Commentary on anti-transsexual legislation proposed in Texas

Tags

Amanda Simpson, assigned gender, bathroom, chromosomes, Debbie Riddle, Donna Rose, Dr. Christine McGinn, felony, fines, gender defined, gender discrimination, H.B. 1748, Houston, jail, Jesus, Jim Crow Laws, Jim Munroe, Kristin Beck, locker rooms, Luke 11:37-40, Lynn Conway, marginalized group, Mark 7, Matthew 15, misdemeanor, Pharisees, Public bathrooms, public showers, Rep. Debbie Riddle, Section 341.061, Texas, Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas State House of Representatives, the Lord, toilet facilities, Transgender, transmen, transwomen, vigilante, Word of God, Zechariah 12:1

In the 11^th chapter of Luke’s Gospel, a Pharisee invites Jesus to have a meal at his house.  When Jesus does not wash His hands before starting to eat, the Pharisee wonders why Jesus did not follow the custom of the elders.  Jesus uses this as an opportunity to rebuke the Pharisees (and eventually also the lawyers and scribes) for their hypocrisy: caring about their outer appearance and public image while their minds and hearts are rotten with greed and wickedness.

Jesus uses some of His harshest language at this time, including verse 40: Ye fools, did not he that made the outside make that which is within, also? (Also see my post of 6/24/14)

If anyone reading takes offense at this, remember that your argument is with Jesus.  But also understand that much of Jesus’ ire is due to the fact that the people He is criticizing are the Jewish religious leaders of that day.  These are the people who have been entrusted to know the law and the prophets.  Their teaching and guidance of the laity should be based on that knowledge.  But in some cases they err because they do not practice what they preach and teach.  In other cases, their teaching and example is flawed because they do not understand the Word of God.

In Luke 11:40, Jesus is referring to the final clause of Zechariah 12:1, which states that the LORD forms the spirit that is inside a person.  Either the Pharisees have lost sight of this knowledge, or they misunderstood what it means, or they have exempted themselves from its meaning while teaching it to the common people.  But the Lord is consistent in holding the religious leaders to a higher standard.  And He is criticizing them for being so concerned about what is on the outside and neglecting what is on the inside.  In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, we read Jesus teaching that it is not what enters a person that defiles, it is what comes out of them, proceeding from heart and mind, that defiles a person.

In ancient Israel’s theocracy, the religious leaders were also the political leaders.  And their considerable influence continued into the days of Jewish kings and then domination by a succession of foreign powers.  In the United States, the influence of religion is waning and there has never been one centralized religious body of individuals that serves as a counterbalance to the political branches of government.  That doesn’t mean that government officials never invoke religion as a motive behind a particular law, policy or position.  But does everyone who cites religious principles judge with right judgment?  Let’s look at one recent example that ignores Jesus’ teaching on the inside being more important than the outside.

A Texas state legislator, Debbie Riddle from the Houston suburb of Tomball, TX, has sponsored a bill that would make it a crime for a transgender person to use a bathroom that is not consistent with that person’s actual gender.  The first problem with the bill is that it does not allow that person to define what their actual gender is.  The State of Texas, if this legislation should pass, would be the sole arbiter of the definition of a person’s true gender, based on some very rigid guidelines.

Under H.B. 1748, this bill would amend Section 341.061 of the Texas Health and Safety Code regarding locker rooms, shower facilities and toilet facilities in various public establishments (public building, schoolhouse, theater, filling station, tourist court, bus station, or tavern).  The first change is that it would also make a criminal of any person who is in charge of such a facility who “repeatedly” allows a person over age 7 that Rep. Riddle considers to be using the wrong locker room, shower room or bathroom/toilet.  It would be a felony punishable by up to up to 2 years in jail and a maximum $10,000 fine.  There is no definition of “repeatedly” in the bill.  But based on the definition of this imprecise word, it could be interpreted to mean as infrequently as twice.

It also makes it a Class A misdemeanor for a person over the age of 13 to use the wrong facilities of these types according to Rep. Riddle’s definition of gender.  In Texas, class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both jail time and a fine.  (So let’s be clear: a school principal could go to jail for allowing a child of age 8-13 to use a bathroom in school which it would be perfectly legal for that student to use under this bill.)

