Tag Archives: Lesbian

by

How Pedophiles Are Using the “Gay Agenda”

See the source image

How Pedophiles Are Using the “Gay Agenda”

James R. Aist

“Because iniquity will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matthew 24:12)

Introduction

Before I delve into the subject matter of this very sensitive and controversial issue, I want to make a few relevant, clarifying points. First, the vast majority of both homosexual and heterosexual people are not child molesters; thus, one cannot identify a child molester solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Second, while it is true that male heterosexual pedophiles account for most cases of child molestation, this is due solely to the fact that male heterosexuals outnumber male homosexuals by as much as 67 to 1. And third, the vast majority of child molestations are perpetrated by males, not females.

Pedophilia is an integral and valued component of the homosexual movement

Baldwin (2002) and Sprigg and Dailey (2004) have documented extensively this component of the homosexual movement. The practice and celebration of consensual sexual involvement of adult homosexual men with young male teens and boys has a history dating back to ancient times. In modern times, this practice is largely represented in America by an organization called the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This group openly and proudly practices, and lobbies for acceptance of, pedophilia, claiming that they are doing their under-age victims a favor by having sex with them. There are two other large concentrations of active pedophilia in America that should be mentioned in this context: the Roman Catholic Church (click HERE) and the growing business of human sex trafficking (click HERE). Pedophilia is a major, scandalous, and devastating moral failure in American society today.

In the USA, the legal age of sexual consent is determined at the state level, with all states presently falling in the 16-18 year range. However, world-wide the legal age of consent for sexual relations varies from less than 12 years of age to about 21 years of age, with 13-18 being most common. There is no reason to assume, in view of the prevalence of liberal attitudes regarding sexual morality in America, that our own legal age of consent will not be conformed to that of other, more lenient countries, in the near future. In fact, NAMBLA lobbies for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws in the USA, hoping that some day they can have their way sexually with male children of any age without fear of legal consequences. While NAMBLA is an embarrassment to many in the homosexual community, it appears that, as a whole, the homosexual community is doing more to embrace them than to marginalize them. And their presence is a real, substantial and integral part of the homosexual movement in America, as adult-youth sex is viewed and promoted by many in the homosexual community as an important, and valued, aspect of gay culture (Dailey, T). This is an undeniable manifestation of yet another link between homosexuality and pedophilia, this link being of a more cultural nature and having an extensive historical witness. To read about other links between homosexuality and pedophilia, click HERE.

Pedophiles are using the “gay agenda” to gain access to your children and grandchildren!

Since the U. S. Supreme Court declared recently that so-called “gay marriage” is legal in all 50 states, pedophiles have become increasingly emboldened and committed to having pedophilia accepted as merely another “sexual orientation.” And, to be brutally honest, they are technically correct about this…in part: pedophiles, by definition, do have a sexual preference for children, but this sexual orientation crosses a line that other sexual orientations do not. This line is “consensual sex.” Having sex with children, whether homosexual or heterosexual, has been legally taboo in the United States for generations, because children are not considered to be mature, adequately informed, and responsible enough to consent to it. And rightly so.

Now the gay agenda, using a propaganda campaign based primarily on lies, myths and hoaxes (click HERE), has managed to make homosexuality socially acceptable and “gay marriage” legal in the United states. But the most ominous threat of the “gay agenda” lies in their campaign to get “sexual orientation” classified as a legally protected characteristic (along with age, race, religion etc.). Insofar as they are successful in this aspect of their agenda, “sexual orientation” cannot be used to discriminate against an individual under penalty of law. Current efforts (i.e., the so-called Equality Act) by homosexual activists and their heterosexual cohorts are aimed at instituting such laws without any exceptions (e.g., for religious institutions and Christian business owners).

So now the stage is set for pedophiles to attach themselves to the “gay agenda” bandwagon to achieve their “pedophile agenda.” Insofar as the “gay agenda” gets “sexual orientation” classified as a legally protected characteristic, the “pedophile sexual orientation” also cannot be used to discriminate against an individual under penalty of law, because it too is, after, all, a “sexual orientation!” Their end game is to gain for the pedophile sexual orientation the same preferential treatment that is presently given to the homosexual sexual orientation. That would include legalization of pedophilia and marriage to minors. Of course, to fully establish and implement this agenda, the pedophiles would merely have to get our legal “age of consent” either reduced or eliminated altogether. This would make their sexual relations with minors legal, and they would then be free to prey on your minor children and grandchildren without either parental consent or penalty of law! And there it is, folks.

Moving forward, then, the critical issue will be whether or not pedophilia will be an exception to the inclusion of “sexual orientation” as a legally protected trait. Personally, I believe it should be an exception, but in a country where it is legal to deprive babies in the womb of any protection of their right to live, can we assume that the right of born children to protection from pedophiles will be sustained? In California, there is already a move to provide legal protection for pedophiles (click HERE)! Unless we rise up against this diabolical scheme, it will surely prevail. It is time for fervent prayer and well-informed voting, my friends!

