The recent announcement that Bruce Jenner will be named “Woman of the Year” highlights the fact that a war on reality has been declared, and insanity now rules our elites – at least in the West. And the entire transgender mania is leading the way in our mental and moral meltdown.
For Bruce to be given this award makes as much sense as calling a circle, “Square of the Year,” or an airplane, “Boat of the Year,” or red, “Blue of the Year”. We have simply denounced and renounced reality, rationality, common sense and the English language. Utter absurdity now reigns supreme.
If all this was just a harmless fad, that would be one thing. But it is harming plenty of folks, as well as society at large, and for that reason alone needs to be fully resisted. I have written before about the various health risks associated with gender bending.
A recent article highlights some more of the evidence on what a dangerous and risky move this is. Rising suicide rates is one big problem associated with those who go down this path:
Studies repeatedly show that “transgender” people who seek to become the opposite sex are in fact not happy or fulfilled. In fact, a life-or-death internal war is continually going on within, to the degree that many, if not most, seek to end their lives.
That’s what the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute found when the foundation analyzed results from the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. The numbers of suicide attempts are heartbreaking.
Over 41 percent of active “transgender” people try to kill themselves. That’s ten times the average 4.6 percent suicide attempt rate.
And this study isn’t the only one proving that those who seek to live as if they were the opposite sex are, in fact, killing themselves. Over a dozen other surveys worldwide have found the same alarmingly high suicide rates.
A national survey of more than 6,500 transgender people asked the question “Have you tried to commit suicide?” Forty-one percent answered, “Yes.”
“Chronically high stress levels,” “anxiety,” and “depression” are most commonly reported among active transgender people. Self-harm by cutting is often reported as well.
The suicide hotline for them, Trans Lifeline, handled more than 20,000 calls in its first nine months of operation alone. Greta Gustava Martela, a lesbian who founded the hotline, summarizes, “With 41% attempting suicide, you have to assume something’s just not working for transgender folks.”
The mainstream media attributes the exploding transgender suicide rate to outside influences, such as peer and parental rejection, but does not consider the transgender person’s tragic internal battle as intrinsic to living a psychological dichotomy.
The facts speak otherwise. The University of Birmingham’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF) conducted a medical review that found that there is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals. In fact, many transsexuals remain severely internally distressed and suicidal after the operation.
Chris Hyde, the director of ARIF, explained, “A large number of people who have [sex change] surgery remain traumatized – often to the point of committing suicide.”
These truths need to be made widely known. We are lying to people and greatly harming them – especially our young people – if we tell them that a bit of snipping here and injections there, and some chemical this and surgery that, is going to solve all their problems and transform them into new, happy and well-adjusted people. The opposite is more likely the case.
These are ultimately mental and psychological issues which need to be addressed, not something a bit of physical mutilation will be able to remedy. We are damaging our kids and spitting in the face of reality and biology when we buy the trans lies.
But sadly plenty of Christians are buying these lies as well. More and more are getting on the trans bandwagon, reflecting the wisdom of this world instead of running with the biblical worldview. A good example of this, and a good rebuttal to it, appeared recently in First Things.
Robert Gagnon has offered some helpful advice for believers in how to deal with all this, as he critiques a piece by Christian psychologist Mark Yarhouse. Gagnon examines and discusses some of his claims, then goes on to say this:
While I believe Yarhouse’s advice is well intentioned, I respectfully disagree. First, is this not rather distant from the biblical language on these matters? Cross-dressing is called an “abomination” to God in Deut 22:5. Paul includes “soft men” (malakoi) in the offender list in 1 Cor 6:9-10, which in context designates men who attempt to become women (through dress, mannerisms, makeup, and sometimes castration), often to attract male sex partners. The fact that Paul includes such persons among those who “shall not inherit the kingdom of God” suggests that acting on a desire to become the opposite sex can in fact affect one’s redemption.
Further, what will be the effect of encouraging church members to address persons with GID as the sex that they are not? What will be the result of requiring them to accept whatever manner of transgender display of appearance offenders deem essential to their well-being? For some it will mean silencing a conscience correctly informed by Scripture and science. For others it will further confusion about sex and gender already promoted in the world, undermining the church’s resistance to the bonds of sin.
I have no doubt that Yarhouse is aiming for the redemption of those with gender dysphoria. Yet it may be instructive to reflect on Paul’s concern in 1 Corinthians 5 not only for the sexual offender but also for the offender’s impact on the local church: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (v. 6). Although Yarhouse refers obliquely to wise counsel from church leaders, he allows the offender to call the shots. Paul rather recommends temporary remedial discipline for the persistently impenitent in order to minimize the harm done both to the offender and to the church (vv. 4-5, 9-13). The church’s complicity in sexual delusion benefits no one, least of all the offender.
How far should Christians following Yarhouse’s suggestions go? For example, can a man who feels that he is a woman use the church’s restroom for females? Can he expect the church to respect his choice of romantic partner, whether a woman (in a pretend lesbian relationship) or a man (in an actual homosexual relationship)? Can he even compel the pastor’s performance of his marriage ceremony to either sex, claiming that otherwise he will feel estranged from the church? And what if the offender has children distressed and confused by his wrong choices? Denise Schick, director of Help 4 Families Ministry, writes courageously about the added stresses put on her adolescent development by a father obsessed with becoming a woman:
“As an adolescent, I had to be careful about how I dressed. I always had to ask myself how he would react to my outfit. Would it make him so envious that he’d ‘borrow’ it (without my consent, of course)? I began to hate my body. It was a constant reminder of what my father wanted to become. When I began to wear makeup, I had to block out the images I had of him applying makeup or eye shadow or lipstick. He was destroying my desire to become a woman.”
In allowing those with transgender desires “to identify with aspects of the opposite sex,” even at a church service, won’t the church be contributing to the distress and confusion of their children?
Yarhouse would certainly prefer that persons with gender dysphoria make peace with their biological sex. He thinks counseling should be directed to “how best to manage gender dysphoria in light of the integrity lens” and advising persons with GID to explore their other-sex desires “in the least invasive way possible.” I have no doubt that his desire is to be loving to persons experiencing this distress. Yet it is possible to be sensitive, gentle, and loving without forcing the church to act as if the lie is the truth.
Lastly, should the church abandon the “culture wars”? Should we stop combatting society’s efforts to persuade vulnerable children in the schools that one’s perceived “gender” need not correlate with one’s biological sex? Is it wrong to try to prevent the state from punishing believers who can’t support a transsexual agenda? Is it a societal good to require schools and businesses to permit males who think they are females to use female restrooms? I submit that the church still has a role to play in terms of being salt and light for the culture at large in matters of sexual ethics.
Needless to say I fully concur with Gagnon. This fight is too important to simply ignore or capitulate to. And simply running with the world’s agenda helps no one here. As always biblical truth must trump trendy social engineering agendas.
There is nothing loving or Christlike about telling a male he is female, or a female she is male. What is loving is pointing these folks to Christ and the healing and restoration he freely offers. Selling out to the gender bender agenda is not the way forward.