Ethics Politics Sex and sexuality

Woke Whitehall – Why words are so important when it comes to talking about gender – CT

This weeks column in Christian Today

Why words are so important when it comes to talking about gender

 

(Photo: Getty/iStock)

In the working-class housing estates of the UK, in the inner-city poor areas of the US, and in the Western suburbs of Sydney, there is little evidence of, or support for, the woke ideology which seems to have gripped much of the leadership of Western society in the 21st Century.

It was recently reported that 27% of Harvard students identified as LGBTQI+. And it was a private school in England where a baroness addressing the students resulted in the bullying and hounding out of a girl who dared to suggest that biological sex might matter!

One day someone will write a PhD on why it is that the elites have become so inebriated on this extremist ideology. When they do so, they should examine the historical documents surrounding the hysteria in Whitehall and the central echelons of the Civil Service in the UK. In an astonishing report in The Telegraph, whistleblowers have revealed just how ingrained this ideology has become. One can only imagine the fun that the writers of Yes Minister would have had with this – ‘Sir Humphrey and the 100- genders of Whitehall’ would make quite an episode.

The only problem is that this is reality, not satire. According to The Telegraph investigation, Civil Service bosses have told their staff that there are more than 100 recognised genders – including transgender, transsexual, non-binary, gender fluid, genderqueer, gender variant, cross-dresser, genderless, third gender or bigender, intersex, omnigender, pangender, two spirit, gender outlaw, demigender, gendervoid and graygender.

What does this matter? Is it not just words? Not according to one civil servant who said that he was only promoted after wearing a ‘non-binary’ lanyard. Another was told that they were expected to spend 20% of their ‘corporate objective’ time working within ‘corporate identity networks’ aimed at building an ‘inclusive’ civil service. The problem of course is that ‘inclusive’ does not include people who are Christian (or indeed other religions) or any who dare to disagree with progressive dogmas.

While civil servants tell of being ordered to celebrate the Transgender Day of Remembrance and Bisexuality Visibility Day, I am fairly certain that no such days of remembrance have been held for the tens of thousands of Christians martyred every year.

In September, Department of Health and Social Care employees were informed about an event celebrating ‘World Afro Day’ where the panel apparently “top officials from across the Government, including an individual from the security services and mandarins from Ofsted, BEIS, MoJ, DfE and others”. You would suspect that they might be able to make better use of their time and our money.

One Treasury official testified that at his appraisal he was asked what pronouns should be used for him. Civil Service HR guidelines even suggest that people can change their identity (and pronouns) any time they want.

It reminds me of the story I heard of a man who identified as a woman on Wednesdays so that he could become the Labour parties’ women’s representative – he did. Apparently, this is now the rule in Whitehall.

The Telegraph report further claims that in July 2020, officials were instructed not to use gendered language such as ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘his’ and ‘ladies and gentlemen’. I would say that all of this is crazy, but apparently that too is a word that the Whitehall mandarins want to ban.

The result of all this is that language is destroyed – and this from people whose work is all about language – and that an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is introduced into the workplace. You can be sure that this insanity will permeate to the corporations, universities, schools and other public bodies.

It is doubtful that the Church will escape this virus. The Church of Scotland, for example, is supporting the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Act. The PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) has announced a new project called ‘Queering the Bible’ which is a 16-part study (rewriting?) of the Gospel of Mark for Queer folk.

Why does it matter? Because we are beings made in the image of the God who communicates through words. How we use words, as those who follow the Word, is important. When language was confused at the tower of Babel, it led to destruction and scattering. Our world is becoming a deeply confused world, a dangerous world where words have no meaning and life becomes meaningless.

The book of Ecclesiastes is a great description of, and antidote for, today’s wokery. In chapter 12, Solomon tells us, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body. Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12: 12-14).

Instead of fearing using the wrong pronouns in front or our boss, might it not be better for us all to go back to fearing the Lord – which is the beginning of wisdom. Perhaps if our civil servants sought wisdom rather than wokery we might be governed better?

David Robertson runs The ASK Project in Sydney, Australia. He blogs at the Wee Flea.

Indoctrination, intimidation and the new ideological witch-hunts – CT

Transgender ideology and the rise of the thought police – CT

Quantum 195 – Transgender Special Part 2 – The Results of Trans Ideology

 

31 comments

  1. I dug this out of my archives from last year – humorous but sadly almost prophetic, as the insanity continues;

    “Welcome to the Methodist Church Marriage Bureau Hotline. All our ministers are busy solemnising marriages right now. Your call is very important to us. We have revised our definition of marriage to make marriage more inclusive. Please press 1 for Heterosexual Marriage or press 2 for Same-Sex Marriage.”