References

Baldwin, S. 2002. Child molestation and the homosexual movement. Regent University Law Review 14:267-282. (click HERE)

Dailey, T. Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. (click HERE)

Sprigg, P. and T. Dailey. 2004. Google Books. Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Chapter 6. Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? Pages 121-142.

(To read more of my articles on homosexuality, click HERE)

by

Homosexuality and Choice

See the source image

Homosexuality and Choice

James R. Aist

“We now have scientifically sound evidence, coming from homosexuals themselves, for a significant role of choice in homosexuality.“

Homosexual activists insist that homosexuality is not a choice, whereas many born-again Christians claim that it is. In my investigations into the truths about homosexuality, I have found that there is truth in both positions. Furthermore, a relatively recent scientific study has shed light on this issue and inspired me to take a second look into the relevant facts, which turn out to be quite instructive, if not surprising.

There seems to be some consensus that most homosexual people do not choose to have the same-sex attractions and sexual feelings that they experience initially, and I believe this consensus to be true. But that doesn’t mean that living a homosexual life-style does not involve choices. Once that first same-sex sexual attraction is encountered, there is a choice as to whether or not to act on it (either through fantasies or sexual encounters), and the same choice is made every time that attraction is experienced. Bi-sexual people make a choice every time they engage in homosexual sex rather than heterosexual sex. Heterosexual people who are married with children and then forsake their marriage for a homosexual relationship have made a choice to do so. And the fluidity in sexual orientation, found especially in lesbians but also in gays, speaks to the choice of sexual orientation available to many homosexual people, at least until their late teens (1). And where there is choice there is also the potential for change.

There is also reason to believe that, especially in the early days of one’s homosexual activity, the sexual pleasure experienced in homosexual encounters intensifies and reinforces same-sex attractions and sexual feelings, making it more difficult for any heterosexual inclinations to be sensed or expressed later on (2). At this point, homosexuality has become strongly established and sexual attractions, feelings, fantasies and behaviors are exclusively homosexual. Apparently, there is virtually no longer any role of choice involved, barring spontaneous change (3), effective therapy (4) or divine intervention.

The role of choice in the development of homosexuality has been investigated scientifically for more than two decades, but there have been severe limitations on the accuracy and reliability of the results because of inadequate sample sizes, unreliable sampling methods and the limited scope of the sampled populations (5, 6). Those limitations changed considerably in 2010 with publication of the results of a large, probability study of the USA population with respect to self-identified homosexuality (5). In this study, 12.1% of gay men, 31.6% of lesbians, 61.7% of bisexual men and 59.5% of bisexual women reported a small to large amount of perceived choice in their sexual orientation. This is the largest and most reliable scientific study to date of the role of choice in the development of homosexuality, and it revealed that, while a large majority of exclusively homosexual people do not believe choice had a significant role in their development of homosexuality, many of them believe it did. And a clear majority of bisexual men and women claim that there was a significant role of choice in the development of their sexual orientation. So, we now have scientifically sound evidence, coming from homosexuals themselves, for a significant role of choice in homosexuality. That said, we should keep in mind that the practice of homosexuality always involves a choice, as I implied in the opening paragraph.

Since choice 1) often is perceived to be a factor in the development of exclusive homosexuality, especially in women, and 2) always is involved in the practice of homosexuality, it should be of no surprise that the best evidence available on sexual orientation change efforts shows that both secular and religious therapy programs designed to help dissatisfied homosexuals overcome their homosexuality have success rates in the 25%-30% range (4). For these ex-homosexual people, homosexuality was not immutable. Rather, they chose to overcome it and did.

(Note: It is important to keep in mind that the summary data cited above on the role of choice in the development of homosexuality, despite being reported by individuals, applies directly only to the respective populations of the subjects in the studies and not necessarily to any one individual. Each person’s sexual orientation experience is unique to that person.)

References Cited:

  1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)
  2. Aist, J. 2012. Are Homosexuals Really Born Gay? (click HERE)
  3. Aist, J. 2012. Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen! (click HERE) 
  4. Aist, J. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News! (click HERE) 
  5. Herek, G.M., et al. 2010. Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample. Sex Res Soc Policy 7:176-200. 
  6. Diamond, L.M. and C.J. Rosky. 2016. Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities. J Sex Res 53:363-391.

 (To read more of my articles on homosexuality, click HERE)

by

Born-Gay Hoaxes “Outed” by Real Science!

See the source image

Born-Gay Hoaxes “Outed” by Real Science!

 James R. Aist

“You cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption. Proof requires objective evidence.”

