Lies Behind Gender Identity Theories

Sexologist’s Death Spotlights Lies Behind ‘Gender Identity’ Theories

By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
July 21, 2006

(AgapePress) – A pro-family leader says the recent death of prominent psychologist and sexologist Dr. John Money, Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins University highlights the faulty foundations of the so-called "gender identity" movement.

After Dr. Alfred Kinsey, Money — who died earlier this month, one day before his 85th birthday — was perhaps the best known and most influential sexologist ever. He is said to have laid the foundation for the transgender movement by starting the gender identity program at Johns Hopkins.

Bob Knight     

But critics like Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute claim both Kinsey and Money relied on faulty research and had a "no limits" view of human sexuality. And both, the pro-family spokesman notes, have left an unfortunate legacy of medical misinformation and misguided psychological theories, all based on falsehoods with tragic consequences for modern society.

Knight says Money is particularly notorious for his role in the case of David Reimer, a baby boy whose parents were convinced, after a seriously bungled circumcision, to turn their son into a daughter. At the sexologist’s urging, the parents agreed to have their son surgically rendered anatomically female.

Later, the child received estrogen injections and was raised as a girl under Money’s supervision at the Psychohormonal Research Unit at Johns Hopkins. This so-called "gender reassignment," which was a tragedy for the child, was touted as a triumph by the doctor, Knight points out. "John Money," he notes, "for 14 years reported in scientific journals that it had been a complete success, proving that biology has nothing to do with your sexual identity."

Only years afterward was the sad truth revealed, the Culture and Family Institute spokesman explains. "All along, this little boy was yearning to be a boy, did not want to wear dresses, rejected his female identity," he says. "And this came out later in Rolling Stone magazine, and then in a book called As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto — how Money falsified the findings in order to prove that gender is just a construct in your head."

Unfortunately, Knight points out, the doctor’s deception proved widely influential. "The feminists quoted John Money’s articles extensively, saying that maleness and femaleness had nothing to do with your biological self — it’s just who you think you are," he says.

"So it paved the way," the pro-family advocate continues, "for a couple generations of confused people [to be led into] believing that they were born in the wrong bodies." Many of these confused people were "encouraged to undergo even surgery," Knight says. "This is a tragedy."

According to some sources, Money’s misrepresentations of his findings and his unreported failure with David Reimer have led more or less directly to the surgical reassignment of thousands of infants as a matter of policy at many medical institutions. The well-known sexologist’s ideas have also influenced many teens and adults to try to address their psychological gender-identity confusion with drastic sexual reassignment surgery.

Two year’s ago, Paul McHugh, chief psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins, expressed distaste for the way many in the psychiatric community have encouraged patients to pursue sexual reassignment. He observed that psychiatrists, instead of counseling people who were questioning their gender identity to visit a surgeon, should have been helping clients restore their actual gender identity.

Homosexuality vs. Health

Gay Behaviors vs. Public Health
By Robert Seidenberg 
Published 6/29/2006 12:07:19 AM

 
 "Are you a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977?"

This is one of the questions that all U.S. blood collection facilities must ask when they administer the pre-donation questionnaire to screen potential donors. Anyone answering yes to this question is "indefinitely deferred," or in plain language, banned for life from donating blood. Despite pressure from gay advocates to change it, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has maintained this policy for 22 years. However, the pressure has intensified lately with gay activists successfully stopping college blood drives with cries of "discrimination."

Thus, this past March, the FDA held yet another workshop to review the male-sex-with-male (MSM) policy, and will convene the Blood Product Advisory Committee (BPAC) in mid-July to render an official decision. Based on recommendations made at the workshop, it is very likely that BPAC will finally recommend a modified policy. If they do, gays will claim a victory over "discrimination," and that is all that will be reported in the sound-bite media.

Although the idea that the FDA has been arbitrarily discriminating against gays is nonsense, no one in the biomedical establishment will attempt to counter this assertion because the very purpose of the change is to allay the "perception of discrimination." Whichever new policy is enacted could still essentially be a lifetime ban.

Once we delve below the headlines, we find that far from discriminating against homosexuals, our biomedical establishment has gone out of its way to mollify them, even to the point of compromising public health. While the medical literature on the dangers of homosexual behavior is massive, and readily available on the web if you search for it, it is omitted from literature directed specifically to the public. That the FDA now finds itself in the awkward position of repealing a successful blood-safety policy in order to ward off hysteria over "discrimination," is largely due to the fact that our public health officials have always failed to state plainly that the gay lifestyle is dangerous.

