My pre-transition times in “women’s only” spaces

Tags

acceptance, answered prayer, basketball, Christ, Christian circles, Christian identity, Christian only spaces, Christian women's conference, church, college course auditing, coming out, conference speaker, conservative evangelical Christian, Cornell, epiphany, Esther Hughes, featured speaker, Feminist Gender & Sexuality, Girlfriends, grace, gym class, healing, inclusion, Ithaca, Jennifer Pritzker, John 9, legalism, Love, male mask, Mary Beth Norton, Nicole Johnson, Pharisee, rejection, Relationships, Salvation Army, Transgender, Transgender Studies Program, Transition, University of Victoria (Canada), unwelcome, welcome, Women in Sports, Women only space, Women's Study Programs

Jennifer Pritzker’s recent donation of $2 million to fund the chair of a new Transgender Studies Department at the University of Victoria in British Columbia reminded me of the first time I was in what was assumed to be a woman’s only space.  Later, a second time came to mind.  Both were before I transitioned to a female identity and presentation.  Both were positive experiences.

I cannot say how representative the Cornell Women’s Studies program was or is of such programs in colleges and universities of the United States and Canada.  It is the only one I have any familiarity with, and admittedly for a very small slice of its history.  What I know about it beyond my one experience is second-hand.  I know the program was renamed Feminist, Gender & Sexuality Studies (FGSS) in 2002.  I know that the program started in 1969 and was still struggling for academic credibility during the 1971-2 academic year.  I know that a new assistant professor that year, Mary Beth Norton, was part of a group of female faculty members meeting regularly to boost that credibility (unbeknownst to me when I took one of her courses in the history department the following year: I earned a B).  I know that the program’s struggle for credibility continued throughout the 1970’s.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2009/11/cornell-looks-back-40-years-womens-studies

McGraw Tower, Cornell University on East Hill above downtown Ithaca (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

None of this was known to me as I approached my final semester on campus in January 1974.  I don’t even remember how I found out about the course.  Regrettably, it doesn’t show up on my official transcript because I audited it.  But a couple of days after I registered for my classes that semester, I walked into a classroom to take a course called Women in Sports.

(Auditing was a foolish move on my part.  No doubt I would have passed the course.  But because I miscalculated my credit hours, some of which didn’t transfer from the College of Engineering to the College of Arts and Sciences within Cornell when I switched majors after sophomore year, I was two credits short in June 1974.  I ended up having to take a U.S. History course at the local community college, far below Cornell’s standards but probably accepted by Cornell as a fellow member of the NY State University system, to graduate.)

My hair was long and had natural reddish highlights (since lost to age) to enhance my light brown wavy locks.  People, including barbers and hair stylists, used to tell me that my hair was wasted on a boy.  Combined with my slight stature and the fact that many of the female students at that time eschewed feminine fashions (especially in the cold of the Ithaca winter), I might have initially been taken for another burgeoning feminist student.  But there was one giveaway: my mustache, my prominent badge of internal conflict and hiding.

So there I sat, having arrived early, waiting for class to begin.  There were only about half a dozen other students in the class, all listed as female in the Cornell registrar’s office.  Some were talking with each other.  Occasionally a furtive glance would be sent my way.

Then the professor came in.  Since I was auditing the class, I didn’t appear on the class roster that she had.  So perhaps that was the only reason why she questioned me, wanting to make sure I was in the right classroom.  On the other hand, I have to wonder if she assumed that no men would be caught dead taking such a class.

Having heard her give the name of the course, I assured her that I was in the right classroom and explained that I wanted to audit it.  I settled in for the first class, the usual talk about what the course would be about.

This wasn’t Hollywood.  There was no dramatic moment where the rest of the class went from resenting me to welcoming me.  Acceptance evolved over time as it became clear that I hadn’t attended the class as a joke, a lark or to pick up “chicks”.   I listened.  I contributed to the class discussions without acting superior to the other students (or to the professor, for that matter).

One day, we reported in suitable clothes to Helen Newman Gym, the women’s primary athletic facility on campus at the time.  It was the only sports activity we participated in during the semester.  It was basically a basketball drill of the fundamentals.  I am fairly certain that the professor had been an athlete at one time.  None of the students were, including me.  The easiest sport to demonstrate in a small space is basketball.  It happens to be my worst sport (a grammar school praise for being the only student in gym class who knew the right technique for a layup and an alleged miraculous shot at a pickup game at Cornell notwithstanding – see my blog post of 9/12/14 “My favorite sights”).  At the end of that class, the professor chuckled and announced that we were all terrible.

No, I didn’t eventually become one of the girls.  But I did become part of the class.  At the last class of the semester before the final, the professor thanked me for my participation and reminded me that I didn’t have to take the final.  There was no standing ovation or cheers.  But there were smiles from the other students, a nod or two and a friendly word or two of farewell.

I considered taking the final anyway.  But as usual, I had procrastinated on a couple of final papers and I decided I couldn’t afford to take the time.  I still regret not having taken the final and the course for credit.

At first, I thought that was my only such time as someone presumed male in a women’s only space.  But then a second time came to mind.

It happened a few years before I transitioned.  A very good friend was putting together a Christian woman’s conference, to be held at the local church where we had met about twelve years earlier.  It was another in a series of women’s conferences she had organized over a period of about five years.

As she was planning the conference, she would ask me to help her with technical matters, usually to download videos, music or graphics, or to help with creating the handouts for the attendees: in other words, pretty much anything computer-related.

One day, she surprised and intrigued me with a different kind of request.  She wanted me to be one of the featured speakers at her conference which was aimed specifically and exclusively for women.

And so a few weeks later, I am standing at the pulpit of a church where I had been a member for over six years, delivering a talk to a group of Christian women and some guests of these women who were unsaved.  The male pastor of the church was there, but only to greet the attendees and then run the sound board.  He was primarily the tech person that day.