And what is Rep. Riddle’s definition of gender?  It is spelled out in subsection e:

For the purpose of this section, the gender of an individual is the gender established at the individual’s birth or the gender established by the individual’s chromosomes. A male is an individual with at least one X chromosome and at least one Y chromosome, and a female is an individual with at least one X chromosome and no Y chromosomes. If an individual’s gender established at the individual’s birth is not the same as the individual’s gender established by the individual’s chromosomes, the individual’s gender established by the individual’s chromosomes controls under this section.

The bill does allow for exceptions in certain situations, such as janitorial services, medical emergencies or an adult assisting a young child (under age 8).  But in addition to all the new subsections added to this section of law, the bill makes an interesting change to the existing subsection a.  It changes “toilet accommodations” to “toilet facilities”.  Rep. Riddle has signaled (whether wittingly or not, I do not know) that she intends to make Texas less accommodating, less hospitable, less friendly to you if you aren’t one of the “right people” in her eyes.

Under this bill, here are some of the people who would be required to use the women’s bathroom, locker room and public showers in Texas:

 

Mark Cummings, Occupational Therapist and Businessman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buck Angel, Filmmaker and Educator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Halleman, Steelworker and Steel Safety Expert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jamie Black, Film Producer, Actor and Comedian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Thorne, Police Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And here are some of the people who would now be required under Rep. Riddle’s bill to use the men’s bathroom, locker room and public showers in Texas:

Lynn Conway, University Professor, Electrical Engineer, Computer Scientist, and Inventor (M.S.E.E., Columbia Universtity)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Christine McGinn, Surgeon, US Navy Veteran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Janet Mock, Journalist (M.A., New York University)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donna Rose, IT Project Manager and Author

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amanda Simpson, Executive Director, Army Office of Energy Initiatives, U.S. Dept. of Defense, Engineer, Pilot, (M.E. California State University, Northridge; M.B.A. University of Arizona)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then there’s me: tax preparer, financial consultant, businesswoman, witnessing Christian.

Lois Simmons, author of this blog!

 

Can you imagine the transwomen above having to use the men’s bathroom in a bar in Texas where cowboys (real and wannabes) have been getting drunk and acting macho?  Kristin Beck could probably take them on, but most of us could not.

And what about this man, Christian magician Jim Munroe?  Most of his chromosomes are XY, but the ones in his blood are XX?  Can he use either bathroom or neither of them?

Jim Munroe, Magician, Christian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no regard in this bill for people born with intersex conditions of any kind.  There is no regard in this bill for the dignity and safety of the people who this bill discriminates against.  What purpose does this bill achieve?  Protecting people from crimes that don’t occur (and for which there are already sufficient statues in the rare event that a crime does occur)?  Or to resurrect Jim Crow laws against a different group of marginalized people while further exposing them to the violence we already suffer on a regular basis?

Strangely enough, the worst feature of this bill may be that the owners, managers or others in charge of the affected establishments are liable for a harsher penalty than the transgender people charged with using the “wrong” bathroom.  To protect themselves, this bill could turn at least some into vigilantes zealously enforcing the law while at the same time being unaccountable to the public because they are private citizens.

Not only is such foolishness and poorly thought out legislation still being proposed in 21^st century America, it is not unique to Texas.  It is just one more in a string of similar legislation that has been proposed recently in Florida, Kentucky, Utah, and Arizona.  Some might blame this on Christianity, but that would be just as discriminatory.  Fortunately, there are many Christians who are not like this.  I have been accepted and even welcomed by Christians who see me based on my Christian spirit and heart for the Lord, not on demanding to see a chromosome test or the opinion of the doctor who delivered me.

Rep. Riddle is the vice chair for the Texas State House of Representatives committee on Juvenile Justice and Family Issues.  Rep. Riddle, do you seek justice for all juveniles, or only some?  Do you seek justice for all residents of and visitors to Texas, or only some?

If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they. – Ecclesiastes 5:8

God bless,

Lois

What If?

