Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
If the ideal state is one of homeostasis, in which gender and sex are the
same, then why would trans people dedicate their entire lives to forcing their
bodies to adapt to conditions they cannot maintain on their own? It seems
far more reasonable to recognize that the physical sex at birth is the
standard by which internal perception should be aligned.
An uncomfortable truth is that many surveys, including a 2011 Swedish study,
indicate that suicide rates remain high after sex-reassignment surgery (the
Swedish study reports that people who have had sex-reassignment surgery
are 19 times more likely to die by suicide than is the general population); and
the National Center for Transgender Equality reported in 2015 that 40 percent
of people who identify as transgender have attempted suicide.
The LGBT community actively fights such studies and suppresses the voices
of people who, like myself, have chosen natural alignment or who regret
transitioning. The medical community is currently uninterested in recognizing
the inherent dangers and long-term impact of transition therapy and is
equally unwilling to pursue study that may result in finding a cure or a
resolution to the underlying issue. To suggest this is a medical issue needing
to be cured is to be accused of proposing genocide.
Sex “reassignment” doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s
sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes
psychosocially.
McHugh points to the reality that because sex change is physically impossible, it
frequently does not provide the long-term wholeness and happiness that people seek.
Indeed, the best scientific research supports McHugh’s caution and concern.
Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100
follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s
Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility:
“[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts
reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service],
concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that
gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most
research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of
physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other
treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals,
or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.”
Joe Shute
1 OCTOBER 2017 • 6:00AM
“Reversal surgery and regret in transgender persons is one of
the very hot topics,” he said, adding that “we have to support all
research in this field” in order to understand the situation better.
Charles Kane, who identified as Sam Hashimi after male-to-female reassignment surgery, opted to become a
man again after experiencing “hormonal regret.” In the BBC documentary One Life: Make Me a Man Again,
Kane explained he originally wanted to become a woman after a nervous breakdown.
“When I was in the psychiatric hospital, there was a man on one side of me who thought he was King George
and another guy on the other side who thought he was Jesus Christ. I decided I was Sam,” Kane said.
Postsurgery, Kane believed his female identity would never be liked or accepted as a real woman. He also
blamed the influence of female hormones as responsible for making him seek the surgery. “I don’t think there’s
anyone born transsexual. Areas of their human brain get altered by female hormones,” Kane told Nightline.
Sex reassignment is as natural as being born, some in the media tell us. And
many Americans are buying it. But a growing chorus of dissenters made up of
physicians, researchers, and even transgender individuals is beginning to paint a
far different picture of the truth.
These dissenters are now coming forward to expose just how harmful gender
transition and reassignment are—both medically and sociologically speaking.
In a recent paper, “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender
Dysphoria,” endocrinologist Paul Hruz, biostatistician Lawrence Mayer, and psychiatrist Paul
McHugh challenge this practice.
They note that approximately 80 percent of gender dysphoric children grow comfortable in
their bodies and no longer experience dysphoria, and conclude that there is “little evidence
that puberty suppression is reversible, safe, or effective for treating gender dysphoria.”
Thus, scientific evidence suggests that hormone-induced puberty suppression is harmful and
even abusive. Finally, gender transitions are problematic for society at large, as revealed in
recent debates about restroom usage, military realities, housing policies, and sporting events.
What is often overlooked in these debates is the troublesome and even dangerous situation created
when transgendered “females” compete in female athletic competitions.
Consider the 2014 women’s mixed martial arts bout between Tamikka Brents and Fallon Fox. During
a two-minute beating, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and a head wound
requiring seven staples.“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a
fight as I did that night,” said Brents.
As it turns out, her opponent, Fox, wasn’t born female. She is a biological male who identifies as
transgender. Brents thought Fox had an unfair advantage. “I can’t answer whether it’s because she
was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor,” said Brents. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so
overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”
Brents was right to consider Fox’s advantage unfair: The physical differences between men and
women are significant enough that professional female fighters cannot compete effectively against
other professional male fighters.
Given all this, why do we not see a more constructive and sustained public debate among
surgeons, psychiatrists, and lawmakers about the ethics of sex reassignment? The most significant
reason is the power of the transgender lobby.