    By the time the Methodist Conference has finished re-visiting its definition of marriage, it will also have voted to upgrade its answering machine software to include the following options:

    “press 3 for Polygamous Heterosexual Marriage; press 4 for Polygamous Same-Sex Marriage; press 5 for Open Marriage; press 6 for Fixed-term Marriage; press 7 for Trans-Gender or Trans-Sexual Marriage; press 8 for more imaginative combinations; if you are a sexual minority that still feels excluded from our new revised definition of marriage or if your definition of marriage is not included in our database, press the # key.

    If you would like us to re-visit definitions of Christian doctrine like the Trinity or the Atonement, press the * key.”

  2. Words do indeed matter, hence why I remain surprised that you continue to use woke in the right-wing way that you do, lumping anyone who cares about racism and injustice together with the radicals so as to more easily insult the lot of them. We know politicians do it to stir up their voting base, but your readership deserve better.

    1. Words matter – so please don’t use the lazy trope of calling anyone who disagrees with you ‘right wing’. It’s a meaningless phrase. My readership are much more intelligent than you think. They know that ‘woke’ is shorthand for progressive ideology and has nothing to do with racism and injustice (except that the woke version actually promotes racism)….If you read the actual article you would see where this woke ideology (including the fear of being called ‘right wing’) is leading us …

  3. “The problem of course is that ‘inclusive’ does not include people who are Christian (or indeed other religions) or any who dare to disagree with progressive dogmas… an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is introduced into the workplace.”

    I would perhaps disagree with “other religions”, I suspect Islam might be treated as a “protected characteristic” and therefore “safe” and “inclusive”. Maybe / maybe not.

    Other than that, yes indeed it’s unlikely that people who are Christian who disagree with the zeitgeist will be without experience of fear and intimidation. But for Christians (and I use the term here to describe people “in Christ” rather than people who are not “born of the Spirit” but go to a building on a Sunday to sing and listen to someone talk to them) isn’t this part and parcel of the patient endurance of suffering that you have spoken of recently, including the speaking of truth to power?

    In other words, isn’t this normal and to be expected? Didn’t Jesus say to count the cost, that he came not to bring peace but a sword? There is a battle to engage with and it is against dark forces in the world and evil spirits in the heavenly realms. And God provides for the battle wiht his “armour” of righteousness, faith, salvation, truth, Spirit (which is the word of God), and the readiness to announce the good news Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, to fight the good fight.

    Destructive and pernicious ideologies have always existed. Comparatively in recent decades in the west I would say that that has been more religious liberty enjoyed in my estimation than in other parts of the world and throughout history. Though being “in Christ” always has persecution come along wiht it. In order to have a share in Christ’s glory, it’s necessary to share in his suffering.

    Have you considered David, that perhaps some of your frustration might come from things not being now as they have been in previous decades in the west and maybe what we are experiencing now with intimidation and fear from the so – called “woke” might be more in line with normal experience?

    How many times in scripture do the words “do not be afraid” appear? With perfect love casting out all fear what can surpass the love of God? What people need to realise is that destructive and pernicious ideologies are at core driven by power. And power without love is destructive and abusive. Conversely, love without power is sentimental and anaemic. The best form of power is love because love demands justice. And the best from of justice is love because love opposes anything that is not love.

    And the greatest source of power in the universe is the love of God – fundamental to Judeo-Christianity being loving God with all your heart, soul mind and strength, and loving your neighbour as yourself.

    So – with overwhelming earthly powers how to engage is as Jesus taught, if your enemy slaps you, turn the other cheek, if he make you carry something a mile, carry it two. If he hungers, give him something to eat, if he thirsts, something to drink and in so doing you will heap hot coals on him.

    Laws, rights and freedoms are about humanity and human rights. But with love, there is no law against it. Love is powerful.

  4. Labour’s Keiza Dugdale “married” the SNP’s Jenny Gilruth in the Fife village of Ceres.

    Surely Cellardyke would have been a more apt Fife venue.

    I wonder if either one will ever make the trip from the Isle of Lesbos to the Isle of Man.