The topic of my talk was “Our Identity in Christ”.  It was very well received.  An experienced speaker at Christian women’s conferences (Esther Hughes) said I did a good job.

One woman said she loved it but wanted to hear more, commenting that it seemed to end abruptly.  I had an eye on the clock and had run into my allotted time.  Lunch was being readied to be served as an intermission in the program.  I mingled easily with the women at lunch, some of whom I knew from church, many who I did not.  I stayed for the rest of the conference.  I wasn’t ready to admit it yet, but this was the milieu in which I felt more comfortable, where I belonged.

Less than thirty months later, my friend was organizing another Christian women’s conference.  She asked me to help.  I wasn’t doing well that summer.  I was unusually short-tempered with my friend once or twice.  I didn’t know it at the time, but I was subconsciously fighting a losing battle to hold onto my male mask.  But I got the work done for her.

One of my tasks was to download a You Tube video that was recorded at a major Christian women’s conference.  It was a skit by the very talented Nicole Johnson.  It is titled “Girlfriends”, touting how important it is for women to have female friends.  It was my epiphany.  It was God’s answer to desperate prayers to deliver me from a deepening crisis that was beginning to occupy more and more of my time and thoughts.  It was when I finally was willing to admit that this is the relationship that I truly want with women.  It was when I realized that to have this kind of relationship, I had to accept my true gender identity and live it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDhmKwN9DNw

I am also accustomed to being in Christian only spaces: ministry meetings and events.  Until I came out in November 2012, I never thought that there would be a time when I would be unwelcome in any Christian circles.  But now the woman who wanted my talk to be longer called my transition “evil” and “foolish”.  Another woman who had sang my praises and asked for my counsel (even once on something taught to her grandson in college about transgender) immediately dropped me as her tax preparer and began to slander me with hateful gossip and lies.  And a man who had been my closest friend in a worldwide Christian ministry (not Salvation Army) told me that if I contacted him again while identifying as female, he would consider it harassment.

Let the reader be aware that I am unwelcome in Christian circles that are dominated by those with a legalistic Pharisee mindset.  But I am most welcome in a Christian circle, even a conservative evangelical one, where the mindset is on grace and love.

After church today, a woman who travels extensively on behalf of the Salvation Army came up to me.  It was her first opportunity to tell me how much she liked my short bio and testimony that appeared in the New York Times last spring.  I thanked her and then mentioned how much today’s sermon and Scripture reading had touched my heart.  It was the story from John 9 on how Jesus healed a man who had been born blind.  Not only did Jesus have no problem changing the way God had made this man, but when the healed man refused to condemn Jesus for healing him on the Sabbath, the Pharisees threw him out of their midst.

But when Jesus heard that he had been thrown out, He actively sought the man that He had healed.  And he was welcomed into the body of Jesus’ disciples.

There’s no place like home.

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. – John 9:35-38

God bless,

Lois

My rebuttal to Dr. Paul McHugh’s Wall Street Journal Op Ed

Tags

bias, body dysmorphia, born again, Christian identity, control group, core identity, delusion, Dr. John Money, fallacy of the excluded middle, Gender Identity, Gender Identity Clinic, gender incongruence, Gender role, Gender variance, Johns Hopkins, Karolinska Institute, Lynn Conway, mental illness, nature vs nurture, Op Ed, patient satisfaction, Paul McHugh, peer review, Sex reassignment surgery, transsexual children, Wall Street Journal

On June 12, 2014, an Op Ed article by Dr. Paul McHugh was highly critical of the prevailing trends in the treatment protocols of transsexuals, in particular with regard to the use of surgery.  At the core of his argument is Dr. McHugh’s persistence in believing that transsexuals are mentally ill and suffering from some sort of delusion rather than there being authenticity to some people having gender incongruence between mind and body.  

For copyright reasons, I am posting a link the Dr. McHugh’s Op Ed rather than reprinting it here.  My rebuttal follows the link.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

Dr. McHugh wonders why 25% of those tracked in the Vanderbilt and Portman studies would persist in having transgender “feelings”. Could it be that the subjects know who they are? Just because the majority of children who display gender non-conformity eventually abandon their experimentation and settle into a gender role that matches their body parts does not invalidate the experience of those of us whose incongruent gender identity persists.

The doctor’s bias is revealed when he calls them “feelings”. To borrow a phrase from Tom Scholz of the music group, Boston, what transsexuals experience is “more than a feeling”. It is common for us to describe our life in our target gender as authentic. We know who and what we are.

When I was seven years old, I wanted to be at various times a scientist, a policeman or centerfielder for the Dodgers. At the same age, I knew I was female. There was no “wannabe” aspect to it all. It was knowledge. Any conflict came from external forces. Now that I have been living full-time, I have a peace hitherto unknown to me.

Dr. McHugh is proud of the fact that he shut down the Gender Identity Clinic at Johns Hopkins. Then again, he admitted in an article in American Scholar (“Psychiatric Misadventures”, Autumn 1992, as reprinted on the website of Lock Haven University) that he came to that institution with the intention of ending sex-change surgeries. When one has an agenda, studies can be designed with bias and the results interpreted with bias. So even when Dr. John Money, certainly no supporter of nature over nurture, argued that another colleague had grossly distorted results to reach the conclusion that the GIC should be terminated (and many outside peer reviews agreed with Money), Money was overruled.

Dr. McHugh touts the 2011 Karolinska Institute study as affirmation of his early position. Upon review of this study, significant problems with it are obvious to someone who understands the transsexual population. The sex-reassigned persons are compared to a control group of individuals who had no history of gender variation. Historically, the study group faces far greater discrimination, experiences far more violence against them, tend to be underemployed and underinsured, are far more likely to encounter negative prejudice when attempting to establish a meaningful and lasting personal relationship, and are often ostracized by their own families and support structures like the church. Therefore, it is no surprise that their outcomes will not compare favorably with a control group that generally does not face that same onslaught of obstacles.