Tags

childhood memories, Christine Jorgensen, comic strips, Gender Identity, Jan Morris, Lee's Mardi Gras Boutique, Lynn Conway, Misfile, MTF transsexual, passing, reconstructed personal history, Renee Richards, Satchel Paige, socialization, stealth, Trans woman, Transition, violence against transgenders

Baseball great, Satchel Paige, was almost as well known for his sayings as for his pitching prowess.  Perhaps his most famous quote was “Don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.

Having transitioned relatively late in life, it is tempting to try to look back and ask “What if?”  What if I transitioned in my twenties or thirties?  What if I had been born with a body to match the gender identity in my mind?

From the exploring I did two to three years ago, trying to sort things out, I came across someone who claimed that she could transform your personal childhood memories from a boy’s memories to a girl’s memories.

It is not the purpose of this post to debate whether the mind can be manipulated in that way.  So for the moment, I will allow that it could be possible.

It would be reprehensible if such a thing was a scam, duping trusting and hurting souls into parting with their money.  If it is not a scam, it is equally reprehensible.  To mess with someone’s mind to that extent is at the same level as people who would try to “cure” a transsexual so their core gender identity matches their anatomy.  It is brainwashing, pure and simple.

There’s one other thing about the result of such a transformation.  It is a lie.

In the past, I have tried to reconstruct a personal history based on either being born with a girl’s body or transitioning as a young adult.  It was a fruitless exercise other than being the wiser for it.

The fact of the matter is simple.  When it comes to human interaction and human choices, you cannot change one variable and assume all the other elements will remain constant.  As some examples, if you raise or lower taxes, people change their behavior; if you raise or lower prices, people change their behavior.

So let’s say I had been born with a girl’s body, but all other circumstances were constant: same immediate family, same neighborhood, same public school, and same kids in school and on the block where I grew up in Queens.

Yet from day one, I would have been treated differently.  I would have been given a different name (in fact, it would have been Linda).  Right away, I would have been responding to something different, a different sound.

It would quickly go beyond that.  I would have been spoken to differently, been given different clothes and different toys.  I would have been socialized in what was expected of girls instead of what was expected of boys.  I would have learned different lessons about my body and grooming.

My parents would have shown the same love to me, but they still would have treated me differently.  They were very conventional and that meant boys and girls were treated differnently.  My brother would have related to me differently.  I would have had different best friends in school and in the neighborhood.

Perhaps my interest in sports would have been allowed to continue up to a certain age.  But that would have meant playing with the guys.  That would have been discouraged once my body started to change.  I would have been encouraged to go into cheerleading.  There were far fewer varsity sports for girls than boys in those days.

As time passes, the history diverges further.  As it happened, I grew up in a two bedroom house until we moved when I was eight years old.  There’s a good chance we would have moved much sooner if I had a girl’s body.  It is likely that my parents would not wanted me to share a bedroom with my brother until we reached age 8 and 13.  Chances are, we would have found a new home somewhere else.  That means a different school and different kids than the ones I grew up with.

Teacher’s expectations would have been different, too.  Even possessing the same intelligence, I probably would have been encouraged to choose a more typical career path for an intelligent woman: teacher or nurse.  It is likely that with that type of goal in mind, my parents would not have made the personal sacrifice of the extra expense to send me to private school starting in sixth grade.

Furthermore, considering my current appearance at my age and with all the handicaps of transitioning late in life, it would be a reasonable assumption that I would have been a cute, fairly attractive teenage girl.  I’m not talking beauty queen material, but pretty enough to be popular with my peers and having a number of guys wanting to date me.  There is a good chance that I would have been very interested in being popular under those circumstances.  And if it became clear that acting too smart hurt a girl’s popularity in high school, I would have started to downplay that part of me.

Yes, I might have gone to college, but not one in the Ivy League.  And my course of study would have been to have something to fall back on “just in case”.  My main objective would have been to get what used to be called an “MRS degree”.

True, by the time I reached high school, the feminist movement was starting to gain ground with women.  Would I have rebelled and joined up?  Or would I have followed the ways of my conservative, conventional parents and stayed an “old-fashioned” girl.  And there was one other significant difference: I would not have had the specter of Vietnam looming over my shoulder until the middle of college.

We have only reached a little past the first twenty years of my life, and already things are vastly different.  And it only keeps on moving further away from my life path from there.  Therefore, there is no way to know how my life would have actually turned out if I had been born with a girl’s body.