The Policy Debate
Since the late 1990s, responding to pressure from gay advocates, some experts have proposed that the ban could be safely reduced to a rolling five-year period or even a rolling 12-month period. What this means is that the question would be changed to "Are you a male who has had sex, even once, with another male in the past five years [or 12 months]?" A ‘yes’ answer would result in another five-year [or 12-month] deferral. But this debate only underscores the serious risks of homosexual behavior.

First of all, it reflects a unanimous agreement that at least a rolling 12-month deferral is necessary. Second, even the least stringent form of the ban is essentially a life-time ban: With a rolling 12-month deferral, a man who wished to donate blood on a regular basis would have to refrain from homosexual relations for years at a time. Third, the proposals to narrow the ban are based entirely on improvements in blood-testing technology. Proponents of the five-year and 12-month deferrals argue that the window of time when infection could be present but not detected by a laboratory test has been sufficiently reduced to allow for a lower limit. No one has posited that MSM sex is less risky than previously thought.

Yet, despite the political volatility of the subject, the ban has heretofore been retained in its most stringent form. Why? Because, while every version of the deferral offers some protection against circumstances under which a laboratory test may not detect a known pathogen; the longer the deferral, the better the protection against an unknown pathogen. To appreciate this concern, we have to address the question that is never publicly discussed:

What Do Homosexuals Do That Is So Dangerous?
The over-emphasis on condom use for "safe sex" has created the false impression that all sexual behaviors are equally risky. Yet homosexual men use condoms more than heterosexual couples. Nonetheless, homosexuals are a high risk group for a host of illnesses, while among heterosexuals, only prostitutes are considered at high risk.

The cause of concern is the typical behavior in the gay culture. Characteristic behaviors include extreme promiscuity, anal intercourse, and anal-oral contact. Each of these alone is a high risk behavior. Combined, they expose participants to an immeasurable number of viral and bacterial infections.

The media constantly portray the gay lifestyle as parallel to normal heterosexual life, but the lifestyles are not remotely the same. For example, extreme promiscuity occurs in only a small percentage of the general population. According to the National Health and Social Life survey, the average number of lifetime sex partners in the general population is four (six for men, two for women). By comparison, numerous studies show that gay men typically have hundreds of sex partners. The well-known Bell/Weinberg study found that 74 percent of gay men reported having more than 100 partners, 41 percent more than 500 partners, and 28 percent more than 1,000 partners.

As a result of these activities, men who have sex with men (MSM) constitute a high risk group for syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and AIDS. Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which causes anal warts, is almost universal among MSM, and make MSM the highest risk group for anal cancer, with incidence 39 times greater than the general population. MSM are also almost uniquely at risk for a cluster of painful gastrointestinal ailments known collectively as Gay Bowel Syndrome. And this list of ailments peculiar to the gay lifestyle is far from exhaustive.

This brings us back to the key reason why the 1977-to-life ban has been maintained: the concern about unknown pathogens. Just as HIV/AIDS entered the blood supply in the 1980s because it was impossible to have a laboratory test for an undiscovered virus; so it is continually possible that a new, as yet unidentified pathogen, could enter the blood supply. The etiology of transfusion-acquired AIDS was directly correlated with the number of homosexual men in a blood bank’s donor base. Because the homosexual lifestyle continues to be characterized by the high risk behaviors described above, the question remains how a five-year rolling deferral could protect the blood supply from a currently unidentified pathogen that, like HIV, has a 10-15 year incubation period.

This concern has been validated on several occasions; most recently in July 2005, when a new, drug resistant, strain of HIV was discovered in gay men in New York and California. Hemophiliacs, who comprise the only organized group regularly dependent on blood products, remain vehemently opposed to modifying the MSM policy, specifically because of the concern about unknown pathogens. During the 1980s, as a result of transfusion-acquired HIV, life expectancy for hemophiliacs plummeted from 68 to 49 years. The introduction of the MSM donor deferral policy, two years before an HIV screening test could be developed, resulted in a 90 percent reduction in the risk of acquiring HIV by transfusion. Modifying the current policy compromises the most vulnerable transfusion recipients.

Sending the Wrong Message
Putting the transfusion question aside, the biomedical establishment is compromising a much larger group by failing to speak candidly about the dangers of MSM behavior. This failure is evident in the gross discrepancy between blood banking’s internal literature, used to regulate the manufacture of blood products; and its external or public relations, literature, used to inform the public about risk and safety issues.

