Tuesday, September 19, 2017

PCG Vilifying Transgender People Again

Some babies are born without an arm. Should we blame them for being born that way? Of course not. Some babies are born a leg. Should we blame them for being born that way? Of course not. But then why do some choose to blame people who happen to be born with gender dysphoria?

Every human embryo begins as a female but about half of the time it will undergo a process of hormonal transformation to make it male. But sometimes this transformation is not completed so the embryo is not quite entirely male or female. So it should be no surprise that some people do not quite fit either gender. This condition is known as gender dysphoria.

People with gender dysphoria deserve and need help and compassion. Unfortunately transgender individuals tend to be vulnerable to all kinds of social problems. Some transgender people are even murdered for who they are. Last year twenty-two transgender Americans were murdered. This year at least twenty transgender Americans have been murdered. Every November 20 the Transgender Day of Remembrance is held to commemorate transgender people who had been murdered each year.

The last thing this community of often desperate people need is to be vilified as some sort of threat to society but unfortunately that is how PCG's 1% talks about them. PCG continues scare mongering against the transgender community with a recent article by Christopher Eames. (Separate Clothing for Boys and Girls? Get It While You Can, September 18, 2017.)

The title,"Separate Clothing for Boys and Girls? Get It While You Can," implies that such clothing will soon disappear. How is that even possible? This is ridiculous hyperbole.

The author complains about John Lewis clothing stores.
If you are a Brit walking into your local John Lewis department store, you may notice that something has changed. You may have trouble navigating your way around the children’s clothing aisles: That would be because there are no longer sections for boys and girls. 
Not only are the separate sections done away with, but so are the individual labels on the clothing. The children’s clothing section is now a conglomeration of non-specific clothing, intended to encourage children to branch outside of gender “boxes” and try out clothing pertaining to that of what was once known as the opposite sex.
First of all most PCG members are in America, not Britain. Also if one does not like this he or she can move to another store or even if such a person shopped there he or she can control what children are going to wear. The parent is in charge.
John Lewis isn’t the only store going in this direction for children’s clothing. Target has just launched a new gender-neutral line, which will be featured in many stores between the girls’ and boys’ sections. The move comes in conjunction with Target’s decision to start installing gender-neutral bathrooms.
Does it never occur to the author that parents who may happen to choose not to know the gender of their child before birth would find gender neutral clothing to be useful? Also Target continues to have boys' and girls' clothing but somehow that is not enough for the author.

Note the highlighted phrase below. Is it true?
What was just yesterday a drive to make the minuscule segment of the population that is transgender feel accepted is quickly becoming a mainstream effort to teach our children that there are no differences between males and females. And that, should they so desire, they may change sex or identify as no sex. That by the age of 2 they can make a decision about being transgender.
Who says there are no differences between males and females? Not the majority of the transgender community. Generally they do not say there is no difference. Rather most transgender individuals say, "I am female but I am labelled as male." Or, "I am male but I am labelled as female."

Among the transgender community there are some who identify themselves as not belonging to either male or female and this is referred to as a non-binary identity but that only describes a portion of the transgender community. As far as I can tell most transgender people are not non-binary.
Children are deeply impressionable. Naturally, this kind of instruction has caused a massive uptick in children seeking medical advice for their gender. The UK’s Gender Identity Development Service (a clinic specifically for young people) has seen a 2,000 percent increase in referrals since 2009.
Being referred to a clinic does not reveal much.
This education has left several young people traumatized. Stories have been emerging over the last several months of American kindergarten students, who had transgender books read to them in class, coming home confused and in tears for fear of turning into a different gender. Those young kids who accidentally refer to their transitioning classmates by the “wrong pronoun” risk the trip of shame to the principal’s office.
This is anecdotal evidence and the problem with anecdotal evidence is that what is true in one instance may be unusual or the anecdote may misleading in most other contexts. It also sidesteps the issue of gender dysphoria.

Also it is impossible to turn into another gender after birth. This is a misconception. The hormonal change of an embryo from female to male occurs during an early stage of pregnancy.