Since the early 1970s, homosexual people have increasingly claimed that they were “born gay” and that, therefore, they could not change even if they wanted to. By repeating this claim over and over again for decades now, gay activists have managed to win over a large percentage of heterosexual “believers” to their cause, without any substantial basis in fact to validate the claim that they were “born that way.” And yet, this hoax remains deeply ingrained in our culture at all levels. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine carefully the scientific and other documentable facts concerning the origins and development of homosexuality to see if there is any truth at all to the “born gay” claim and its spawn, the “immutability” claim. The critical questions are 1) is homosexuality already determined at birth by biological factors and 2) is homosexuality, immutable (unchangeable). We now have several recent research and review articles to help us to arrive, once again, at the correct answers to these questions.

Is Homosexuality Already Determined at Birth by Biological Factors?

By far, the most powerful and reliable way to test the claim that homosexuals are born gay is to conduct scientific studies on data taken from large “twin registries.” The data in these large data bases are obtained randomly with little or no sample bias and are relatively representative of twins in the general population. In twin studies, the “concordance” answers the simple question, “Where one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, what percentage of co-twins is also homosexual?” The concordance of the twin pairs is a measure of the level of influence of biological factors (generally assumed to be the genetic influence) on whatever trait is being studied, in this case, homosexuality. If homosexuals are born gay, then whenever one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, the co-twin will also be homosexual, giving a concordance value of ~ 100%, indicating a very strong, determinant genetic influence. A concordance value of ~ 20%-30%, on the other hand, would indicate a weak, non-determinant influence of genetics.

The reader is referred to Aist, 2012 (click HERE), Diamond and Rosky, 2016 (click HERE) and Whitehead and Whitehead, 2012 (click HERE) for more extensive reviews of the pertinent scientific literature on twin studies. The recent study by Zietsch, et al., 2012 (click HERE) can be used to illustrate representative research results obtained with large samples from twin registries. They used a very large sample (9,884) of twins from the Australian Twin Registry, one of the largest samples to date for twin studies of homosexuality. In this sample, there were 1,840 identical twin pairs (1,133 female and 707 male). Their calculated value of 24% concordance for homosexuality indicates a weak genetic influence. Moreover, their calculated figure of 31% for heritability of homosexuality also indicates a weak genetic component. This leaves around 68% of the variance in the data set represented by post-natal, “shared environment” and “residual” environmental influences combined.

That brings us to the conclusion that homosexuality is not already determined at birth by biological factors (e.g., genetics). Simply put, these results not only do not provide scientific evidence to support the “born gay” claim, they provide definitive and conclusive, scientific proof that “born gay” is, in fact, a hoax. Real science has “outed” the born-gay hoax.

Is homosexuality immutable (unchangeable)?

The claim that homosexuality cannot change is a direct extension of the claim that homosexuals are born gay, and, as we have seen above, “born gay” is, itself, a total hoax. Nevertheless, it is possible to evaluate this claim scientifically on its own merit. Previously, several authors have assembled extensive and persuasive evidence to show that sexual orientation, including homosexual orientation, is not fixed, but is, instead, amazingly fluid (Aist, 2012, click HERE; Sorba, 2007, click HERE; and Whitehead and Whitehead, 2016, click HERE). A new and comprehensive review article written by two supporters of so-called “gay rights”, Diamond and Rosky (click HERE), focuses on four relatively new scientific studies that demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is, in fact, a fluid trait. These studies all used large data bases that followed the self-identified sexual orientation of individual subjects over long periods of time. Such “longitudinal” studies are the only way that the fluidity of sexual orientation in a representative sample of people can be documented and quantified. All four of these studies gave similar results regarding the considerable fluidity of sexual orientation. Here are some of the highlights, as reported by Diamond and Rosky:

  • In just 7 years, 30% of young adults with same-sex attraction changed to opposite-sex attraction;
  • Most, but not all, of this change involved bisexuals;
  • Of the homosexual young adults whose sexual orientation changed, 66% changed to heterosexuality;
  • All of these changes in sexual orientation occurred spontaneously;
  • Sexual orientation involved some degree of choice for many (10% of gay men, 30% of lesbians and 60% of bi-sexuals), according to one of the studies cited;
  • Homosexuality is fluid, not immutable;
  • The “born gay” claim is unscientific (i.e., not supported by the scientific research).

Perhaps the most often utilized and reliable of the several databases employed in such studies is the one called “Add Health.” Using this database, Udry and Chantala (Journal of Biosocial Science 37:481-497) found that 83% of 16-year-old, adolescent gay boys were neither gay nor bisexual one year later, at age 17. This same figure can be arrived at by doing the math on the data published by Savin-Williams and Joyner (Archives of Sexual Behavior 43:413-422), also from the Add Health database. Finally, Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) used the same Add Health data set to calculate that 98% of the 16-year-olds who were either homosexual or bisexual moved towards heterosexuality by age 17. In these studies, there was also a small percentage that moved from heterosexuality toward homosexuality. All of these changes in sexual orientation were spontaneous.

Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) also made the following pertinent observations from the published scientific literature:

  • Homosexuality is much more fluid than is heterosexuality, as 50% of homosexuals become heterosexual, but only 1.9% of heterosexuals become homosexual;
  • One study reported that 63% of lesbians and 50% of gay men, from age 18 to age 26, changed sexual orientation at least once;
  • Because of the higher levels of sexual orientation fluidity among homosexuals, at any given time there are more ex-gays than actual gays in the general population;
  • All of these reported changes in sexual orientation were spontaneous.

Mayer and McHugh (click HERE) recently published an extensive review of the scientific literature on sexual orientation. They supported the conclusions of others that:

  • There is strong scientific evidence that sexual orientation is fluid;
  • Women’s sexual orientation is consistently more fluid than men’s;
  • The sexual orientation of adolescents is more fluid that that of young adults;
  • Choice is a factor in the development of homosexuality.

So, in view of the sound, scientific evidence discussed above, we can conclude that the answer to this question is, “No, homosexuality is not immutable, but is, in fact, quite fluid.” Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) even went so far as to state that, “Rather than homosexuality being an unalterable condition, it is actually a good example of a changeable condition.” Thus, as with the born-gay hoax, real science has “outed” the immutability hoax.

Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (S.O.C.E.)

In view of the considerable amount of spontaneous fluidity of homosexuality, it should not be surprising that dissatisfied homosexual people can, in fact, change through S.O.C.E., the deceitful denials of gay activists notwithstanding. The success of efforts to help dissatisfied homosexual people change their sexual orientation toward heterosexuality through therapy and counseling is an integral part of the evidence against the “born gay” and the “immutability” claims. Such changes in sexual orientation have been amply documented for both secularly (click HERE) and religiously (click HERE) mediated efforts. Both approaches can be successful at a rate (~ 25%-30%) that is comparable to that for psychological disorders and for behavioral problems, such as alcoholism. While most of the individuals seeking S.O.C.E. have not experienced a 100% reversal in all aspects of sexual orientation, many, by their own testimony, have achieved substantial and meaningful changes in their sexual orientation that enable them to live celibate or exclusively heterosexual lifestyles that satisfy their personal goals. For the originally dissatisfied homosexual person, that is real, substantial and meaningful change. And there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify that they have changed (for examples, click HERE).

If homosexuality were determined by biological factors and immutable, then such transformations would not be possible. Thus, S.O.C.E. have “outed” both the “born gay” and the “immutability” hoaxes.

What Difference Does It Make?

The short answer is, it makes a huge difference, as discussed by Mayer and McHugh (click HERE) and Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE). The homosexual movement has used the “born gay” hoax and its correlate, the “immutability” hoax, to not only deceive the public and gain popular support for their “gay agenda” (click HERE), but they have managed to deceive also medical societies, church leaders, teachers, politicians and judges at all levels. The result is that, based largely on these and other hoaxes perpetrated by the homosexual movement (click HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE), many churches, teachers and politicians have come to believe (erroneously) that homosexual behavior is not only normal, but also natural, healthy, desirable and moral. This development represents a serious spiritual and moral decay in America.

Furthermore, politicians and judges are hard at work codifying homosexuality into laws (e.g., so-called “gay marriage” and anti-discrimination laws). Laws criminalizing the practice of S.O.C.E. to help children and adolescents overcome unwanted homosexuality (click HERE and HERE) are particularly heinous, because they selectively deny professional help to people who are at the most sexually confusing and unstable phase in their lives. This gives gay activists an “open season”, as it were, to target these vulnerable minors for recruitment into a life of homosexuality without interference from contrary influences, such as professional counselors and therapists. And, in the process, children and adolescents are denied their right to self-determination and parental rights are trampled underfoot, all in the name of sexual liberty.

If not checked soon, the homosexual movement will seriously erode our First Amendment right to the “free practice of religion” in America. Already, sexual liberty is being put ahead of religious freedom, and laws have been passed forcing even churches, under penalty of law, to accommodate homosexuals and transgenders on their terms (click HERE and HERE). The “gay agenda” is a mammoth social experiment – based largely on lies, myths and hoaxes – that is reaping dire consequences for America and proving to be a mistake of biblical proportions.

Summary

Multiple, scientific studies of homosexuality in identical twin pairs have demonstrated conclusively that biological factors (including genetics) do not determine the development of homosexuality. “Born gay” is a hoax. Several large-scale, longitudinal, scientific studies, numerous personal testimonies and the success of both secularly and religiously mediated sexual orientation change efforts prove that homosexuality is, in fact, quite fluid, not immutable. “Immutability” is also a hoax. Unfortunately, the homosexual movement has been able to dupe our society and its religious leaders, politicians, medical societies and judges into believing their lies, myths and hoaxes. This charade is causing serious damage to the spiritual and moral condition of American society, and it is eroding the constitutional provision to practice religion freely, as sexual liberty is increasingly being placed above religious freedom in the formulation and application of anti-discrimination laws and ordinances. The homosexual movement is a social experiment that will have dire consequences, unless America repents and God intervenes.

