that’s the risk with all medical intervention. I think Christians without any real knowledge of the thing can be far too dogmatic in their assertions on what does and does not constitute valid treatment. Certainly the statement God made us male and female and that’s an end of it is quite irrelevant in the context. That’s different from noting that >99.9% of people more or less easily fall into one or other category.
I am a Christian, sort of. But I run a mile when people start talking about ‘Christian’ treatments for this or that. We don’t expect our GP to provide Christian treatment of a rash so why should we expect medical practitioners in other fields to provide Christian treatment? We’re mainly interested in whether a medical intervention might be effective, although it might not be a simple matter to judge what effective actually looks like. That’s the point of the NYT article.
Prefix “trans” means, “on the other side of…” We are awash with abuse or misuse or mangle of language to advocate for a spread of position from a narrow position, to generalise from the particular.
Children are inherently, suggestible. What is termed “rapid onset gender disphoria” may have roots in peer pressure, or lop sided teaching or promotion. The results in Brighton may be evidence of this.
” We have heard from many parents describing that their child had a rapid onset of gender dysphoria in the context of increasing social media use and/or being part of a peer group in which one or multiple friends has developed gender dysphoria and come out as transgender during a similar time frame. Several parents have described situations where entire friend groups became gender dysphoric. This type of presentation is atypical and has not been studied to date. We feel that this phenomenon needs to be described and studied scientifically.
If your child has had sudden or rapid development of gender dysphoria beginning between the ages of 10 and 21, please consider completing the following online survey. If you have more than one child with gender dysphoria who fits the above description, please complete one survey per child.” http://www.transgendertrend.com/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-research-study/
I think part of the issue here is that there are several different phenomena that are being conflated as gender dysphoria when most of them are not.
When I was at school trans people were not talked about, but lots of the girls were “tom boys”. Children are developing and exploring and that’s completely normal. It’s not a sign that they are trans. Children also explore how to use words by using them which means they can often say things that they don’t really mean. My niece became obsessed with football, but she doesn’t experience being a boy. Today all these children might get suspected of being trans simply because it is suddenly a matter of public discourse.
If you listen to the parents of genuine trans children they say that their children have been consistent in talking about their gender from an early age and consistently distressed about it.
A boy who playing with barbies is not a sign of him being trans.
John, it’s peculiar in the least that anyone might rejoice in being ‘transphobic’. David is frequently called ‘homophobic’ because he objects to SSM. I disagree with David but I think neither that he hates gay people nor is afraid of them. Yet you gladly adopt the title ‘transphobic’ meaning presumably that you either hate or are afraid of transgender people. Most depressingly, you appear unwilling or unable to separate the very real human problem of gender dysphoria from a novel ideology that insists gender is essentially fluid (and woe betide those that disagree).
I’m unclear where ‘quick fixes’ for gender dysphoria can be found. That article in New York Times written by a person with GD makes that abundantly clear. I wonder if you have read it? People are not being pushed into surgery, which is a last resort, and it is not deceitful to transition and identify as one’s reasassigned gender. Frankly I cannot even begin to imagine the pain transgender individuals experience. Andrea Chu’s article gives some insight. Surgery helps some although not others and there are documented and published accounts from people on both sides. To my mind it’s inhuman still less Christian to withhold treatment that could help but which you happen to object to based merely on a dogmatic reading of a 2000 – 3000 year old document. Please don’t accuse me of denigrating scripture. I’m saying only that the Bible doesnt address the matter any more than it addresses bipolar disorder.
There is an enormous difference between GD, a rare but devastating condition, and queer theory. The former is subject to scientific and medical investigation; the latter emerges out of liberal arts and humanities faculties that often hold empirical investigation in contempt. It’s all to do with patriarchy apparently. Only privileged white men insist on empirically based research. Queer theory is taking us into some worrying territory. I hardly doubt that ‘rapid onset GD’ amongst teenagers is partly or even largely a product of indoctrination. As I said above, GD affects hardly 0.1%. In an average school of 1000 pupils, you might see one or two transgender individuals. Certainly not 14 or however many it was. And those that have written about being transgender frequently state they ‘just knew’ from an early age.