Also if a transgender individual states which gender pronoun he or she wishes to be referred to it is good manners to address such a person in that way.
This all represents an extremely potent step in a lightning-fast, radical social transformation.
This is emotive language designed to make the readers panic. We should not panic but rather boldly learn about the issue. Sadly an organization with a history of denigrating and condemning science such as research into how gender forms in the human womb is ill equipped to teach people about how the world works or how to deal with transgender people.
The people behind these moves want us to raise up a new generation to believe they can be any sex they want, whenever they want. 
As mentioned about that is not true for most of the transgender community. They do not view their gender identity as a "choice" but simply who they are. This also ignores the issue of gender dysphoria.
They want parents to accept that if children decide (perhaps by the age of 2) that they are not the right gender, they can start wearing clothing of the opposite sex—which quickly begins to have far more radical ramifications: taking pre-puberty hormone blockers; later getting nipped, tucked and inserted with various plastic appendages. Many of these young people will surely decide to be no gender at all and may go down the track of removing nipples and genitals altogether to become purely “sexless.”
That’s not choice. That’s abuse.
Most transgender people identify as male or female. While some may happen to identify as not belonging to either gender that does not describe most transgender individuals. They all need to treated with respect and compassion not vilified in this manner or made to be ashamed of themselves. Denying gender dysphoria helps no one.
Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of the American College of Pediatricians, (bravely) pointed out in her article ... it is child abuse to be pumping our children with hormone adjusters and various other largely untested medical procedures. And it’s child abuse to be brainwashing our children from toddler age that their gender is simply fluid. Gender is developed and hardwired in the womb. To pretend otherwise, and teach otherwise, is a dangerous lie.
It is incorrect to say that the majority of transgender individuals view gender as fluid or that they have a non-binary identity. It is not true at all. As far as I can tell most transgender individuals identify as either male or female. Eames is dreadfully wrong to confuse non-binary identities with the transgender community as a whole. Those are different things.
A recent article on the UK Mirror lambasted those who take issue against “boys wearing dresses.” The author stated, criticizing the religious, “The Bible does not discuss … cross-dressing.” Actually, it does.
The author then cites some verses but, again, this sidesteps the issue of gender dysphoria.
But perhaps a more compelling argument is just to watch what is happening in Western society because we have cast this law aside. The dangers are quickly becoming clear. What started small just a short time ago has overnight become a movement threatening to utterly overhaul Western culture.
This is scare mongering. How can this numerically small and often persecuted minority be that much of a threat? They are not. This is a ludicrous accusation which partly stems from failing to understand the issue of gender dysphoria.
God created two genders for a supreme purpose. Attempts to blur and destroy this will always end badly.
Again the author seems to confuse non-binary identities with the transgender community as a whole. Most transgender people identify as male or female. Again saying "God created two genders" ignores the issue of gender dysphoria. Odds are he would say God created humans with two arms but that statement cannot help one who is born with one arm. In the same way those born with gender dysphoria are not helped with this attitude.
There are many other groups out there that see the danger behind this trend, though that number is shrinking. 
The author say he is so concerned about this issue but he does not mention who this other groups are. This is partly because the organization he works for, Gerald Flurry's "Philadelphia Church of God," claims to be the only "true church" in all the world consequently his writings are made partly to convince people to join the organization.
But how many know why God created two genders—what His purpose is for marriage and family? This subject has a built-in vision more wonderful than most understand—one absolutely central to God’s purpose for man. 
This is why John Lewis’s move is so dangerous. It is destroying the family, the foundation of society. It closes people’s eyes to their supreme reason for being.
What vile demonization of the transgender community this is. How does accusing people of "destroying the family" help anyone in the transgender community? It does not.

This screed against the transgender community is awful. The transgender community do not deserve to endure this sort of ignorant vilification. Gender dysphoria is real and no amount of denial is going to change that. Getting non-binary identities confused with the transgender community as a whole also reveals a poor understanding of the issue by the author. Shamefully the author refuses to even mention that transgender people have been murdered for being who they are. That is either dreadfully ignorant or simply dreadful. This article is useless for those wishing to learn about the transgender community. The transgender community need and deserve to be treated with respect, gentleness and humaneness instead of being vilified in this way.


  1. I am not an expert on transgenderism. I do know a bit about fashion. What would the author have me do. Wear a wig in order to express my authority on some issues? Wear 16th century tights like Henry VIII? Have myself a Roman frock? Scottish attire for men?

    To have these questions answered I should perhaps look at some of HWA's childhood photographs for the ultimate godly answer. It seems the fashion of the day was to dress boys like girls, including the curls and hairstyles.

    Perhaps Jetson 1950"s style?

    Another indicator might be futuristic Star Trek where I am only able to discern Lieutenant Deanne Troy from the boys from her bodily shapes, not her attire. (and of course her brain and feminine intiution and exemplary character)


  2. There has always been a move amongst some towards persecuting people who differ from the majority. These people see acknowledging and making allowance for such individuals as giving them special privileges that the majority does not have, rather than simply being humane treatment. And, they worry about the "condition" spreading, and others imitating. One would expect Christians to be compassionate, but some of the more conservative Christians seem to find justification to villify and persecute.

    I really don't know too much about the attire of people in Biblical times, but wasn't it kind of unisex? Didn't both sexes wear robes and sandals? Were textiles dyed back then? Were some colors reserved for men, and others for women? When did gender-specific fashion even come into play?

    I wonder how Islamic fundamentalists deal with transgender people.

    Just some random thoughts.


  3. BB

    Fundamentalists of any religion or philosophy deal with "the abberant" in the same manner.

    I do know that the Chinese produced a lot of Eunuchs to serve the emperor and his concubines.

    I regard any conspiracy against manhood and the repression of it starting at kindergarten today as a means to serve the current emperors enlaving us through encapsuling our own vices through algorythms.

    I demand the right to wear dirty socks, have them thrown in a corner after use and not shave my torso like the next millionaire.


    1. I hate socks. I only wear them when I have to go to work.


  4. Unlike the PCG piece, this article was informative and compassionate. Fear mongering and scapegoating are NEVER appropriate! A focus on gender seems to be a recurring theme with these folks. I recently did a post on one of their articles on my own blog. Anyone who is interested can view it here:

  5. The PCG just continues to be a bastion of empathy, doesn't it?