  5. Every great civilisation eventually sees its elites descend into decadence and insanity. In the UK and the US there are too many rich and powerful individuals who don’t produce anything, don’t have any great insights or discoveries to share, can’t inspire other people to greatness, have no desire to share their wealth with the poor, and in an emergency would be useless leading an army or a relief effort.

    Even so, come Lord Jesus. We need you so desperately.

    1. Communism , an irreligious religion : Christianity sans the Supernatural by your enlightened lights , at any rate ?

  6. What a strange world! The instinctive need for privacy, as any child develops, is a very plain experience all of us can relate to. Protecting one’s genital area in a football wall as a teenager is a bit of a joke, but at the same time nobody wants a thumping free kick hitting their groin. The idea of many children seeking gonadal surgery, irreversible and disfiguring, puzzles and perplexes me. Do these decisions come before a formally constituted court panel or is it a matter of consent between the client and the treating team?

  7. Three African archbishops are refusing to attend the Lambeth Conference over the failure of the church to deal with issues pertaining to sexuality (and the fact that they believe the church is being side-tracked by environmental issues). The archbishop’s response (Welty) is that the African archbishops are failing to see the importance of looking after creation and the poverty that will ensue from climate change, The problem with the Archbishop’s response is that it feels like the church is getting its role so confused. We’re not scientists or politicians or environmentalists, we’re Christians. And as Christians we need to proclaim the gospel as the early Christians did and not get side-tracked. Otherwise, we end up confused and no different to a secular organisation. Would love to hear how you would have responded, David, if you had received the admonition for failing to attend the Lambeth Conference..

  8. Whist I do not agree with your stance, I can see why Christians take the position that they do on the trans issue.
    Do you understand why parts of the secular world have the strength of feeling that they do on this issue?

    I am also curious to know what you think is more important when it comes to your own sense of self, your genitals or your brain?

    1. You are assuming too much and generalising too much. This is not a division between secular and Christianity. There are many non Christian secularists (I would think most) who do not agree that biological sex has nothing to do with being a woman – or a man. And why should sense of self predominate over science. If I have a sense of self which says that I am Napoleon should the world just accept that? What about the thin girl whose sense of self tells her that she is too fat and she wants to starve herself – should we accept that? And why are you so obsessed with genitals?

  9. I did not generalise, I specified parts of the secular world.
    I did not suggest that sense of self predominates science, I asked where sense of self emanates from. To me that is a scientific question. I will also let the science guide me with regards to whether it is a psychological issue like anorexia or a distinct neurological difference in the genders. But that was not my question, I merely asked whether you understood the strength of feeling in some areas of the secular world.
    To say that I am obsessed with genitals is a very uncharitable interpretation of my position.

    1. Your question was loaded and really an accusation not a question. The sneering tone re genitals and brain (as though that was the choice) deserved the rebuke it got. As is the presumption that this has anything to do with secularism. When you speak of ‘the science’ you are being anti-science. This is a phrase that is used by people who don’t know what science is, to justify their own political ideologies. The ‘sense of self’ is irrelevant to this discussion. If my sense of self tells me I am a dog – should that be taken seriously? When a man says he is a woman he is either lying or has a mental condition that needs treating – not indulging.

  10. My understanding is that the neuroscience behind gender (not sex) is not as clear cut as your definitive statements on the matter suggest. I may be wrong on the subject as neuroscience is not my field of expertise but I think you are premature to say that I am anti-science.
    You assume too much about my ideology, tone and intention.
    But thank you for engaging regardless and taking the time to reply.

    1. What is the neuroscience behind gender? Are we back to the old sexist trope of different male and female brains? We are dealing with the question of whether gender has anything to do with biological sex (it does) – and whether a man can become a woman (he can’t) or vice versa. The fact that this is even considered worth debating is as ridiculous as debating whether the earth is flat!

      1. Are we back to the old sexist trope of different male and female brains

        It’s fairly well understood that the human brain is not sexually dimorphic. But it’s also understood that men and women generally behave differently, and have different interests, points of interest, personalities, predispositions, and so forth. We can talk about men with typically feminine personality traits, or women with typically male personality traits, for this very reason. There are brain differences typical of either sex, even if the brain itself is not dimorphic.

        If we refer back to studies on cadavers such as those performed by Zhou et al., then nothing conclusive was demonstrated. However, given our relative lack of understanding of the brain, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there might be a biological element to the experience of ‘gender dysphoria’, whether that be neurological, endocrinological, and so on. My endocrine system plays a part, that much I know for myself.

