Promoting Transgenderization?

In the current issue of Time magazine, there is an article on the debate over hormone-blockage treatments that delay the onset of the physical signs of puberty.  The concern is that for children who demonstrate a lack of gender identification by the time of puberty, delaying the onset of the physical changes of puberty can give them longer to come to grips with the whole issue of what they want their sexuality to be.

The category for this kids is gender variant, and the issue is that some objective measure of their sexual identiy indicates that they aren’t girlish or boyish enough, assuming that their physical sexual identity is girl or boy, respectively.  Tests are conducted on their sexuality identity – “The clothing they wear, the way they style their hair and the type of toys they play with are assessed”. 

It’s funny to me.  For over 30 years, the feminist movement has lobbied vociferously for the separation of gender from physicality.  It has been argued – in other camps as well, not just the feminist camp – that the traditional role-playing of boys and girls needs to be equalized, if not outright reversed.  Girls should be playing army, boys should be playing house.  They should be able to swap this role-playing equally.  The argument has been made that gender identity  has been determined by men, and so it can be reversed, swapped around, and undone.  Everything is arbitrary.  Just because your genitalia indicate you’re male or female shouldn’t determine if you act male or female, because those are arbitrary role-playing functions (so the argument goes).  Whether your body is male or female shouldn’t determine whether you think you *are* male or female.  If you don’t think you match your body, change your body, the argument has evolved.

All of this is clearly not based in a Biblical understanding of gender and sexuality as God-gifted and God-determined.  It’s clearly based in the evolutionary assumptions that we aren’t really hard wired for much of anything – everything is arbitrary and can be modified by proper eduction.  It’s been an ongoing crusade for over 30 years to prove this and assert this.

Fortunately, there’s practically no scientific data to back it up.  In fact, much of the research that has been done (hard, empirical research that we’ve decided as a culture equals truth), proves just the opposite.  Give a boy a doll, and eventually he’ll probably start shooting with it.  Give a girl an army soldier, and she’s much more likely to relate to it and demonstrate mothering characteristics than she is to imagine a battle.  Not that kids don’t ocassionally switch up these tendencies on their own.  But the research seems to overwhelmingly support the idea that gender and sexuality *are* hard wired. 

So perhaps it’s just my morbid sense of humor that finds this article so ironic and funny.  Now, if you demonstrate opposite gender inclinations, it’s not proof of the success of degenderizing people, it’s evidence that you’re gender confused and might be transexual in the making. 

Funny, when I was young, girls that acted more like boys were called tomboys.  Boys that acted more like girls definitely had a harder time fitting in.  But nobody assumed that tomboys or apparently misfit boys were future transexuals.  They were late bloomers.  The assumption was that they’d grow up and out of it.  I have a sneaking suspicion most did. 

But now, instead of reinforcing the idea that gender and sexuality are tied together, we can delay puberty to give a 12 or 13 year old CHILD time to sort things out for THEMSELVES.  Ah.  I don’t know about you, but when I was 12 or 13, I could barely sort out matching socks.  How in the world do we expect children to arbitrarily choose their gender-identity?

Perhaps if we spent more time supporting and encouraging children in the proper ways, instead of assuming that everything is open to choice, and that THEY are the best qualified to make the choice, there would be far fewer instances where this sort of treatment could even remotely seem like a realistic option.  Perhaps the social pressures that science is attempting to bypass here are exactly the types of pressure (admittedly brutal at times) necessary to nudge people into their proper roles. 

Children need to be taught.  They need good role models.  They are not decision-makers in terms of issues that will affect the rest of their life.  The nonsensical idea that children should be free to explore and choose their spiritual beliefs, their sexual identities, even their genders, is self-destructive and a complete abdication of parental responsibility.  If the church wants to find a cause to champion, to triumph, and to stand on, family issues are perhaps the most compelling and useful arena to do so.  The heretical Latter Day Saint cult has done quite well for itself in terms of outreach by playing up their emphasis on family values. 

Somehow, when Isaiah prophesied that “a little child shall lead them”, (Isaiah 11:6) I don’t think this is what God meant.  I think the wisdom of Solomon is much more appropriate to keep in mind as parents, teachers, pastors, grandparents, baptismal sponsors, etc.  “I am only a little child, and do not know how to carry out my duties.” (1Kings 3:7)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s