Sunday, April 29, 2012

Transsexual Transgression



   OK, we’re gonna talk about Jenna here- our creepy Canadian beauty queen.  A queen that continues to get considerable news coverage… even in our parliaments.
   A queen that was actually born a guy.  And continues to be a guy.  Despite considerable cosmetic surgery. 
   Surgery that most transsexuals consider essential.  Expensive surgery that many transsexuals believe should be funded by our crazy Health Insurance Plan.  Funded along with our free abortions.
   Anyway, Jenna is now enjoying playing the martyr.  Now enjoying being the center of attraction.  Now enjoying being an anarchist in the Miss Universe contest.  Now seeking transcendent rights for transsexuals.   Now becoming the latest champion for transsexuals… in an arena of illusion.
   In an arena where reality doesn’t matter all that much.  An arena where it’s more a case of being booby-and-blonde with noble pretensions.  Where the best agent, surgeon and script writer wins.
   So anyway, it seems that Jenna/John could not accept the “Born This Way” mantra of modern-day -guru Gaga and got surgery to alter the way he was born.  He got his penis cut off 4 years ago and experienced “excruciating pain” as a result.     And then to flaunt and finance his expensive surgery and perpetual hormonal injections he entered a different circus… the Miss Universal arena. 
   Then Jenna got a good lawyer to keep him in this arena.  A lawyer to force the owner of this show-and-tell arena to bow to political correctness.  To bow to the sentimentality of Tolerance.
   Surprisingly the owner of Miss Universe has been trumped here.  Yes, Donald Trump himself.  But either Trump bows to the mentality or he gets broken here.  Either he bows or he gets sued… unless he can find a better lawyer.  A lawyer that can actually define the “natural born gender” intention of the Miss Universe Pageant rules.
   Yet such an intention might be labelled as ‘brutally discriminatory’ in light of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) redefinition of gender. WHO’s definition that ‘gender is a social construct rather than a physical construct’.  WHO’s assertion that it is “learned behavior that makes up gender identity and determines gender roles”.   That such roles are fluid and that sex is merely an expression of your social role at that particular time.   And that “natural born gender” should not be confused with ‘natural born sex’.  A bold redefinition by WHO.
   And it appears that Canada’s parliament is redefining as well.  Is now addressing Bill C-279  in parliament again as a result of Jenna.  A Bill that is crudely called “the Bathroom Bill” since there would be some creepy ‘bathroom issues’ associated with fluid gender roles. 
   This recent Bill is intending to make transsexual discrimination a criminal issue, by appealing to an argument from silence in our Canadian Charter of Rights.  And though the intention of the founder of our Charter of Rights (Pierre Trudeau) was that ‘the State has no business in the private bedrooms of our nation’- I expect he would feel differently about creepy business done in the public bathrooms of our nation.
   And it also appears that our provincial government is being forced to redefine (with yet another Bill to be presented on May 10).  It seems a Human Rights Tribunal is lobbying our provincial government to acknowledge a change in sex even if the distinguishing organs remain intact…making public ‘bathroom issues’ even more creepy. 
   Yet it seems that a certain test would have to be implemented in order for this Bill to pass.  That our Human Rights Tribunal would have to fabricate and authorize an objective personality test in order to render a gender determination.  But how can you be objective about something as subjective as personality? 
   Well, just have a look at what has been proposed in the highly recognized COGIATI test here.  A short test with subjective questions like…‘Do you like or dislike math’ and ‘do you like or dislike your erections’.  A test with’ likes’ as flexible and facile as FaceBook…  Facebook with Alzheimers. 
   Yet, how subjective is the traditional forensic test?  Where function actually determines gender?
   Well, not nearly as subjective of a test when we are dealing with a body that rarely forgets.  Dealing with a body where erections and menstrual periods happen… whether we log in or not.  Whether we actually ‘like’ them or not :)
   However, I’d like to look at the arguments that the transgender community actually present. And in particular, look at what a “transgendered Christian” has to say in his defense.  A person with a site called TransChristians.
   A person who calls himself Ephilei.  A self-proclaimed  “liberal Orthodox Christian” who says that transsexuality is not actually a transgression.  An ‘egalitarian Christian’ that holds contempt for the alleged “ever changing positions” of complimentarians like John Piper…but that’s a different subject.
   And what I’d like to address of Ephilei’s in this post, are two of his contentions (we’ll get to his objections later).   Firstly, his contention that “transitioning is the lesser of two evils”.   And then his contention  that ‘transsexuality is not in fact evil’.
   So firstly, I happen to think that presenting transitioning as “the lesser of two evils” is a false dilemma.  Primarily because I happen to think that a choice to support the “lesser evil” is not in fact an evil choice- but rather a morally good choice.  A choice that ultimately yields rewards. While an evil choice yields liabilities.  And that 'cutting oneself off' is generally a destructive choice..
   Yet it is suggested by Ephilei that a choice of emasculation or of effeminination 'must indeed be made'.  That one must cut oneself off in order not to feel like a hypocrite.   And in order not to be tempted beyond what is biblically “impossible to bear” (1 Cor. 10:13). 
   But hypocrisy is hardly “impossible to bear” is it?  Most people do it every day.  Many times a day... with little consequence.
   So let’s deal with Ephilei’s second contention that, ‘transsexuality must not in fact be in evil’.   Not evil because, ‘God will not allow you to be tempted to the extent that he would not allow  you to transition a means of escape’(cf. 1 Cor.10:13).  And that transitioning is a gracious means of escape that God has now in fact provided.  And Ephilei’s dull contention that, ‘if God does not strengthen us to escape [the desire of ] transsexuality then it must not be a sinful desire’.
   Well, the apostle Paul isn’t exactly talking about escaping the ‘desire’ in this verse.   Paul is talking  about the pursuit and fulfilment of the temptation/desire here.  And God does indeed provide an escape from the pursuit and fulfilment of the temptation/desire.
   That God does indeed provide an escape from the fulfillment of transsexual transgression. Just as he provides me with an escape from fulfilling polygamous desires.  Provides me with an escape from the fulfillment of that which was not intended by Him.  Escape from that which is an affront to Him.
   And He provides that escape by providing His children with the power and means to say “NO”.
Yes, the very same escape that God provided to a starving Jesus in the wilderness (Luke 4).  Provided the very same escape to a sacrificially challenged Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42).  And the very same escape to a crucifixially challenged Jesus on the cross in Golgotha (Luke 23:37).   
   The escape of saying, “NO”.
   An escape which led to His ultimate exaltation.  To His huge reward with the Father. 
   An escape taken in light of a far, far greater attraction… the attraction of the love of the Father (Phi. 2:11).  And dear reader- is there any greater attraction than the love of God?
   Indeed, an attraction far greater than the desire of polygamous sex.  And a far greater attraction than the desire for transsexual sex.  
A malignant attraction that would prefer to see you cut off and cause you ‘excruciating pain’… for a long, long time. 
   
   Ouch!