I suggest that if the study group was compared to a control group from another, non-gender related, marginalized group, the comparison would be far more equal. For example, what if a random sample of American blacks was chosen as the control population? Yet even then, blacks do not face above average rejection in personal relationships, and are not rejected by their families or their local place of worship.

Furthermore, Dr. McHugh offers no proof of any other psychiatric intervention that yields better results. Nor does he offer proof of psychiatric treatments that can “cure” transsexuality. If a cancer treatment had only a 20% success rate, would he propose that it be dropped even if there are no better alternatives? Or would he be grateful that 20% were healed?

Moving on to the doctor’s description of three so-called “subgroups” of transsexuals, he crafts descriptions that subtly attempt to exclude everyone from being a legitimate candidate for SRS. The transsexuals in the first two subgroups come out of the closet too old for it to be trusted. Those in the last subgroup are too young to be considered trustworthy.

But a careful read of Dr. McHugh’s last subgroup shows that he is guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle. The doctor’s point of view appears to be that nearly 80% of gender questioning children will eventually lead their lives in gender roles consistent with their anatomy. Even so, is he proposing that the other 20% be kicked to the curb? The persistence of the feelings that he found so puzzling earlier in his Op Ed is not puzzling to me and many of his colleagues. The simple reason is that the identity is true. Genuine gender identity is at the core of who we are as individuals. In any other circumstance, attempts to tinker with core identity would immediately be seen for what it is: brainwashing.

Despite the doctor’s overt protests and denials, his own statistics point to the fact that some people are truly transsexual. And for those of us who make an informed choice for SRS (and there are many transsexuals who choose to be non-op), it is an important and viable part of our treatment.

Yes, screening procedures should continue to be refined and improved. Any person misdiagnosed and altered creates the very situation that authentic transsexuals need to escape. And yes, since the treatment of minors with strong and persistent transsexual symptoms is in its incipient stages, at least fifty years behind the treatment of adults, we need to continue to work on proper ethical protocols that make sure that the child is helped and guided to the best possible result rather than being pushed toward a result that reflects the practitioner’s bias in either direction.

I also agree somewhat with the doctor on what surgery does not accomplish. But in part that is because the medical profession has misnamed the surgery. This is why many of us are now using the term “confirming” as in “Gender Confirming Surgery”.  At this time, surgery can only make changes that help the body conform more closely to your gender identity. But with all the advances in stem cell research with the ability to grow organs, who knows what will be possible in the future, perhaps the near future. Even so, surgery cannot change your gender. If you were female before, you will be female after. But we are still left with Dr. McHugh’s unsupported assumption that a person’s gender identity must have a 1:1 correlation with a single body part. Where’s the scientific proof? Taken to absurdity to prove the absurd, it validates those women who accuse men of thinking with that same body part.

There are still more problems with Dr. McHugh’s Op Ed article:

– It ignores brain studies which indicate a correlation between transsexual brains and the normative brain of their target gender. The growing evidence of physical causes of incongruent gender identity is an inconvenient truth to those who label transsexuals as delusional, or suffering from mental disorders such as body dysmorphia.

– It arrogantly and cavalierly dismisses the importance of patient satisfaction. All else being equal, shouldn’t that be primary? The quoted studies do not claim that the circumstances get worse, but rather that they tend to show little change. I contend that if patients are more satisfied with their lot in life, even when it has changed little, is evidence that SRS is beneficial.

– It insults devoted parents, many of whom were not part of the “diversity” crowd when they faced a gender non-conforming child, who have seen that child transformed from an intransigent, tantrum-throwing monster into a happy, calm, obedient and well-adjusted child upon being allowed to live life in his or her target gender.

– It discounts the success stories of people like Lynn Conway and the many other success stories that she features on her website. Does Dr. McHugh believe that these examples of transsexuals who have gone on to live successful, productive lives would have been better off untreated, marginalized, miserable and broken?

Finally, a little bit about my own personal experience for what it is worth. I became aware of my female identity at age seven, which I have since learned is the average age for transsexuals. I have never considered myself ugly or hated my genitals. They merely seem as out of place as a soda can would be in the hand of Venus in Botticelli’s painting.

I qualify for Mensa. I am a college graduate and have been gainfully employed or self-employed for most of my adult life. I have no psychiatric or mental health therapy history prior to my gender counselling that began in May 2012. During the intake by my gender counselor, she questioned me as to whether I experienced a whole laundry list of mental health issues such as sleep problems, eating disorders, anger, depression, a desire to hurt myself, and so on. To every one of those questions, my truthful answer was “no”.

Like most transsexuals my age, I tried to cure myself. But I reached a point when I could no longer deny that this had to be dealt with head on. Many of the people in my life closest to me affirm that it has been positive for me. Many of my personal relationships have improved. I am pleased with the results and expect that life will also improve if bottom surgery is performed after a thoughtful review of all relevant factors.

I am intelligent and aware enough to know the difference between how it feels to want to be something and how it feels to know what I am. One other thing: I also know how it feels to undergo a major identity change in a totally separate area of life. Twenty-five years ago this month, I received Jesus Christ into my life as my personal Lord and Savior. As a new creature in Christ, I have a new spiritual identity. My female identity persisted after this experience, even in the face of opposition from many in evangelical circles. Comparing and contrasting the two, I understand that my Christian identity is the result of a profound life change while my female gender identity is innate and permanent.

People close to me note that since I transitioned, I am happier and no longer in conflict. As a Christian, I know that happiness can be ephemeral and pleasure deceitful. But you cannot counterfeit peace and joy. Since living full-time as a female, my peace and joy has increased abundantly.