Consider psychotherapist James Caspian’s recent claim that Bath Spa University in the United
Kingdom refused his application to conduct research on sex reversal surgeries because the topic
was deemed “potentially politically incorrect.” According to Caspian, the university initially
approved his research proposal, but later rejected it because of the backlash it expected from
powerful transgender lobbies.
Regardless of how politically incorrect the evidence may be, and even while we accommodate the
privacy and safety concerns of those who identify as transgender, we must also draw a sober and
honest conclusion about the human costs of sex reassignment.
The best medical science, social science, philosophy, and theology coalesce. As Heritage
Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson puts it, they reveal that sex is a biological
reality, that gender is the social expression of that reality, and that sex reassignment surgeries and
treatments are therefore not good remedies for the distress felt by people with gender dysphoria.
The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria, therefore, will be ones that help people live in
conformity with the biological truth about their bodies.
puberty suppression encourages children who experience gender dysphoria to continue
persisting in a cross-sex identity, despite the statistical reality that feelings of gender
dysphoria reduce with age. Upwards of 80 percent of children grow comfortable in their
bodies and no longer experience dysphoria. But puberty suppression, the authors state,
“may drive some children to persist in identifying as transgender when they might
otherwise have, as they grow older, found their gender to be aligned with their sex.
Gender identity for children is elastic (that is, it can change over time) and plastic
(that is, it can be shaped by forces like parental approval and social conditions).
If the increasing use of gender-affirming care does cause children to persist with
their identification as the opposite sex, then many children who would otherwise
not need ongoing medical treatment would be exposed to hormonal and surgical
interventions.” According to the authors, puberty suppression makes it more likely
that children whose gender dysphoria may subside might continue to identify as a
member of the opposite sex. In short, puberty suppression discourages its users
from obtaining a healthy and normative gender identity.
The authors also find that puberty suppression does not resolve or address the causes of the underlying gender
dysphoria. They write, “[W]e simply do not know what causes a child to identify as the opposite sex, so
medical interventions, like puberty suppression, cannot directly address it.” At best, puberty suppression is a
response to deeper ailments whose origin and cure are not yet known.
There is also concern about how normal patterns of puberty are resumed for those who stop using suppressants.
Why? Because the research is “very weak” in such instances: “This is because there are virtually no published
reports, even case studies, of adolescents withdrawing from puberty-suppressing drugs and then resuming
the normal pubertal development typical for their sex. Rather than resuming biologically normal puberty,
these adolescents generally go from suppressed puberty to medically conditioned cross-sex puberty,
when they are administered cross-sex hormones at approximately age 16.”
The authors are concerned that the lack of research on the effects of puberty suppression on those who stop taking
suppressants is not robust, which could pose damaging consequences later on in their development.
There are also other harmful consequences of puberty suppression: stunting height development, reduced bone
density, and infertility by harming gonadal health.
The authors conclude on a sobering note, observing, “It remains unknown whether or not ordinary sex-typical
puberty will resume following the suppression of puberty in patients with gender dysphoria.” That last
sentence needs emphasized because its importance cannot be understated. In the eyes of the report’s authors, a
medical revolution is happening without solid evidence on the long-term effects. The authors summarize their
conclusion by stating that an immense medical revolution is happening under the guise of “consensus”
where no such consensus exists.
Whatever the research findings, Christians should be sensitive to the needs and realities of those who are afflicted with
gender dysphoria and have nothing less than compassion for those who experience emotional distress. Such
individuals experience disproportionate levels of anxiety, depression, thoughts of suicide, and suicide.
At the same time, Christians must be sober-minded about the type of medical revolution occurring under the guise of
transgenderism. Furthermore, Christians should not encourage the use of puberty suppression in young children nor the
use of hormonal therapies to nullify one’s biological sex. Such actions disrupt natural body rhythms and reject the
goodness of one’s embodiment as a creature made in God’s image.
We are living at a time where what it means to be made male or female is hotly contested. Are humans divine
image bearers, designed by God with an objective human nature? Or are men and women simply constructs
made up by society that can be toyed with and manipulated at will?