I hope you agree with me (and David incidentally) that we can and must separate the two aspects of this: the reality of gender dysphoria and an ideologically driven rejection of gender as a concept. We oppose the latter but offer support to the former.
As a whole, LGBT people avoid organised religion including the Christian church. Historically LGBT people have been treated very badly. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuality was illegal in Scotland and there are plenty of Christians that insist on calling all gay men sodomites and perverts. I’ve been told very directly (by a minister) that a gay man cannot be trusted around children. I cannot see that your language about transgender people is any more helpful.
St Peter tells us we must ‘give proper respect to all’. Perhaps it’s an imperative we need to keep before our minds with a little more commitment.
Alex
firstly, I agree with almost everything you have written.
I want to pick you up on the ideological rejection of gender. I’m not trans and cannot speak for them*, but it seems to me that trans people, of all people, would not reject the concept of gender, but be hyper-aware of it.
If this is what David means by transgender ideology then I wonder if there needs to be more dialogue between church leaders and real life trans people, because it seems to me that the moral outrage could be against an ideology that doesn’t really exist (or at least isn’t being backed by any trans people)
Pete
I didnt say that trans people reject gender; I said quite the opposite in an earlier post. But the reality of gender dysphoria is not the same as trans ideology which insists gender has no biological basis and that we’re born a blank slate. Alleged masculine and feminine gender stereotypes are then imposed through our upbringing. This has absolutely no empirical support whatsoever; quite the opposite in fact. There is good empirical support for the position that male and female are inherently different in a number of ways and that those differences are evident at birth. It is evident in behaviours that are not learned, in thinking and in brain activity. We see the same thing in other animals we know to have some level of ‘personality’. Sexual dimorphism is about more than physiology. To that extent gender is not a social construct and for the overwhelming majority of people gender is not ‘fluid’.
Scottish legislation referring to trans-identifying males as actually being female, allowing them to take places reserved for women on public boards, was passed and in force before the end of the Scottish sex self-id consultation. One of the committee handling the law is on record saying the change was made in anticipation of changes to the gender recognition legislation. Absolute farce.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/scottish_stole_woman/
There’s a petition to reform the prison rules in England and Wales re males in women’s prisons https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228767?fbclid=IwAR2bCZUS7Emf_3J3NpexVJ_MLkNsSVIqdeJpJZKtBC6QQUHTFIt9BuCcZo0
Certainly hearing a lot more about this issue, particularly re children, in daily conversation.
Pete
I didnt say that trans people reject gender; I said quite the opposite in an earlier post. But the reality of gender dysphoria is not the same as trans ideology which insists gender has no biological basis an7d that we’re born a blank slate. Alleged masculine and feminine gender stereotypes are then imposed through our upbringing. This has absolutely no empirical support whatsoever; quite the opposite in fact. There is good empirical support for the position that male and female are inherently different in a number of ways and that those differences are evident at birth. It is evident in behaviours that are not learned, in thinking and in brain activity. We see the same thing in other animals we know to have some level of ‘personality’. Sexual dimorphism is about more than physiology. To that extent gender is not a social construct and for the overwhelming majority of people gender is not ‘fluid’.
It’s not necessarily trans people that support the trans ideology I describe. It is likely many do npt. Nevertheless it is very real and is found in university humanities departments and among those that might loosely be described as millenials. It is finding its way into our schools as the Brighton incident suggests. It appears kids are being told they can be any gender they like. And how else fo you account for the more than 100 gender ‘identities’ on Facebook. ‘Trans ideology’ is also key in wider discussions of gender politics and such baseless ideas as ‘cis white male privilege’.