But wait!  I forgot that there are those in the mental health profession with the view that people who believe they have a personal relationship with God are also delusional. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned that I am born again. Oh well.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. – Galatians 5:22-23

God bless,

Lois

Comparing Christianity and Transsexuality

Tags

born again, born transsexual, Christ, Christian, Christian identity, Christian salvation, Christianity, deathbed conversion, gender discrimination, God, Jesus, John, John 3, Kingdom of God, Martin Niemöller, martyr, new creature in Christ, Nicodemus, persecution, Pharisee, religious discrimination, risk, salvation testimony, TDOR, Transgender, Transition, Transsexual, transsexual identity, Voice of the Martyrs

I apologize for the long delay before this post.  I was partially done with it weeks ago.  Then we started to get snow, and my tax clients started to make appointments and send me their information (they seem to be contacting me sooner this year than last, which is good in the long run), then there was more snow to shovel and then a touch of the flu and then, for good measure, more snow. I am told that my area has had about 3½ times its normal average snowfall for the year, and we still have nearly two months when we could get significant snow.  And now, the long awaited post:

In my previous post (Importance of Christian Unity on 2/3/14), I discussed Christ’s prayer and desire for unity in the church.  I made the claim that unity springs forth from loving one another.  And I quoted two of many Bible verses that command brothers and sisters in the church to love one another.  Human nature being what it is, love is most likely to develop when we first see what we have in common with someone else.

There are some Christians and transsexuals who would be aghast at the idea that they have anything in common other than being part of humanity.  That very division, that so many of them would see each other as being on opposite sides, is a major reason why I started this blog.  Therefore this post will focus on what the two groups have in common.  Having found a way that both are able to co-exist in me without conflict, I am in an advantageous position to see and discuss the commonalities.

Perhaps the single largest area of agreement within the transsexual community is that we are real, our condition is not a figment of our imagination or a delusion. However, in terms of interests, beliefs, talents, occupations, ethnic background and so on, we mirror the spectrum of these things in the cisgender world.  And just as in the cisgender world, there are wonderful transsexuals, there are some who at the lower end of the moral spectrum and many in between.  What we have in common is that we believe that it is possible for people to be born with body of one gender and the mind of the other gender, because we have experienced it first-hand.  It cannot be changed and persisting in the attempt to do so is dangerous to the mental health and wellbeing of a transsexual.  This is what gives us our identity.

Identity is the first significant connection between Christians and transsexuals.  It is the fact that both are identities, not that there is much in common about those identities.  Just as there is a wide range of personalities, lifestyles, quality and beliefs among transsexuals, Christians are also associated with a very big tent.  Christians can be found among every defined race, almost every if not all ethnic groups, from the very poor to the very wealthy, throughout the functional IQ range, from conservative to liberal (whether related to theology, politics in general or any particular issue).  I have met or know the testimony of Christians who were born into families that were Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, new age and so on.

In fact, one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that you cannot be born a Christian from your mother’s womb.  In contrast, the only way a person is truly transsexual is to be that way from your physical birth.  You cannot become a transsexual.  And despite those who think we choose this path, that is impossible.  Unfortunately, because I and so many transsexuals of my generation felt the need to repress and deny our true identity, it can appear that we are making a mid-life change that came out of nowhere.  But if we are truly transsexual, that change came from deep within us, from a knowledge that we became aware of in childhood.

And yet, both identities come from birth.  In the case of Christians, however, that birth is spiritual, not physical.

There once was a man named Nicodemus.  He was a Pharisee, one of the Jewish religious rulers, and he was an adult contemporary of Jesus.  Unlike most of the Pharisees, he acknowledged that the miracles that Jesus performed were evidence that He came from God.  Nicodemus wanted to know more about Jesus, but for fear of the other Pharisees’ censure, he visited Jesus at night.  When Nicodemus greeted Jesus, here is part of the dialogue that ensued:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. – John 3:3-7

Unless one is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God; he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  One must be born again to become a child of God, adopted into sonship as a joint heir with Christ.  This is what makes someone a Christian.  There is absolutely no wiggle room on this point.

The sad irony is that some of the same Christians who whole-heartedly embrace the fact that a person can make such a drastic mid-life spiritual change from fairly early in childhood to an elderly person’s last few breaths, refuse to understand and accept all the growing evidence that transsexuals are born this way, cannot change it, and have every right to make a mid-life transition to their true gender identity.

You will not find anyone who loves to hear a Christian salvation testimony more than I do.  For over twenty years, I was a member of a ministry whose sole purpose was to bring the Gospel to the nations so that the power of the Holy Spirit combined with God’s Word could save men, women, boys and girls.  We delighted to hear testimonies of how God used our ministry as part of His salvation process in a person’s life.  It was a great encouragement to us to continue in the work.

Far be it from me that I should question any person’s salvation testimony.  God knows their heart and it is not my place to judge.  And especially in the case of a deathbed conversion, I would always side on the side of hope, for the sake of that person’s loved ones if nothing else.  And yet from a dispassionate point of view, which is more questionable, a deathbed conversion where the dying person has nothing to lose and no chance to demonstrate the authenticity of their conversion (and no chance to fall away), or a mid-life transition in which a person may risk some or all of the following: the love of family members, the loyalty of friends, career, status, finances, position in their community, and health?

I am not saying that I doubt the deathbed conversions, but that there is even stronger evidence to believe those people who have risked so much to transition.  When you add in the fact that most transsexuals have been vetted by a gatekeeper and the vast majority have demonstrated a successful, satisfying life in their “target” (i.e., authentic) gender, there had to be something very powerful and real to bring a person to the point where they risk all to take the path of transition.  Indeed, it is very similar to how James and John and Simon Peter and Andrew walked away from successful fishing enterprises (James and John, the sons of Zebedee, are recorded as having servants or employees), and Matthew and Zacchaeus walked away from lucrative (albeit despised) positions as tax collectors.

Why am I so quick to accept any salvation testimony?  Because I have experienced it myself.  I know first-hand what an amazing, life-changing, spiritual event it is.  And rightly so should it be called “born again”, because it is a spiritual rebirth: one who was spiritually dead is now alive.  “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2^nd Corinthians 5:17)

Having been born transsexual and born again a Christian, I can testify to two things: the first survived the second and neither one can be changed.  And if either of them could be successfully changed, then that identity wasn’t true about me at all.  Whether it was wishful thinking or a delusion or whatever it might have been, it wouldn’t be real.