At this point, one might hold up their hand and concede the point on having been born with a girl’s body.  But let’s say that I transitioned shortly after college.  Surely nothing would have been different about my life up to that point.  Wouldn’t things be more predictable in terms of my life post-transition?

Not really.  First of all, I wasn’t even able to predict everything about my current post-transition life.  I lost friends and clients I expected to keep and kept some I expected to lose.  I am going to a different (and better) church than I expected.  My relationship with some of my female clients improved far better than I ever imagined.  I look better and have blended in better than I expected.  I was fairly certain that I would have had at least one negative incident in public by now, but it has not happened.

Now try to remember 1975.  I’ve been out of college about a year with a relatively unmarketable Bachelor’s degree.  Unemployment is high.  And I decide, “What have I to lose?”  Well, it was likely that I would have lost my family.  My parents probably would have thrown me out of the house and my brother would not have taken me in to live with him.

Without the support of family, the next question is, “What path do I take?”  Do I search for and approach Christine Jorgensen or Jan Morris or Renee Richards?  How could I have even hoped to find someone like Lynn Conway.  The plan of the typical MTF transsexual in those days was stealth and survival.  The whole point was to not be found.  So it would have taken an amazing stroke of luck to find a transsexual who was maintaining a respectable role in society and continuing undetected.

Yes, considering my appearance now and the fact that I blend so well, stealth would have probably been very achievable for me.  But I would have needed to reach that place first, and the path was very well hidden.

There would have been another way.  By this time, I had discovered Lee’s Mardi Gras Boutique a few blocks west of the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan.  I only bought magazines there, magazines such as Ladylike and Female Impersonators International.  I read them and dreamed.  But I didn’t see myself as a flamboyant personality who would have flourished at balls.  (Furthermore, it is difficult to sew when your small motor skills are so bad that you can’t thread a needle!)

Nor did I see myself as a drag performer.  And in one way, that’s a shame, because I would not have needed to lip synch to records.  My vocal range extends well into soprano (and also into baritone, for that matter).  So with encouragement, I might have done quite well.

But let’s say I approached someone at Lee’s, maybe the person I found behind the counter the day I finally summoned up the courage to do so; maybe one of the other customers trying on clothing, someone who seemed friendly.  Would I have found a safe place?  Or would I have ended up in a gritty dangerous lifestyle?

It’s dangerous to be transgendered in this society.  It was far more dangerous back then.  Being out on the street, hustling, is dangerous.  Would I have ended up doing drugs, or getting AIDS?  Would a boyfriend react violently upon finding out my past?  I might not be here today to be writing this.  I might have been killed decades ago.

It appears just as problematic to try to construct a history as a female with a starting point as a young adult.  So I am better served living in the present and looking to the future, rather than trying to grab onto an elusive, imaginary past.

One of my pleasures is to read my favorite comic strips.  Most of the ones I read can be found at Yahoo Comics or Gocomics, mainstream comics like BC, Jump Start and One Big Happy, or classic comics like Calvin & Hobbes, Cathy and Peanuts.  But I also follow an independent, online comic strip with a transgender theme.  It is called Misfile (www.misfile.com).  The premise is that an inept angel in heaven’s file room has misfiled the information about two teenagers who go to the same high school.  A girl becomes two years younger and has to relive the last two years of high school again, just as she was ready to go to college.  And she ends up in the class of the other victim, a boy who wakes up one morning as a girl.

Somehow, they figure out that similar things have happened to them and that they are the only ones aware of their previous past.  Since then, with the inept angel trying to make amends and turn things back to the way they should, they try to adjust to their new reality.  For the girl reliving two years, she makes some different choices and it starts to lead her to different places.  For the boy become girl, the adjustment is even greater and the need to revert back is far more desperate.  But somehow, they are making it through.  And that is all I will say so I don’t spoil it for anyone who wants to start reading it.

One way that chess players improve is by reviewing a completed game, looking at a critical move, replaying it by making a different move, and learning the probable outcome.  Life is not like chess in the sense that we can’t go back to a past decision and see what would have happened if we chose B instead of A.  Oh, it’s interesting to see it happen in a comic strip to fictional characters.  In real life, it is counterproductive.

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

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