We would expect consistency in these two types of literature. If, for example, intravenous drug use is identified as a risk behavior in the regulatory literature, we would expect it to be identified as a risk behavior in the public relations literature as well. And in fact, it is. Yet this is not the case with regard to homosexual behavior. Here, instead, the dual literatures are in glaring contradiction to each other.

For example, in a Red Cross educational teen comic book, we are given the specific messages that intravenous drug use is a risk behavior, and that sex without condoms is a risk behavior, but homosexuality is not regarded as a behavior at all; it is "who you are"; and, as the comic book also makes clear, anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant bigot.

In the regulatory literature, on the other hand, MSM is defined as a "high risk behavior" and identity labeling is studiously avoided. Early on in the development of the questionnaire, the FDA discovered that many men who had had some same-sex contact, did not identify themselves as "gay" or "bi." Thus the questionnaire evolved to be strictly behavioral. It does not ask, "Are you gay?" It asks specifically about the behavior, the frequency of behavior ("even one time"), and the time frame in which the behavior occurred ("since 1977"). And, of course, the whole debate over the deferral policy is about time frame, which reflects the underlying knowledge that homosexual behavior, rather than inclination, is what is at issue.

With Hollywood glamorizing gay life, government and religious authorities endorsing it, and our biomedical establishment failing to issue the proper warnings, an increasing number of young men are being drawn to try this behavior. Insanely, the San Francisco Department of Public Health website offers instructions for "safely" engaging in anal intercourse, analingus, even "fisting."

The fact that young men are being sent the wrong message is evident in the continuous stream of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that show sharp increases in AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other illnesses among MSM, after a brief period of decline during the AIDS panic of the 1980s. Despite two decades and billions spent in "AIDS awareness," risk behavior is again rampant; and not surprisingly, a disproportionate percentage occurs among youth ages 15 to 22.

Our public health officials now find themselves in the odd position of kowtowing to an identity group whose activists believe that in order to fulfill their identity they must engage in the very acts that health officials, and anyone with an ounce of common sense, know to be unhealthy. The only way to stop this madness is for our health institutions — in particular the CDC, the FDA, and American Red Cross — to launch an education program to inform the public of the high risks of homosexual behavior. Given the public mood, it’s not an easy course. But this is the solid reality. To continue to indulge in the popular delusion of the activist homosexual lobby will only further erode the public health.

Robert Seidenberg worked as a technical writer at American Red Cross Blood Services, National Headquarters from 1994 to 2002.   

USA Schooling the Communist Way Part 2

U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way

                                   Part 2

By Brannon S. Howse

 After Part 1 of this series appeared, I received several e-mails that confirmed my fears: Far too many of my fellow citizens actually think school-to-work is a good idea.
“Why,” I wondered, “would any American think the merging of education with industrial production as found in the Communist Manifesto benefits our children?” It must be because they are educated beyond their intelligence, they love socialism and communism, or they don’t recognize Marxism even when it stares them in the face.
Let me be very clear on a few things. First, I do think vocational education is a good idea. I also think apprenticeship programs are an outstanding approach to career preparation for some people. Too many students are pressured to go to college just because “that’s the way to get ahead.” And I certainly do not believe state and federal governments should be the ones pressuring students to go to college or not or pressuring students to pick certain career majors. All students from first grade through the twelfth should receive a strongly academic education that will well prepare them to be thinking, creative persons in life and in whatever career they choose.  
If you think school-to-work style education reform is not occurring where you live, then you need to ask whether or not your state receives any federal education funds. If your state is not receiving federal dollars, this communist brand of education reform may not be taking place. But lest you be even slightly optimistic, I’ll tell you plainly that I don’t know of a single state that has rejected federal education funds and the accompanying mandates. That means, it’s happening right where you live. Whether it is private grants, No Child Left Behind, or some other U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Labor program, states are rushing to comply with federal requirements so they can gorge themselves at Uncle Sam’s money trough.
Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington are further along in their implantation of school-to-work/ready-to-work/Small Learning Communities, but make no mistake: Every state in the union has school districts that are in some way weaving this reform package into their systems, thereby moving America down the road toward a centrally planned economy.
Lynn Cheney, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney, is the former chair-woman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. While serving with NEH, Mrs. Cheney wrote about the dangers of school-to-work:
A central thesis of school-to-work plans, for example, is that eighth-graders should choose careers. To help them along, schools administer interest and personality assessments that direct students toward specific occupations, often ones that have little to do with their ambitions. Kristine Jensen, a Nevada mother, told me that her daughter, an honor student who wants to work for NASA, had been advised to consider a career in sanitation or interior design. Eunice Evans, a parental-rights advocate in Pennsylvania, described a boy in her neighborhood that wanted to be a doctor but was told it would be more appropriate for him to be a gas station attendant or a truck-driver.