At this point it must be noted that many of those who are born again do risk a great deal to make it known publically that they are now Christian.  And this leads us to the second major connection shared by Christians and transsexuals: our experience in living out our new public identity.  Here, the commonality runs deeper.  There are many places in the world where it can be dangerous to be known as a transsexual.  And there are many places in the world where it can be dangerous to be known as a Christian.  There are some countries where Christians are a small minority that if a member of the majority religion converts to Christianity, both the person converting and the person accused as the instrument of that conversion are guilty of a crime punishable by death.

If we visit websites such as persecution.org (Voice of the Martyrs) and transgenderdor.org (Transgender Day of Remembrance), the stories are similar.  People are murdered for being Christian.  People are murdered for being transgender.  Sometimes it is official policy, sometimes death sentences are handed down by a court, sometimes it is mob action and sometimes it is the result of hatred by an individual or a few.  In every case, it is reprehensible.  To take our understanding of the common experience a step further, there are some countries where it would be a tossup as to who is more undesirable, Christians or transgenders.

In addition to murder, members of each group also face official and unofficial discrimination in many places.  At any time, both Christians and transgenders around the world face the real possibility of long term imprisonment, torture, beatings, loss of job, loss of one’s business, loss of property, even loss of their own home.  Christian churches and meetings are attacked; so are LGBT rights’ offices and demonstrations.

German pastor, Martin Niemöller, spoke or put into print a number of variations of his oft-quoted poem.  According to a 1971 interview, this was his favorite version of his self-indictment for his failure to speak out against the Nazis:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

I pray that someday, more Christians and transgenders will speak up for each other.

God bless,

Lois

Related articles

• The Transsexual Character
• John 02:23-03:15 You Must Be Born Again

Questions for those who denigrate transsexuals

Tags

Bible, Christian identity, critics of transsexuals, Gender Identity, God, Intersex, proof, questions, Scripture verses, Transsexual

Before answering these questions, you may want to read or review these previous posts from my blog (dates given in standard U.S. format rather than European or military format):

I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – part 1 [published 11/18/13]

I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – part 2 [published 11/19/13]

I am Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – part 3 [published 11/20/13]

Links page added – Intersex and Transsexual related [published 11/21/13]

Do you need a vagina to be a woman? [published 11/24/13]

God doesn’t make mistakes [published 12/3/13]

Playing God and the tale of two magicians [published 12/15/13]

How does God see people? (2 Scripture passages especially for the Christian who denigrates transsexuals) (published 12/28/13]

A further look at how God sees us (2 of 3 additional passages for Christians to consider) [published 12/29/13]

The Apostle Paul looks at identity – his own [published 12/30/13]

No joking or cute opening to this post.  The serious mood of this topic and these questions needs to be maintained for any who read and answer them.

Some of these questions are for any people negative toward transsexuals.  Some are especially for Christians and any other people who find the Bible to be at least somewhat authoritative.

: The Bible records a number of people through whom the Lord carried out His plans and purposes.  Many of them were extoled for their character, and their character became a memorial to their identity.  Examples include faithful Abraham, Moses’ meekness, David with a heart for God, Solomon’s wisdom and Abel’s righteousness.  When did God ever extol one of his principal agents for their physical abilities?  (Note: Samson is not an acceptable answer.  His strength was more of a curse than a blessing.  He should have been relying primarily on his Nazarite vow instead of his strength.  His strength enabled him to get away with compromising his obedience, but only for so long.  When his strength was restored, he did bring death and destruction on the Philistines, but also on himself.)

: Where is the Bible verse that says that God sees us and evaluates us based on our physical appearance and attributes?

: Where is the Bible verse in which God ascribes sin to someone based on their identity instead of their actions?

: Keeping in mind all the Bible verses where God puts a priority on spiritual things that are unseen and eternal over physical things that are seen and will pass away; in addition, remembering the number of people who are born with intersex conditions (thereby negating an absolute physical male-female binary), where is the Bible verse that says that our gender identity is based on our genitals, not on our mind?

: If you consider yourself to be male, when did you decide to be male?  If you consider yourself to be female, when did you decide to be female?

: Whatever gender you consider yourself, can you prove it (not merely show evidence of it)?

: If you are a Christian, can you prove it (not merely show evidence of it)?

: Where is the Bible verse that says that a mismatch between our gender identity and our physical sex is not possible?

: Where is the Bible verse that says that birth defects should not be corrected?

: Where is the Bible verse that says that it is permissible to correct any birth defect, except a mismatch between our gender identity and our physical sex?

: If our sex organs define our gender, then why do we place the emphasis on character instead of genitalia when we train teens to be good and responsible adult men and women?

 

Part of the opening statement of Elihu after patiently listening to Job and his three friends, his miserable comforters, debate the reasons for Job’s terrible misfortunes: “When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.  And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.  I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.  But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.  Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.  Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion.” – Job 32:5-10

God bless,

Lois

The Apostle Paul looks at identity – his own

Tags

Apostle Paul, Bible, Christ, Christian identity, Christianity, circumcision, David Reimer, Gender Identity, Gentile, God, Holy Spirit, immutable identity, innate identity, Jesus, Jew, Jewish Christians, Jewish Identity, John Money, Pharisee, Philippians 3, salvation, Transsexual

(If you have not done so, please read the previous two posts on this same topic before reading this post.)

I am stating right up front that this post on the Apostle Paul in no way questions his cisgender identity.  But on more than one occasion, he goes into detail about his identity in a way that can also shed some light on our discussion of how God see us and what is the source of various elements of our identity.  This passage requires much discernment, for it could be used to justify that transsexualism is not sin and also to justify that it is sin unless we add in other points we have seen either in the Bible or in scientific evidence.