        To suggest that the respondent above is anti-science is poor form.

        The ‘sense of self’ is irrelevant to this discussion

        Metaphysically, one’s sense of self is incredibly relevant. How and when does a person’s sense of self form, and where is it located? We take it for granted that a person who doesn’t experience gender dysphoria is authoritative when speaking about their sense of self, but what about someone with ambiguous genitalia or some other DSD? This is not an appeal to intersex conditions in support of the claims of people who experience gender dysphoria, but it is an interesting question with epistemic implications. As Daryl asked, which takes priority? One’s sense of self, or one’s ambiguous genitalia that no one can figure out?

        Who do we trust, and when, and under what conditions? Are we sure enough of what we don’t know to state with certainty what we do know?

        If I have a sense of self which says that I am Napoleon should the world just accept that? What about the thin girl whose sense of self tells her that she is too fat and she wants to starve herself – should we accept that? … If my sense of self tells me I am a dog – should that be taken seriously?

        Does this betray your understanding of gender dysphoria? It is, in your understanding, on the level of grandiose delusions and eating disorders?

        Say we were to discover that gender dysphoria did arise from a development issue, or was epigenetic, or some such. Do we continue to make such bold statements as “When a man says he is a woman he is either lying or has a mental condition that needs treating – not indulging.”

        When we do begin to understand that what people like yourself consider “indulging”, other people consider “treating”? False equivocations abound but I wouldn’t be so sure.

        We are dealing with the question of whether gender has anything to do with biological sex

        Yes, it does, but that doesn’t mean the two are identical.

        whether a man can become a woman (he can’t) or vice versa

        Not ‘biologically’, but neither men nor women are reduced solely to their biological descriptions socially speaking. This is obvious enough: encounter a trans woman on the street who you confuse for a natal woman, and you’ll regard her as you would any other woman. This doesn’t mean that biology isn’t important, because it is; it means that biology isn’t the only consideration when you’re doing your shopping.

        The fact that this is even considered worth debating is as ridiculous as debating whether the earth is flat!

        Not everyone who experiences gender dysphoria is an emotionally fragile child who holds to irresponsible theological, philosophical, or metaphysical claims. For some of us, the questions raised above are deadly serious, and to see them brushed aside with mockery and snide examples betrays an attitude that doesn’t reflect well.

        I get that you’re neck-deep in the cultural war, anti-wokery, whatever you want to call it. But once the insanity is dispensed with what will be left? Will all the trans people be alienated from a Church that went overboard against Tumblr genders, and which liked to make inappropriate comparisons, and which generally missed the point? It’s worth considering what kind of environment the culture war fosters within the church towards people who need Jesus as much as anyone else and who find themselves faced with decisions that aren’t easy but are easily mocked.

        The people in the church listen to you, David. What example is being set behind the veneer of fearing the Lord?

      2. I’m glad that you agree that the current trans fad is insanity. But it really is a bit cheap of you to assume that holding on to the biblical view that God made us male and female is being ‘neck deep in the cultural war’ and then suggesting that I just make a pretence of fearing the Lord! Your comment on will all the trans people be alienated from the Church because we teach the Bible makes no more sense than complaining that all the adulterers or racists will be alientated from the Church because we teach what the bible says about marriage and equality of all races!

        Yes we have to consider the feelings and experiences of those who suffer from GID. I am not arguing against that. But we also have to speak up for those who are being abused by trans ideology – the women and children. It is no laughing matter.

        If you want to write against mockery and snide examples don’t use them. And when you wish to argue against someone don’t make up their arguments. No one is saying that biology is everything – but it is crucial and cannot be ignored. And yes when a man says he is a woman – he is either lying or deluded. He is not a woman. He may feel like a woman – but his feeling is wrong. Furthermore I do question everyone’s ‘sense of self’. It is actually very difficult to know one’s self and I certainly would not base anything upon a sense of self – which can so easily be wrong. We are too obsessed with self.