(For more articles on homosexuality by Professor Aist, click HERE)

by

The Transgender Movement: Addendum to the Review

See the source image

The Transgender Movement: Addendum to the Review

James R. Aist

Preface

In a previous article on the transgender movement, a comprehensive and scholarly review article by the Family Research Council was presented (13). The purpose of the present article is to touch on several important aspects of the topic that were either not dealt with at all, or deeply enough in my opinion, in that review. (The numbers in parentheses are keyed to the numbered references listed at the end of the article.)

What is Gender Identity Disorder?

Gender Identity Disorder (GID) – often called “Gender Dysphoria” to de-emphasize the mental delusion involved – is a mental disorder characterized by the feeling and belief that you are not really the gender of the body you were born in, but that of the opposite gender. Thus, a person born a male feels and believes that he is really a female trapped in a male body and identifies his gender as female, and a person born a female feels and believes that she is really a male trapped in a female body and identifies her gender as male. Such a person is said to be transgender, because he/she perceives their real gender to be opposite (trans) their birth gender. Conversely, a cisgender person feels and believes their real gender to be the same (cis) as their birth gender. Transgender people experience intense anxiety, distress and inner conflict, because their perceived gender does not match their actual, birth gender. These feelings and beliefs are, themselves, very real to the person experiencing them, but they do not correspond to the actual, biological gender. Therefore, they represent a virtual, rather than an actual, reality. That is to say, persons with GID are delusional with respect to their gender. The best estimates of the prevalence of GID put it in the range of 0.33%-0.47%, or less than one-half of one percent, of the general population (16). Thus, GID is not “normal.”

A Family of Psychoses

As Barber (5) and McHugh (10) have pointed out, GID belongs to a family of mental disorders, or “psychoses”, which are characterized, in part, by a mental departure from reality, referred to by psychiatrists as “delusion” (7). Perhaps the best known mental disorder of this family is anorexia. Anorexic people are actually skinny, but they feel and believe that they are grossly overweight. Transable is another mental disorder belonging to this family of psychoses. Transable people feel and believe that they are disabled, yet they are, in reality, physically whole and healthy people. And that brings us to transgender people. As mentioned above, they feel and believe that they are not really the biological gender of the body they were born in, but that of the opposite gender. This delusion has been likened to that of the Emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (10). In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of exquisite beauty imperceptible to the common man, paraded naked through the streets of his town for all to see. The people knew very well that the Emperor was deluded, but they were afraid to say anything to him about his nakedness, for fear of retribution.

So, how do we treat those who suffer from such delusional, mental disorders? Do we offer liposuction to anorexic people in order to affirm their delusion that they are fat and to ease their anxiety? Of course not; we feed them and get them therapy. Do we offer amputation to the transabled, or offer to poke their eyes out, in an attempt to bring their bodies into alignment with their transable delusion? Of course not; we get them therapy. Do we offer hormones and genital surgery to the transgendered to affirm their transgender delusions and help them feel better about themselves? Sadly, all too often, the answer to this question is “Yes”, when it should be “No.” The way to really help them is not to affirm their transgender delusions and assist them in mutilating their bodies, merely to help them feel better about themselves. Rather, we should refuse to affirm their gender delusion, treat them with dignity and respect, and encourage them to seek psychiatric help (10).

Perhaps the main reason that this particular psychosis is being dealt with differently than the other two is that transgender activists often seem to care more about helping the transgender people believe a lie to make them feel better about themselves than they care about the truth and the long-term psychological health of the transgendered (14). Who is really showing genuine love for transgender people, the one who affirms their delusional perception of their gender and encourages them to masquerade as a member of the opposite gender, or the one who challenges their delusion with the truth and encourages them to get the therapy they need to face the reality of their biological gender and begin to live comfortably, happily and honestly with it, if it persists? We don’t really help them by enabling them to add a life-long masquerade as a person of the opposite gender to a lifetime of mental delusion. Honesty and truth matter; there has to be a better way.

Children with GID

GID can begin to manifest when a child is just a few years old. In children, GID is highly treatable by psychotherapy (13). Nevertheless, transgender activists often recommend that parents affirm the child’s gender delusion and prepare the child to spend an entire lifetime living with this mental disorder, with the goal of going through the gender reassignment process at an “appropriate”, later age. Such an approach seems to ignore the fact that GID in children is not only treatable by psychotherapy, but that it resolves itself, spontaneously, 75% or more of the time by adulthood (11, 14). I can’t help but wonder how many lives are being ruined by this unthinkable travesty perpetrated on children and their parents by well-meaning mental health professionals, all in the name of political correctness and a misguided sense of compassion. Sadly, about 75% of the children whose GID resolves spontaneously identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual in adulthood (13, 16).