The remarks of Paul that I will focus on are found in Philippians 3:3-7:

“For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.  Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.”

Paul starts off by stating his Jewish identity.  Gentile men and boys who had received the Holy Spirit and the gift of salvation, were not required to go through circumcision.  It had been made clear that this step was no longer necessary to receive the highest spiritual blessings of God.

He then goes on to add that he has no confidence in the flesh.  Why?  Because he understands from the word of the Lord that the flesh doesn’t profit anything.  And yet, if you look at his life, especially before his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, he had a great deal going for him when it came to identity based on earthly things.

Paul gives a partial list, the items that would be of greatest interest to the members of the church in Philippi (especially the Jewish Christians).  He is a child of Israel, circumcised on the eighth day; descended from the tribe of Benjamin; an exemplary Jew under the law as a Pharisee and blameless concerning righteousness.  In fact, so zealous was he for the law that he persecuted the followers of Christ.

Elsewhere in the Bible, Paul makes mention of the fact that he studied under a renowned teacher, Gamaliel, and that he was born a Roman citizen.  He did not know it before he was saved, but God was preparing him, someone with an extraordinary heritage and credentials, to be His ambassador to the Gentiles while being able to legally do things most Jews could not.

Once Paul’s eyes were opened to the true identity of Jesus, having received a new identity in Christ, all these other items of identity were unimportant and easily cast aside or downgraded.  No, his circumcision was not reversed, nor his birthright as a Jew and Benjamite, nor his Roman citizenship.  His training under the Law was not forgotten.  Indeed, his understanding of the Law and the Prophets would enable him to become the New Testament’s most prolific writer, building upon his prior training with the knowledge of the Gospel.

However, there is a major part of his identity that Paul never talks about at all.  He mentions that he was circumcised, so we know that physically he was a man with male genitalia.  But he never talks about his gender identity as a male (and there is no doubt that he was of the male gender).  It is not something he can count as loss.  Why?  Because it was a part of him that he was born with, one that cannot be changed.

Part of the identity he talks about involves things he was born into.  But they were only a part of him internally to the extent that he decided that they should be.  Citizenships could be renounced or revoked.  Heritages can be repudiated.  He could have chosen at some point in his life to stop following all of the Law instead of a select few items that were changed when God, through Christ, gave us a better covenant.

Identities based on behavior are changed when the behavior changes.  Consider a 13-year old kid with a reputation as a punk and wise guy.  It may take a while for others to notice that a true change has been made, but if maturity and life experience bring about positive changes, the 13-year old wise guy is now a 30-year old standup guy.  But gender identity goes far deeper.  It is innate, intrinsic and immutable.  Do you disagree or are not sure about that statement?  Then do this.  Go to a nearby shopping mall with a decent amount of adult traffic.  Ask 100 men when they decided to be male and 100 women when they decided to be female.  I would wager (no money, of course) that if 100% of the respondents didn’t give you an answer that in some way indicated that they never made such a decision, always knew their gender and never saw the need to change or question it, it will be very, very close to 100%.

I do not want to claim that Paul said or wrote things that are not part of the record.  He never talked about the source of gender (is it the mind or genitals?) or the immutability of gender.  But can we agree that it is highly likely, close to a 100% probability, that if asked that same question as the 200 people in the mall, Paul also would have said that he never decided to be male and he always knew that he was male?

From the statistics and charts I have seen, the same survey given to 100 MTF transsexuals and 100 FTM transsexuals would produce similar results as one given to cisgender men and women.  99+% are aware of their non-conforming gender identity by the early teen years with an average age of awareness at seven.  (Finally, something for which I am average!)

This is the very point I am making.  The vast majority of transsexuals do not decide their gender identity at some point in their life, exactly the same as what cisgender people experience in this regard.  The theory of gender identity being learned rather than innate is now widely discredited, with widespread failure of treatment of infants based on that theory at the forefront of the evidence.  For more information about that issue, do an internet search for Dr. John Money and David Reimer.

Of all people, Christians should be among the most understanding of transsexuals and immutable identity.  For most Christians believe in the immutability of their Christian identity.  It is the belief in eternal security: once saved, always saved.  Both gender identity and Christian identity come at birth.  For gender, it is physical birth, the delivery of a baby from the mother’s womb.  For Christianity, it is spiritual birth, i.e., being born again.  It is his Christian identity that Paul is emphasizing to be far more important than any other identity he possesses.

While we have no direct statement one way or the other in the Bible about how God views transsexuals, we have seen a number of verses that show that God focuses far more on what is inside of us: our spirit, our character, our heart for God and the other virtues that God prizes.  I am long past wondering how God views people.  Cognizant of God’s attributes and His character, the idea that He would focus on our physical body – and particularly our genitals – to define us has become downright creepy and repugnant to me.  That is not the God I have met in the pages of the Bible and grown to know and love.

In a post to be published soon, I will look at questions that every person who denigrates transsexuals should answer.  Some of those questions will apply more to Christians, others will apply to anyone who considers the Bible to have some level of authority, and some will be for anyone who is negative toward transsexuals.

My current plan is to post regarding New Year’s Day before returning to this theme.

God bless,

Lois

Related articles

• Apostle Paul – a deceitful missionary? (apologiachristian.wordpress.com)

A further look at how God sees us (2 of 3 additional passages for Christians to consider)

Tags

Apostle Paul, Bible, body and blood, Bread of Life, Christ, Christian identity, Christianity, church division, communion, early Christian church, eternal life, Galatians 3, Gender Identity, Holy Spirit, Jesus, John 6, Messiah, miracle, New Testament, science, Transsexual

(If you have not done so, please read the previous post on the same topic before reading this post.)

In Galatians 3:28, part of the verse states that “there is neither male nor female”.  We have to be careful not to take this out of context and make this phrase say more than it really does, for there are a number of other passages in the New Testament that speak about separate roles and differences between men and women.  However, none of these differences are spiritual.

