Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Q & A on Massachusetts "Trans Rights" Bill

Recently, we were asked by a college journalism student to respond to these questions on the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill," H1722, filed this past January in the Massachusets legislature. Here are our answers. (The fact that anyone even discusses this topic seriously says a lot about where society has gone!)

Q: In January 2007, legislation to outlaw gender-based discrimination and hate crimes in the state of Massachusetts was introduced. Do you think this law WILL pass and do you think this law SHOULD pass, why or why not?

A: The Massachusetts Legislature can be outrageous at times. But we don't think this will pass. And it should not pass. It's complete lunacy. It's a bill that would institutionalize and codify depraved and destructive behavior.

Transgenderism and transsexuality are considered disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (which bowed to homosexual radical pressure in the 1970s and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders -- see their diagnostic manual, DSM-IV). That is one indication of how truly disordered so-called “transgender/transsexual” people are – that even the APA still considers their condition a disorder. It's really very sad: “Trans” people wish to deny their God-given, natural bodies and psyches, but through cross-dressing, hormonal manipulation, and genital mutilation pretend they are something or someone they are not. (They will always have the DNA of their natural sex.) This should not be encouraged by government in any way, which this bill would do by normalizing such disordered and inherently unhealthy behaviors. Transsexuals have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS measured in any vulnerable sub-group. (Just Google this.)

The larger population would be forced to approve of any imaginable manifestation of "gender identity and expression", since these terms are not clearly defined in the bill. (Nor has "sexual orientation" ever been defined in Mass. law.) For example, naked sex in public could be considered "gender expression", and so could prostitution, and even pederasty. Who knows? It's not defined. Wacky judges could let this go anywhere if it becomes law. (See Traditional Values Coalition paper on the many possible sexual behaviors this law could protect:

Also, freedom of speech will be curtailed by this law. Any speech or even facial expression that could be considered by the alleged victim as intimidating or discriminatory would be open to possible prosecution. If a "transman" (a woman pretending to be a man) is addressed as a female by a waiter in a restaurant, and is offended by such "discrimination", the restaurant or waiter could be sued. This is insanity, not reasonable law.

Q: Do you think sex-change surgery should be required for the law to recognize a person as transgender? Why or why not?

A: No one should be recognized by law as "transgender" as there is in reality no such thing. Every person is biologically the person he was born as, according to his DNA.

Q: Do you think that changing laws to make it easier for transgender people to be recognized under the law as the gender they feel they are - even if they have not had sex-change surgery - will open doors for criminals to commit identity fraud?

A: This is a red herring. This would be the least of society's problems if this becomes law.

Q: Do gender-neutral bathrooms compromise the safety of women?

Absolutely. And they also offend the normal person's sense of decency and sanity, as well as one's sense of order and common sense. Why is there no law proposed to protect the normal person's feelings of intimidation or threat? It's not just that a man is wearing a woman's clothes. It's the normal person's recognition that such behavior is so unbalanced that anything might be possible on the part of this person. Why is only the "trans" person's perception important here? Why is the normal woman's perception no longer important? This is a classic case of special rights -- for people who are not different because they were born that way, but are making a choice to be perverted and abnormal.

Q: Some states use dollars from taxpayers to fund sex-change surgeries for transgender people who cannot afford the surgery on their own. Do you think taxpayer money should be used for this, why or why not?

A: Absurd. Taxpayer money should not be used to undermine anyone's health, or the health of the larger society.