Apparent Causes of GID

There are basically two schools of thought concerning the cause(s) of GID. The long-held and historical explanation is that this disorder is caused by unresolved psychological conflicts and issues and traumatic experiences which are treatable, to a greater or lesser extent, by psychotherapy (10). Valid goals of psychotherapy include improved mental health, living more comfortably with GID, and abandoning the trans-gender, psychological delusion in favor of the cis-gender, biological reality. The other, more recent, and widely assumed explanation is that the cause is, somehow, biological in nature, rather than psychological, and is, therefore, unchangeable. As with homosexuality, the biological hypothesis involves such things as brain differences, hormones and genetics. But, how strong are the postulated influences of biological factors, and could they even possibly be sufficient to cause GID?

To answer this question, one would prefer to look at the evidence from studies of GID in identical twins with data taken from large, identical twin registries, as has been done with homosexuality (1). But, apparently, no such studies exist yet. To date the most reliable results have come from a very limited number of clinical studies reported in the literature. These studies have produced very small sample sizes that limit their statistical power and are subject to large sampling errors that can strongly bias the results. Nonetheless, it is of some value to examine the results of such studies, if only for their heuristic value.

In a sample of identical twins pairs in which at least one twin has GID, the percentage of twin pairs with both twins having GID is referred to as the “concordance” and is generally accepted to be a measure of the genetic influence on the development of GID. Diamond (8) assembled the clinical results from a number of different clinical reports on GID in identical twins, and found a concordance value of 38.7%. This level of concordance suggests that there may be a weakly moderate, non-determinant (i.e., non-causal) genetic influence on the development of GID.

Results of twin studies of homosexuality have shown that when large, relatively unbiased, twin registries are used to obtain the data base, the apparent genetic influence on the development of homosexuality is found to be much less than previously thought (15). Therefore, I speculate that the same result will be found someday for transgenderism, when twin registries are used (i.e., the real level of genetic influence on the development of GID will likely be found to be weak, perhaps in the 15%-20% range).

There is reason to believe that identical twin studies actually tell us more than what the genetic influence per se is. Because identical twins share the same womb during pregnancy, these studies presumably reveal the combined influence of all possible prenatal, biological factors, not just the genetic factors. Therefore, these results (8) actually suggest that the influence of all biological factors combined is not sufficient to cause the development of GID. In other words, it appears that no one is born with GID. Rather, GID seems to result partially from pre-natal, biological influences and primarily from post-natal factors and influences, such as unresolved psychological conflicts and issues and traumatic experiences.

What is a Christian Response to GID?

What does the Bible say?

Let’s begin with Genesis 1:27 (with Mark 10:6) and Genesis 1:28. God makes mankind, including transgender persons, in His own image as male and female. Recall that God Himself created the first two human beings, Adam and Eve. Thus, as male and female, mankind can manifest the image of God by participating with God in the continuing creation of new, male and female, human beings. GID can prevent this manifestation of the image of God in us and keep us from being the complete man or woman God desires us to be. Therefore, GID is not natural.

Now, let’s move on to Deuteronomy 22:5, where God gives us instruction concerning a common manifestation of transgenderism; namely, “cross dressing”: “A woman must not wear man’s clothing, nor is a man to put on a woman’s clothing. For all that do so are abominations to the Lord your God.” (Note that this Old Testament instruction is a moral law, and, as such, is fully in force in today’s Christian church.) The Hebrew word translated “abomination” in the KJV and MEV translations is translated in many other modern English versions of the Bible as “detestable”, disgusting”, “abhorrent”, or “hateful” to God, leaving no room for doubt that God does not approve of transgender acts. But notice further that the verse says that “all that do so” are, themselves, abominations (hateful) to God. “But”, you may object, “doesn’t God love sinners?” Indeed He does, but, at the same time, He also hates those who are sinning (Psalms 5:5, Psalms 11:5, Proverbs 3:32, Proverbs 11:20). This may be a surprise to you, but remember the good news: God’s perfect love has made a way for His hatred of sinners to be cancelled, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. This good news is for all who sin against God in any way, including transgender people.

Finally, we come to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, and you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus by the Spirit of our God.” Professor Robert Gagnon, one of our most prominent, contemporary, evangelical Bible scholars, had this to say about this passage, and I quote: “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” (9). Fortunately (for them and us), the same passage goes on to say that the power and authority (i.e., the “name”) of Jesus is able to both rid them of their sinful behavior and save their souls!