            Mrs. Cheney also pointed out the goal of workforce development boards—backed profusely by federal funds—that now exist in almost every state:

To consider future market needs and decide which career choices schools should encourage. But predicting work-force needs is an iffy business. In 1989, for example, a prestigious study declared that by 1997, there would be a substantial shortage of humanities Ph.D’s, when, in fact, there is now a glut.
We need more public servants like Craig Hagen who will take a stand for what is right. In her congressional testimony, Lynn Cheney told Mr. Hagen’s story:
Concerned that schools in his state would get in the business of enforcing politically correct thinking led Craig Hagen, North Dakota’s Commissioner of Labor, to resign from his state’s school-to-work management team earlier this year. “I couldn’t remain in that position with my principles,” he said.

           But abuses abound. In Las Vegas, for example, Rene Tucker’s daughter, Darcy, was pulled out of a geography class without her parents’ consent in order to be given a computerized career assessment. Although Darcy wants to become a veterinarian, the computer held that she should be a bartender or waitress, and it spat out a list of courses she ought to take toward that end. Mrs. Tucker said, “We’re Christians, and the school stepped on my toes as a parent. It is my job to direct my child’s career path, and it would not be in her best interest to be a bartender.” Given the gargantuan hospitality needs of the state, it might be in Nevada’s best interest to turn Darcy into one of the minions of the gambling and entertainment industry, but that approach to career path development sounds more like it belongs in the 1960s Soviet Union than in 21st century America.

A few years ago I testified before the Kansas state senate along with Rene Tucker. We were joined by an economist from Hillsdale College to urge Kansas not to implement school-to-work in that state. The anticipated tidal wave of federal funds was too much for the mere state of Kansas to resist, though, and on behalf of its people, the state legislature instead rejected common sense and freedom to imbibe the failed economic polices of communism.
In his now classic book, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote,
To bring about the revolution we require…Enabling government managers to assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy. Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.

            In other words, those who do not agree with the State’s worldview or “standards” will not be encouraged to pursue positions of power or influence either socially or economically.

A career exploration test already used in six states features 100 true or false questions, including these:
• I have taught a Sunday school class or otherwise take an active part in my church;
• I believe in a God who answers prayers;
• I believe that tithing is one’s duty to God;
• I pray to God about my problems;
• It is important that grace be said before meals;
• I read the Bible or other religious writings regularly;
• I believe in life after death;
• I believe that God created man in his own image;
• If I ask God for forgiveness, my sins are forgiven.
          Now let that sink in for a moment, and then ask yourself this question: Why are such questions included on a career exploration test if not to determine the “proper place” to assign each student? The benign answer, of course, is to find out whether or not someone is suited to a job as a church pastor. But there is also a frighteningly non-benign possibility as Christian thought becomes increasingly marginalized in our culture. It could all too easily become the new frontier for “black balling” undesirables such as people who actually think God matters.
          The goals of the Communist Manifesto and those who signed the Humanist Manifesto are being accomplished even now as we see the merging of education with labor policy—or what many are referring to as corporate fascism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines corporate fascism as “a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises dictatorship through the merging of state and business leadership.”

The fact that so many Americans don’t even know this communistic education reform is sweeping our nation is perilous. What is even more alarming are the ones who know it yet believe it is a good thing. Liberal Republicans and Democrats alike have succeeded in achieving the goals that Secular Humanists and Communists have long sought for America’s children. And there, as they say, goes the future.  

USA Schooling the Communist Way Part 1

U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way
Part 1
By Brannon S. Howse
           Several weeks ago, I was sitting in a hotel lobby sipping a Coke and visiting with my friend Michael Reagan who had just given a speech before several hundred people. Mike, as you may know, is a best-selling author, radio talk-show host, Fox News contributor, and eldest son of President Ronald Reagan.

A few minutes into our conversation, Mike remembered something he wanted to tell me. “Brannon,” he said, cocking his head in my direction, “I thought of you this morning when I read the newspaper.”

I wondered if he were about to crack a joke at my expense but noted that there was no trace of a smirk on Mike’s face. “Really?” I wondered, “What made you think of me?”

“Well,” Mike said before pausing for an instant (I wonder where he picked up that mannerism) “I was thinking of you because I read in the paper that Jeb Bush has become the first governor in America to sign into law a state-wide requirement that ninth-grade high school students pick a career major and focus on that major from ninth through twelfth grade. You’ve predicted something like that on my radio show more than once since 1993—also in your book for which I wrote the foreword.”