  11. I do not think it is completely fair to compare the differences in opinion in neuroscience involving arguably the most complex and mysterious biological system we know of to a argument that can be settled with a laser and a couple of pieces of wood with holes in it, or a day at the beach watching objects go over the horizon.
    I think the neuroscience is inconclusive and hindered by ideology/confirmation bias from multiple sides of the argument. It is an emotive subject and that effects the types of studies carried out, the conclusions drawn and the degree to which they are reported. For me the science is just not there yet so I am personally unsure how trans people’s gender ends up not aligning with their sex.
    So for now if someone wishes to be referred to by a different pronoun I do so, so they feel as accepted and welcome as anyone else in society. All the while hoping future research gives us all better answers.
    (Just to be clear, I am not saying or implying that are anything other than gracious to trans individuals that you meet, just giving you my stance)

    1. You have the wrong end of the stick. This is not a neurological problem – other than with those who suffer from GID. It really is very simple to observe human biology (as simple as a day at the beach watching objects go over the horizon). Babies are not ‘assigned’ sex at birth. Sex is observed. I won’t lie in order to affirm people in their delusions – nor will I mangle the English language. I wonder if you would affirm an anorexic who genuinely believed they were too fat? Why would you not want to make them feel accepted and welcome as anyone else in society?

  12. I would of course make someone with anorexia feel welcome and accepted, no I would not affirm that they are healthy or too fat. It is clear that anorexia directly puts peoples life in danger and I would turn to the experts for the correct course of action for treatment.

    What is the greatest risk for the trans community? From the statistics I suggest suicide and transphobic related attacks both verbal and physical. To me the best course of action therefore is to be accepting and welcoming. When there is a more clear cut course of action from experts then I will follow that advice. I hope my approach is at least consistent.

    As for the English language, as our language has always developed and evolved over time I suggest the only way to mangle it is to resist change.

    1. It is of course clear that trans is a great risk. Suicide, self harm, self mutilation are great dangers. You are presupposing that that suicide is because there is no affirmation. You have no evidence of that. On the one hand you refuse to be accepting and welcoming to those who have a mental illness re anorexia….but you want to accepting and affirming to those who have the mental illness of GID. Something which is just as harmful. Your approach is entirely inconsistent.

      ‘The only way to mangle the English language is to resist change’ ? Now you are mangaling logic as well as language. That is of course self -evidently false…

      1. On the one hand you refuse to be accepting and welcoming to those who have a mental illness re anorexia….but you want to accepting and affirming to those who have the mental illness of GID. Something which is just as harmful. Your approach is entirely inconsistent.

        You’ve either missed Daryl’s point or are being intellectually dishonest.

        Daryl is suggesting that the treatment for gender dysphoria is transition (to the best of his knowledge), and so, that’s what gender dysphoric people seek. This treatment doesn’t indulge dysphoria in the same way that a person with an eater disorder indulges their ED. If a dysphoric person goes on HRT their depression goes away. If a person with an ED refuses to eat they die. The standard of care is doing the thing that keeps the person alive and gives them the best possible quality of life. That’s what Daryl is offering.

        You might disagree and think that people “who have the mental illness of GID” should be treated and not indulged in their grandiose delusions, but that’s not an inconsistency on Daryl’s part. It also betrays a closed-minded attitude. Do you think that people with dysphoria don’t seek ‘treatment’? We go through years or decades of therapy, spend thousands of hours in prayer, and still find ourselves severely depressed and looking at transition as the only way out. What else do you think we’re supposed to do?

        Beyond the politics, what exactly are you suggesting for the person who experiences dysphoria? Are you totally against transition? Are you okay with it in a medical context, assuming celibacy, say, for the theological element? Do you think that dysphoria can be resolved without transition? Before I started HRT I began thinking that everyone else would be better off if I wasn’t around. If you’re totally against transition, what do you think I ought to have done instead?

      2. If by transition you mean bodily mutilation of chemical treatment – then yes I am against it. I don’t know what you should have done – I don’t know you or your personal circumstances – but the idea you seek physical treatment for a mental condition, does not make sense. Transition has done so much harm – as thousands of detransitioners will testify – ie. this I read today “I really wish transition was banned and unknown in my teen age. I would just be happy fem gay boy. I feel like transition destroyed my whole life.”

      3. If by transition you mean bodily mutilation of chemical treatment – then yes I am against it. I don’t know what you should have done – I don’t know you or your personal circumstances – but the idea you seek physical treatment for a mental condition, does not make sense.

        Life doesn’t always make sense. If we’re talking about a mental illness, one which you think is equivalent to people thinking they’re animals or dead leaders of the French republic. An illness that is on par with eating disorders, then on what basis do we import “makes sense”? On what grounds do we think that the treatment that “makes sense” is the one that will help the person who is dysphoric?