Let’s look into this aspect a bit further. I see a parallel here with the condition of homosexuality. God does not hate homosexuals because they develop same-sex attractions; they do not choose to have them. But He does hate them when they choose to act on those feelings by having homosexual sex (a sin). Likewise, God does not hate transgender persons because they develop GID; they did not choose to be gender confused. But, when they choose to act contrary to His design and purposes (sin, e.g., by cross dressing, undergoing so-called “gender re-asssignment”, etc.), that’s when He hates them. And, this is the same manner in which God deals with mankind concerning any other kind of sin, is it not? We sin and trigger God’s hatred, not by being tempted to sin, but by giving in to the temptation and choosing to commit sinful acts. With that perspective, it should be easier for us to refrain from condemning transgender persons; for we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

And, here is a further, often overlooked, ramification of Deuteronomy 22:5 and 1 Corinthians 1:6-9. If a male-to-female transgender person has sex with a man, he is committing a homosexual sin, because he is, in reality, still a man. Likewise, if a female-to-male transgender person has sex with a female, she is committing a homosexual sin, because she is, in reality, still a woman. Do not be deceived: God will not be mocked by anyone masquerading as a member of the opposite gender. After all, He is the one who created man with the XY sex chromosome configuration and woman with the XX sex chromosome configuration, and no amount or manner of pretending will ever change that.

That brings us to my final point in this section. Some transgender activists accuse God of making people gender confused. So, let me be very clear about this: God does not make anyone transgender! What kind of a “god” would create human beings that he purposely made to be an abomination to himself?! The God of the Bible is neither sadistic nor self-defeating. While it is true that God does not make mistakes, it is also true that God, for the time being at least, does allow mistakes to be made. For example, does He not allow us to sin? So then, how is it that transgenderism developed in a world created by a sovereign, morally perfect God? The answer is right before our eyes: like homosexuality (2), transgenderism came about as the result of original sin (16) and the resultant curse under which all of creation will continue to be compromised until the return of Jesus Christ to restore God’s creation to its original, perfect condition. Until then, let us not slander God by accusing Him of creating in us the sin nature that we struggle against, regardless of how that sin nature is manifested!

How should Christians respond?

In short, we should not condemn transgender persons themselves, and, at the same time, it seems to me, we should not affirm their gender delusion. In this regard, however, Yarhouse (16) recommended the following approach : “If Sara shares her name with me, as a clinician and Christian, I use it. I do not use this moment to shout “Integrity!” by using her male name or pronoun, which clearly goes against that person’s wishes. It is an act of respect, even if we disagree, to let the person determine what they want to be called. If we can’t grant them that, it’s going to be next to impossible to establish any sort of relationship with them.”  In any case, we must treat transgender persons with dignity and respect, be honest with them, have compassion for their suffering, and pray earnestly for them. We should not try to “fix” them (16). If the opportunity arises, we should encourage them to seek God’s help through prayer and/or psychotherapy in order to work through their underlying psychological issues and concerns. As with all ungodly conditions and behaviors that afflict fallen mankind, God can say the word, and healing will come. Of course, whether, or how, He chooses to heal is up to Him.

Perhaps you would like to read what several, prominent, evangelical Christian leaders have recently written about a Christian response to transgenderism. If so, I refer you to references (6, 9, 12, and 16) at the end of this article. These are all potentially helpful articles for anyone who sincerely wants to be Christ-like in their response to the transgender movement. I especially recommend that you read the article by Yarhouse (16) and then the article by Gagnon (9), which is a response to it. As Christians, we must be careful to reach out to transgender people on our own terms, not theirs, if we want to help them find redemption in Jesus Christ. And that should be our end game.

A good, Christian website with personal testimonies and lots more information on GID is “Help 4 Families” (18).

Unrestricted Public Facilities: A Freedom Way Too Far!

For purposes of clarity, let me first point out that I am using the term “public facilities” to refer to all shared restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, dressing rooms and shower rooms (Did I leave anything out?) in the public arena (i.e., outside of private residences).

The review article (13) touched on this issue briefly, pointing out that male-to-female transgendered “females” are perceived to be less of a threat to real females in public facilities than are gender-normal males pretending to be transgendered, and that may be true. The threat is not only regarding actual sexual assault, but also voyeurism, where a gender-normal male would behave as a “peeping Tom” (a person who gets pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from secretly watching others), as it were, and thus invade the bodily privacy of unsuspecting females.