This is indeed one of the most startling repercussions that follow from actions like puberty suppression: The
transgender movement relies upon an unbiblical anthropology that sees natural bodily development as subservient to,
and conquerable by, the sheer act of human will.
The authors criticize a 2016 report issued by the Human Rights Campaign demonstrating how the transgender
movement treats healthy body development as a potentially “irreversible” obstacle to human fulfillment. “This turns
the normal language of reversibility on its head, speaking of the natural process of biological development
as an irreversible series of problems that medicine should seek to prevent,” the authors write, “while
presenting the intervention — puberty suppression — as benign and reversible.”
The transgender movement relies upon assumptions that the body is a roadblock to a person’s self-fulfillment, and
thus mature body development impedes personal happiness and health. Christians must reject this type of
thinking because it makes createdness and the design of the body a problem, rather than a blessing of God.
Puberty suppression is just one part of the much larger transgender revolution occurring in our midst. The act of
puberty suppression signals that the body’s design bears no intrinsic, physical goal. By acting to disrupt the body’s
natural design, the transgender movement signals that the goodness of God’s creation is something
subjectable to man’s control. Actions, philosophies, and movements that subvert human nature will
end up subverting human flourishing as well.
“I Am Not My Body”
Many people find it easier to recognize the denigration
of the body in arguments supporting transsexualism or
transgenderism. Transgender people often say they are
trapped in the “wrong body.” This sense of a mismatch
between physical sex and psychological gender is
called gender dysphoria.
“Most people assume that it must have some
biochemical basis, perhaps a hormonal cause. To date,
however, no clear scientific evidence has been
uncovered. More importantly, transgender advocates
themselves argue the opposite: They deny that gender
identity is rooted in biology. Their argument is that
gender is completely independent of the body.”
“In other words, the authentic self has no connection
to the body. The real person resides in the spirit,
mind, will, and feelings.The implication is that the
body does not matter. It is not the site of the authentic
self. Matter does not matter. All that matters is a
person’s inner feelings or sense of self. This radical
dualism accepts a modernist, materialist view of the
body in the lower story, and a postmodern view of the
self in the upper story.”
“The body is not seen as having any purpose or
telos(ultimate goal). It is merely a collection of physical
systems—muscles, bones, organs, and cells—providing
no clue to who we are or how we should live. Our
physical traits give no signposts for the right way to
deploy our sexuality.”
“ And if the meaning of our sexuality is not something
we derive from the body, then it becomes something we
impose on the body. It is a social construction. Sexual
identity is reduced to a postmodern concept completely
disconnected from the body.”
“ The question raised by the transgender movement is
much more fundamental: Do we accept or reject our
basic biological identity as male or female? In the
two-story worldview, the body is seen as irrelevant—or
even as a constraint to be overcome, a limitation to be
liberated from. By contrast, a biblical worldview
leads to a positive view of the body.”
“ It says that the biological correspondence between
male and female is part of the original creation. Sexual
differentiation is part of what God pronounced “very
good”—morally good—which means it provides a
reference point for morality. There is a purpose in the
physical structures of our bodies that we are called to
respect. A teleological morality creates harmony
between biological identity and gender identity. The
body/ person is an integrated psychosexual unity.
Matter does matter.”
"All heaven took a deep and joyful interest in the creation of the world and of
man. Human beings were a new and distinct order. They were made “in the
image of God,” and it was the Creator's design that they should populate the
earth. They were to live in close communion with heaven, receiving power from
the Source of all power. Upheld by God, they were to live sinless lives. "
“To each human being God has assigned an individuality and a distinct work.”
SpM 175.6
“Every man has his place in the eternal plan of heaven. Whether we fill that place
depends upon our own faithfulness in co-operating with God.” MH 476.1
"We were brought into existence because we were needed. How
sad the thought that if we stand on the wrong side, in the ranks of
the enemy, we are lost to the design of our creation. We are
disappointing our Redeemer; the powers He designed for His
service are used to oppose His grace and matchless love.”
ST April 22, 1903, par. 5
REFERENCES BELOW
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mc08vpdjz1gzke0/
AAAQ517HZnf5ntn9jVX4dxxua?dl=0
-Antonio Bernard , dindinbernard1@hotmail.com
Part 19