The full picture is seen by looking at Galatians 3:26-29.  This passage is saying something similar to Acts 10, but it extends it beyond Jew and Gentile (“Greek” means Gentile in this context).  It is extended to slave and free, as well as gender.  Elsewhere, we read that the poor and rich should be treated equally.  The Apostle Paul is denouncing the divisions that were creeping into some early Christian churches: divisions based on identity differences that were spiritually unimportant.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Galatians 3 tells us that when Christians are saved, we put on Christ.  Spiritually speaking, God no longer sees us in our filthy rags.  He sees us in Christ’s shining robes of righteousness.  The price of the clothes we wear, the color of our skin or what is between our legs have no bearing on that marvelous fact.

Throughout the Bible, we see people make the mistake of focusing on the physical and temporal, what they could see, rather than the spiritual and internal, including what God sees inside us.  This is the same mistake that mainstream Christianity made when beginning to consider the question of transsexualism once awareness of transsexuals began to reach the general public about 60 years ago.

Fortunately, many Christians are seeing things in a new light, based on a combination of Scriptural truth and scientific fact.  And to be fair to those who are holding onto old beliefs, many of those old beliefs were held until fairly recently by many in the scientific community, specifically in the fields of medicine and mental health.  So I can understand that they would be slow to jump when science says, in effect, we were wrong before but we are correct now, so go along with us.  This is one reason I consider a thorough examination of the Bible in this matter of utmost importance in terms of persuading Christians to accept that transsexualism is not a sin.

The sixth chapter of John’s Gospel is another account of people missing the point: focusing on the physical when they should be focused on the spiritual.  Starting in verse 26, Jesus upbraids them for their response to His miracles, particularly the miracle of feeding the thousands (verses 5-13).  They had continued to follow Him, looking to fill their bellies when they should be seeking His spiritual food (teaching).  In turn, they ask Jesus to validate His ministry.  (As if the miracles they had already seen weren’t enough!)

Jesus begins His response in verse 32.  During this response, in which there are some further exchanges between the crowd and Jesus, allegories continue to be made to spiritual food by Jesus.  He tells them that He is the bread of life which came down from heaven, among other things.  The crowd begins to grumble at this statement, in part because of mistaken identity.  They refer to Mary and Joseph, who they have known as His parents.  Jesus is talking about His spiritual origin from His heavenly Father.

But now, Jesus takes it more than a step further.  As far as the crowd and even a number of His own disciples are concerned, He goes way out on a limb.  Here are those apparently outrageous remarks in verses 50-58:

“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.  I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.  The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.  This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”

It’s a good thing that they did NOT have mass communication in Jesus’ day.  Can you picture the tweets and Facebook posts?  “Self-proclaimed Messiah offers strange menu.”  “Son of God or son of cannibals?”  “Jesus shocks crowd by offering them his flesh and blood for a snack.”  And there would be at least a hundred You Tube videos by those with presence of mind to pull out their cell phones and start recording.  Prominent leaders would call on Him to retract His remarks.  One group after another cancels His upcoming appearances.  His synagogue threatens to remove Him from the membership rolls if He doesn’t recant.

These reactions are not speculation.  They are the 21^st century equivalent of what took place nearly two thousand years ago.  Even some of His disciples grumbled when they heard these remarks.  First He poses a rhetorical question, asking them how they would react if they saw Jesus ascending to heaven (which He did after the resurrection).  Then he speaks the key statement that clearly explains what He meant by eating and drinking His flesh and blood.

In verse 63 He says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In 1611, the verb “quickeneth” meant to give life.  It is used in the Apostles’ Creed in its nominative form when it talks about Jesus judging “the quick and the dead”.

It is the spirit that gives life.  Jesus is talking to them about spiritual food, spiritual flesh and blood, not literally physical flesh and blood.  And the physical?  It isn’t profitable for anything, nothing truly important.  Yes, it helps us by providing communication, mobility, dexterity and the five senses.  But compared to the far more important spiritual, that which is related to eternal life, the physical is useful for nothing.  When compared to eternity, life on earth is a mere blink of the eye.

This wasn’t the kind of Messiah that many, even among those who were following Jesus, were looking for.  They wanted a Messiah who would only speak smooth words, who would pour out miracle after miracle upon them, build up a large enough following to drive out the Romans and establish an earthly kingdom.  So even after this clarifying answer, John records that many of those who had been following Jesus turned away and departed from Him.

Enough of them departed that Jesus even asked His inner circle of twelve if they would also leave Him.  Peter, often the first to respond, gets it right this time.  He answers (verse 68), “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”  God has revealed to him which of the two is more important.

When so many who were in the presence of Jesus and who heard His explanation get it wrong, it is understandable that some Christians today get it wrong, too.  But that doesn’t excuse the error.  They know how the story unfolds.  They have the entire Bible to see verse after verse and passage after passage that emphasizes that it is the spirit, the things unseen and eternal, that are more important because they are the source of eternal life.  Why would they base their gender identity on the physical (if in fact they do for themselves) and insist on basing the identity of others (transsexuals in particular) on the physical?  Why would they believe that this is how God sees it?

The third and final additional passage I will consider on this topic will be discussed in the next post.  The Apostle Paul has some interesting things to say about identity by looking at his own.

God bless,

Lois

Knowing versus Wanting

Tags

adult, childhood, Christian identity, Christianity, education, Gender Identity, kid stuff, religion, spirituality, Transsexual

In my last post, I mentioned that I wanted to be an adult from a young age, probably as far back as four years old.  I want to look at the idea in greater depth as it relates to identity.

I cannot say for certain why I felt that way.  Nor do I know how common this is.  The best I can do is guess, based on other things I know about myself from the perspective of having lived for many years.