And here’s an eye opener for you. I have discovered a couple of little-known fact that should, perhaps, be of even greater concern than the “transgender pretender.” Let’s assume, for a moment, that transgender activists are correct in asserting that the male-to-female transgendered “females” using women’s public facilities are going to outnumber the transgender pretenders. Then, the greatest threat could come, hypothetically, from the male-to-female transgendered “females” themselves, based on sheer numbers. But, you may ask, “Why would the male-to-female transgendered “females” pose a threat to the real females in women’s public facilities?” Here’s why: scientific studies (3, 4) have found that 73%-81% of male-to-female transgendered “females” are still sexually attracted to females! Moreover, only 25%-30% of transgender people having undergone gender re-assignment have had any kind of gender-confirming surgery, meaning that more than two-thirds of male-to-female transgendered “females” using women’s public facilities will still have their God-given genitals intact(17). Think about that for a moment, and then let me ask you this: Do you want male-to-female transgendered “females” with fully functional male genitals getting “turned on” sexually by your wife or daughter while using women’s public facilities? I didn’t think so. Moreover, it’s not difficult to guess what else they might feel compelled to do once they are sexually “turned on.” This is why I believe that male-to-female transgendered “females”, rather than transgender pretenders, could prove to be the greatest threat to women using unrestricted public facilities.

At present, we have laws against “peeping Toms.” They are arrested, tried in a court of law, and, if found guilty, given an appropriate jail sentence. But if male-to-female transgendered “female” peeping Toms can legally be in women’s public facilities and are, somehow, “caught in the act” by the victim, they could get off scot free, because it would be virtually impossible to prove that they were actually peeping, and they would have a legal right to be in the facility. Thus, legally enforced, unrestricted access to public facilities, in effect, legalizes voyeurism. And that just isn’t right!

The absurdity of shared public facilities has to stop! Gender-normal persons outnumber gender-deluded persons by a ratio of about 250:1. It makes no sense to put the personal interests of such a tiny minority above the personal interests of such a vast majority. Gender-normal persons’ safety and feelings matter too! Accommodating the needs of transgender persons by providing gender-neutral facilities is going far enough. Surely they can deal with their feelings and distress privately for a few minutes while they “do their business”, without having to victimize the gender-normal public to accommodate their mental disorder in the process! Furthermore, a policy of shared public facilities opens the door to sexual perverts and sexual offenders, making it easier for them to gain access to their potential victims and, potentially, to get away with it. No one is even allowed to ask about their perceived gender status. To force the gender-normal majority to compromise their safety (real or imagined) and their very real right to bodily privacy in public facilities is clearly “a freedom way too far!”

Transgender activists accuse gender-normal activists of creating an anti-transgender hysteria based on fear mongering, rather than real-life events, concerning unrestricted public facilities. So that you will know the truth, I have assembled just a few of the many recent reports where real-life conflicts have been caused by unrestricted public facility policies. You can decide for yourself if you think this is just anti-transgender hysteria based on fear mongering:

  • Sexual assault victims speak out (click HERE)
  • Man lounging around naked in girl’s locker room at college (click HERE)
  • Man strips in front of girls in locker room at pool (click HERE)
  • Nine-year-old girl in boys bathroom at school (click HERE)
  • Store lets men use women’s dressing room (click HERE)
  • “Transgender” sexual predator in women’s shelter (click HERE)
  • Men in women’s restroom prompts ACLU leader to resign (click HERE).

References Cited:

1. Aist, J. 2014a. What Twin Studies Tell Us about Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture. (click HERE)

2. Aist, J. 2014b. God Does Not Make Anyone Homosexual! (click HERE)

3. Auer, M., et al., 2014. Transgender Transitioning and Change of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation. PloS One. (click HERE)

4. Author unspecified. 2016. Transgender sexuality, References 7 and 8. Wikipedia. (click HERE)

5. Barber, M. 2015. Transwhatever. RenewAmerica. (click HERE)

6. Brown, M. 2015. Can the Church Embrace the Transgender Community? Charisma News. (click HERE)

7. Definition of Psychosis, New York Times Health Guide. (Click HERE)

8. Diamond, M. 2013. Transsexuality Among Twins: Identity, Concordance, Transition, Rearing, and Orientation. International Journal of Trandgenderism 14:1, pages 24-38. (click HERE)

9. Gagnon, R. 2015. How Should Christians Respond to the Transgender Phenomenon? First Things. (click HERE)

10. McHugh, P. 2015. Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme. The Public Discourse. (click HERE)

11. McHugh, P. 2016. Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution. Wall Street Journal. (click HERE)

12. Moore, R. 2015. What Should the Church Say to Bruce Jenner? The Christian Post. (click HERE)

13. O’Leary, D. and P. Sprigg. 2015. Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement. Family Research Council. (click HERE)

14. Sprigg, P. 2016. Transgender Activists Put Ideology Above Safety. Family research Council. (click HERE)

15. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 10. Twin studies: The strongest evidence. (click HERE)

16. Yarhouse, M. 2015. Understanding the Transgender Phenomenon. Christianity Today. (click HERE)

17.  Bernstein, L. 2015. Here’s how sex reassignment surgery works. The Washington Post. (click HERE)

18. Help 4 families. (click HERE)