Mike was correct. It’s a prediction I hoped Americans would be wise enough to stop before it came to pass. As the education reporter and often the guest host of Michael Reagan’s program I had spend countless hours warning Mike’s listeners about Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Outcome-Based Education, HR6, No Child Left Behind, and other federal plans that have the goal of merging education with industrial production, thus turning our schools into vocational centers where students are “trained” rather than educated.

Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame for nailing this tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto into the educational foundation of schools right here in the good old U.S. of A. Lest you think I exaggerate, the tenth principle of the Communist Manifesto states that the goal of schooling for society’s children should be the “combination of education with industrial production.”

Starting in 1992, the transformation of America’s schools into vocational centers greatly accelerated. T.G. Stict, who served under Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, has observed, “Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general education level.” In other words, as long as we can control people, who cares what they know?

Through programs like School-to-Work the “State” decides which children will go on to college and which go straight into the workforce following their “training certification.” State education authorities review a student’s educational history and determine the career track the individual will follow. The desires of Big Brother, I mean, the State take precedent over the wishes of the individual and his or her parents. Those who conform to governmental standards are rewarded with further education and a good job. Those who do not reflect the liberal, Secular Humanist worldview will likely be pushed to vocational jobs where their Christian worldview is less likely to have an impact on the culture.

The California PTA has noted that “School-to-Work is based on the premise that government control can do a better job of training individuals, satisfying occupational demands and managing the development of economic activities than can the effort and initiative of millions of individuals.”

           The draconian educational measures of the past fifteen years have made strange bedfellows. President George H. W. Bush gave us America 2000. Although President Clinton later changed the name to Goals 2000, he supported the program and pushed through several federal bills that further meshed education with industrial production. President George W. Bush expanded what his father and President Clinton had begun when he cozied up with Ted Kennedy to give us a massive federal program with the irresistible sound-bite name, No Child Left Behind. Florida Governor Jeb Bush then took advantage of federal funds available from his older brother’s program and on June 5, 2006 signed into law the ninth grade career major requirement. Florida is the first state in the nation to require this state-wide. Under Florida’s new law, career exploration will begin as early as sixth grade. By ninth grade, students will need to declare their career major. Several other states are not far behind and will soon join Florida in this radical American implementation of the Communist Manifesto.

           Did you know what you wanted to do when you were in ninth grade? Do you wish the government had decided for you then what you would be doing for the rest of your life to earn a living? Would that seem like a heavy-handed restriction on your freedom to be self-determining? (In case you need help on this test, the right answers are No-No-Yes.)

           Students will be encouraged to select a career that will direct them either along a vocational track or a college-bound track. With the assistance (or coercion, perhaps?) of school career counselors, students will be channeled into the path that is “right” for them. But here’s one of the big problems that is guaranteed to arise: If a ninth grade student who decides on the auto mechanic track, for example, changes his mind in the eleventh or twelfth grade, he’s stuck without the schooling needed to go to college upon graduation. At that point, a vocational track student will not have taken courses needed for acceptance into college.

Some of you may consider this a good idea since not everyone should be college bound. And I agree that in many regards, college is a waste of time and money unless a person aspires to be a doctor, lawyer, nurse, engineer, or other such professional. Several studies reveal that many, if not most, of America’s millionaires do not have college degrees. Such notables as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Gates, President Harry Truman, and the late Peter Jennings never graduated from college. Yet while a college degree is not needed for success, an academically sound education from kindergarten through twelfth grade is essential for every student regardless of their post-high school plans. It is the only way to have an informed citizenry.

Perhaps even more critical, the federal government is not qualified to project the supply and demand of the workforce two years—much less ten—from now. Trying to do so is one of the stultifying aspects of centrally planned economies (remember the Soviet Union?). Whether the plan is called ready-to-work, school-to-work, school-to-career, small learning communities, or any other soundbite-crafted moniker, it is still a fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto, not the Declaration of Independence or any other foundational American document.

          The frightening reality is that codifying these programs will only make an already dangerous situation worse. Even without Florida-style programs solidly in place yet, many students are already finding themselves channeled where they don’t want to go. In part 2 of this series, we will examine several examples of how honor students that are also conservative Christians have been funneled into jobs as bartenders and waitresses. And bear in mind as elections approach that you can’t simply assume a given Republican or Democrat is for or against such programs just because of party affiliation. You’ll have to find out where each individual candidate stands. Educational communism is not a party-specific issue. So be careful not to vote for someone who will add a communist plank to an election platform.