My parents only gave me glimpses of the adult world.  Like many young children, I was shielded from knowledge of sex, financial concerns, funerals, and the other challenges or responsibilities of being an adult in the lower middle class of society.  But by that age, I was able to see that adults had more freedom to do what they wanted.  No one was telling them when to go to bed, what to eat, what to wear, what to buy, what television programs to watch and so on.  It doesn’t matter that I knew very little about the restrictions on the lives of my parents and the other adults in my life.  My opinions, beliefs and desires were being formed by the slice of the world I was coming to know.

Another possible reason is that I saw childhood holding me back.  That is very ironic, for if I am honest with myself, I would have to admit to being an underachiever in life.  Are the two related?  Were fires that were burning hot at a young age unwittingly quenched and never fully reignited?  Perhaps, although there were times here and there that I did strike out in new directions in life and career.  That was very different than the rest of my immediate family members, who had lifelong jobs and long term marital relationships.

There is yet another difference between me and the rest of my family.  While they all believed in God, spiritual matters had a far greater importance for me.  I did a lot of searching for spiritual truth throughout my life.  The source of my Christian identity is not based on a belief that was instilled in early childhood and rarely questioned for the rest of my life.  Rather it came out of a cauldron of exploration, looking for truth in oriental religions and philosophies, Unitarian Universalism, New Age teachings (Shirley MacLaine, et al), and other ideas that came from movements such as Scientology, est, Eckankar and so on.

Some of that exploration continued even while I was serving as an officer (trustee or elder) in a Protestant church.  It was only after I was saved at the age of 36 that I soon confined my exploration to the Bible (and began to read it from cover to cover).  Since that age, I was active in church and Christian ministry to a far greater extent than anyone in my immediate family.  And that has continued even after transition.

Bringing the topic back to my childhood, once I began school, I could tell that I was advanced beyond my classmates.  In first grade, when the other children were sounding out word by word, I could read the whole sentence smoothly, all the way through.

Science was not the strong suit for my favorite teacher (the second half of third grade and all of fourth grade).  On a few occasions, another student would ask her a question during the science lesson and she didn’t know the answer.  She would ask me in front of the rest of the class.  Usually I knew and the rest of the time I had an educated guess.

And then there was the influence of sports.  In my last post, I shared that playing sports was a big part of my life.  Reading the sports section and being a fan was a big part of it also.  I would say that it was the number one motivation for me to learn to read.  Through sports I learned geography and arithmetic.  By the time I reached kindergarten, I could add a column of 10 two-digit numbers (corresponding to the points scored and allowed by a college football team during their season).

Around the time I started school, definitely by the time I was in second grade, I had little interest in anything that I considered “kid stuff”.  I disdained Dr. Seuss.  What were other popular children’s books at that time?  Babar?  I don’t even remember, that is how disconnected I am from it.  I felt the same way about Mary Poppins, even though I love Julie Andrews and I admired the work of Dick Van Dyke in anything else I have watched him in.

If it was aimed at kids, it had to be aimed at older kids (like comic books or shows like Superman and Sky King).  Regarding television cartoons, my interest turned to those that I could tell had two levels of humor, one level aimed at adults.  Even if I didn’t get all the adult-oriented references in Looney Tunes (e.g., Daffy Duck starring in The Scarlet Pumpernickel) and Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends (Mr. Peabody here with my pet boy Sherman), I knew they were in there and that’s what counted.  (A side benefit was that raw carrots were one of the first vegetables I would actually ask for.)

As far as books, I began to raid my brother’s book shelves and then my parents’.  When my brother reached high school and started bringing home books from English class, I would be right behind him, reading novels like A Bell for Adano and The Bridge of San Luis Rey.

Two memories especially stick out, in part because they were noteworthy to the adults who were important to me.  My favorite teacher was getting her Master’s Degree at Columbia Teachers College when I was in fourth grade.  One Saturday, she took me with her so I would have my first exposure to a college campus.  One of her stops was the library.  She let me roam the stacks while she gathered the books she needed for her assignments.  She found me near the chemistry section talking about science with one of the college students as if we were contemporaries.

The other involves a childless couple who lived across the street from us after we moved to the suburbs.  I enjoyed discussing current events and politics with them, especially Mrs. V., and would find my way over there from time to time, starting when I was in junior high.  They had a screened-in porch, and I can remember conversations after dinner that lasted through dusk and into darkness until I had to go home to go to bed.  We were so interested in our discussion that they wouldn’t bother to turn the light on.  One time, Mrs. V. told my mother that because she couldn’t see me, after a while she would forget that she was talking with a child.  Then I would say something that would show my ignorance or immaturity and it would jog her memory that I was only 12 years old.

What is the point of all this besides letting you know what a wonderfully precocious child I was?  Simply this: I wanted to be an adult.  Deep down, I knew I wasn’t, but I wanted to be one ahead of my time.  Eventually, time took care of that and I became one.

In contrast, one day when I was seven years old, I had an epiphany where I suddenly considered my gender for the first time and knew I was female.  At that age, I might not have had all the language to express it.  And if I tell you that at some point I prayed to become a girl (i.e., to wake up the next morning and be a girl), I meant physically and that I would be recognized as a girl by the people in my life.

I didn’t have to want to become a girl mentally.  I already knew it was so.  From then on, much of my life alternated between exploring how to manifest it or denying it and trying to “fix” it.  Nothing, not salvation or marriage or immersion in male-oriented jobs, hobbies and ministries, nothing took that identity away.

One of my closest female friends prior to my transition objected to what I was doing.  She had three reasons.  She claims that it is contrary to the Bible and that a person cannot really know at such a young age.  I am addressing those claims in this blog.  Her third reason was that she had some gender conflict as a child and claims to have been delivered from it.

She told me that before her teen years, she wanted to be a boy and thought she should have been born a boy.  The important thing to understand (and what she could not see) is that by saying you want to be something and should have been something, you are affirming the very fact that you are not currently that thing.  It is very different from knowing with certainty that you indeed are that thing.  The bottom line is that in my own heart, I know with certainty that mentally I am female.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.  For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. – Hebrews 5:12-14

God bless,

Lois