        Let’s say that I affirm all the tenets of historical biblical Christianity. Let’s further say that I affirm all the sensible science and biology. Let’s say I affirm all the right propositions and declare all the right beliefs and do so because I believe those things. I believe in things that would have had Maximus screaming for joy and writing to home about.

        But I’m still dysphoric. I’m otherwise “sensible”. I’ve been through years and years of therapy, and counselling. I have fancy degrees in theology from fancy universities known for their theology. I’ve cried myself to sleep more times than I can count — for years. I’m in the Word, I’m in constant prayer, and I’m in a state of cognitive dissonance because I’m still dysphoric.

        I know it “does not make sense”. But what else is there to do? The issue, for someone like myself, isn’t academic rigour, syllogisms, propositions, or proper belief. It’s how I feel about myself being in possession of some cursed knowledge that isn’t externally warranted. Well, it’s also about another actual medical condition, but well, we’re discussing dysphoria.

        I ran out of options, and that’s why I am where I am. It was my last resort, and the thing I became miserable to avoid. More miserable than the Scottish weather, even.

        Transition has done so much harm – as thousands of detransitioners will testify – ie. this I read today “I really wish transition was banned and unknown in my teen age. I would just be happy fem gay boy. I feel like transition destroyed my whole life.”

        And those people should not have transitioned. But I’m talking about me, and the people who ran out of options. What’s the reality for us? A church that says, “I don’t know what you should do, but don’t do that!” as we become more and more depressed? The culture war is one thing. The reality for people like myself is something else entirely.

      4. Thanks again for your contribution….and again I am not in a position to comment on what you should do – as I do not know you or your circumstances – although, if you will forgive the cliche – I feel your pain. The trouble is that you say these people should not have transitioned – but how should they have known that? They were told that transitioning was the thing to do – that it would help them – and stop them being miserable. Instead it made them worse. GID is a serious condition and needs help – but it still seems to me that mutilating the body in order to help an illness of the mind, is not the best way to go. Having said that I don’t think that it is necessarily wrong for someone to have medical treatment when they are in an extreme situation – but that is very much a minority….

      5. The trouble is that you say these people should not have transitioned – but how should they have known that? They were told that transitioning was the thing to do – that it would help them – and stop them being miserable. Instead it made them worse.

        That’s the difficult question. We need to distinguish between people who are in an ‘extreme’ situation from those who find themselves at the centre of an ideological push for X, Y and Z that is going to do great damage to a generation. I don’t know that I have any deeply insightful answers on how to do that.

        As Murray and I’m sure others have said, adults need to start acting like adults. Most kids are just trying to figure themselves out at a time when the social milieu is incredibly confusing, more so than the adults around them realise, I’d suspect. That a child can’t go through the equivalent of a punk rock phase, or the goth phase, or the scene kid phase, and so on, without being told that they are A, B and C label, is tragic. This speaks to a deeper presuppositional issue, and I don’t know that it can be fixed without a swing of a pendulum after the damage has been done. People like myself will pay the cost in the meantime, and after. Who won’t pay a cost? The morally self-gratulatory probably.

        it still seems to me that mutilating the body in order to help an illness of the mind, is not the best way to go.

        The thing that is best and the thing that works aren’t always the same, unfortunately. The best way to go is to resolve or mitigate the dysphoria, and that’s not always what happens.

        I’m ‘trapped’ either way. I have to be on HRT, and I tried testosterone replacement for a number of years. That made things (much) worse, and estrogen made (much) things better. I could stop, but then, my health will force the situation anyway. Between the two I’ll take better to worse. I have (primary) hypogonadism, and have tried to live like that (with – extremely – low testosterone), and it’s no way to live. I’m the caveat to the ‘never’.

      6. Again thank you for your interaction and comments – it is genuinely helpful. I can only try to empathise with what is clearly a deeply confusing and painful situation for you…and of course we pray….may the Lord bless, keep and heal you…

  13. Ambrosiaster, I have found your comments interesting and insightful.
    I engage with people online to understand viewpoints and experiences beyond my own, reading your posts has been enlightening.

    David, the same is true of our interaction. While it is unlikely we will agree on many topics, I appreciate the empathy conveyed in your last post.
    I certainly cannot add any more insight than Ambrosiaster on this matter so it seems like a good point for me to stop.
    Thank you for your time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: