Why Congress Should Reject Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill

ZoeB »

Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Re the murder of Angie Zapata, a Trans woman.

In the last 30 years, close on 1000 Transgendered women like Angie have been murdered. Often with pre-meditation.

But the last time anyone, anywhere was convicted of murder in the first degree just because they killed a "tranny" was in 1977.

"There is simply no evidence that state and local law enforcement officials are unable or unwilling to adequately investigate and prosecute violent â

Why Congress Should Reject Federal 'Hate Crimes' Bill

ZoeB »

Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"There is simply no evidence that state and local law enforcement officials are unable or unwilling to adequately investigate and prosecute violent â

Potty Politics

ZoeB »

Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:58 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

Regarding DES - See "Evidence for pre-natal hormonal influence on (some) Transsexuals
The Presence of Gender Dysphoria, Transsexualism, and Disorders of Sexual Differentiation in Males Prenatally Exposed to Diethylstilbestrol: Initial Evidence from a 5-Year Study"
http://www.antijen.org/transadvocate/id33.html

Ms Osaragi is not alone, and not even unusual. The result for a 46xy (M) gened foetus is (mostly) male body and (mostly) female brain and hence mind. Often there are other Intersex issues to, hence the word "mostly".

For evidence of cross-gendered neurology, see
http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

Intersex - that is, neither 100% M nor 100% F - conditions have always existed, See Matthew 19:12 and Isaiah 56:4-5. We can't alter brain to match body, but we can alter body to match mind now, much as we can cure other congenital conditions such as hare lip. Such a cure causes extreme legal complications, but a mismatch between body and brain causes neurological dysfunction, and often results in death, so the treatment is by no means "cosmetic". The situation feels perverse, uncomfortable, horrible, miserable for those who have it, at least until treatment.

Then there are those with 5ARD or 17BHDD, who undergo a natural apparent sex change, ending up biologically more M than F, despite their birth certificates. The reverse happens too, but is much rarer,with only a handful rather than the thousands of F to M cases in the USA.

In 1985 I was diagnosed as a mildly Intersexed male. In 2005 that was changed to severely Intersexed female, due to tests occasioned by my natural change. My OB/GYN says I'm female, no matter what my birth certificate may say. I look boringly normal, just another rather frumpy middle aged woman.

I do try to "keep the Sabbath" in accordance with Isaiah 56:4-5, but various theologians have given conflicting advice on what that means.

So, as with Ms Osaragi's case, what would you have me do? There are hundreds of thousands like us in the USA, but until the recent passage of legislation aimed at Gays and Lesbians (and we're usually neither), we've been able to keep a low profile. No longer, and we need legislation like this just to not make waves and upset society. We assert our humanity, no matter how uncomfortable our existence makes some who are pardonably ignorant of the subject feel. We try to educate, and let individual conscience do the rest.

Evangelicals Lambaste Gay Employment Bill

ZoeB »

Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

I'd give my opinion on interpretation and picking-and-choosing of the new law, but I'm forbidden to, aren't I, John5796? wbmoore?

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Evangelicals Lambaste Gay Employment Bill

ZoeB »

Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:38 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 6

"An organization “whose entire focus” and “reason for being” is to promote a particular social view based on scripture would be forced to hire a person with a “diametrically opposing” view on the issue, Hanna contended."
Like Hindus and Jews. Sorry, that one won't wash.

"They emphasized that someone can easily be identified as black, female or of a particular religion, but there is no way to identify someone’s sexual orientation besides a confession by the individual."
Funny, I had no idea that by merely looking at someone, one could determine they were Catholic or Buddhist. I thought it took a confession of belief. No, that one doesn't pass the smell test either.

"The Baptist preacher said his organization is opposed to the bill morally, on biblical grounds, and because it is “insanity” and will “wreck the economy of this country.”
As it has in the 20 states which have similar legislation at the state level? Including the most wealthy states of the Union?

Look, there may be good reasons to reject this legislation. But the pastor's arguments sound very much like desperate attempts to find reasons for a pre-judged conclusion, based on quite different grounds. We have a word called Prejudice. From the latin, pre iudice, pre-judge.

Finally, and this is a question I ask of all people who believe being Gay is a "lifestyle choice": When did they decide to be heterosexual?
Many take umbrage at that. "It's not a choice, it's the way I am!" They resent the implication that they could be anything different. While not Lesbian myself, I can't help wondering at the obvious illogic of that inconsistency.

I see nothing Christian about the pastor's statement, though undoubtedly he is a good Christian man. I see someone acting in accordance with his own conscience, but lacking Charity. As did the Pharisees, who acted according to their interpretation of the letter of scripture too, without trying to determine the spirit that inspired it. Of course being a fallible sinner myself, my opinions could be wrong.

Dems Advance Bill to Grant Special Workplace Rights to Homosexuals

ZoeB »

Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:56 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

And in an alternate Universe....

Conservatives are concerned that the bill would strip constitutional rights from faith-based businesses that don’t agree with the lifestyles of Jews or Hindus.

"When you strive to protect some people, you take away protections of other people," noted Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif). "That is the difficulty, and I think some of us on this side are representing some of those people that feel like as good as your intentions are, you're taking away their rights in their religious beliefs and dealings on a day-to-day basis."

Notably, the Committee rejected four amendments offered by Republicans that would have protected the religious freedom of faith-based groups and individuals.

“It's an attack on businesses and people of faith," said Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, in a Chicago Tribune repot.

“Businesses wouldn't have the freedom to hire whoever they want,” he added.

Republicans who voted against advancing the bill argued that equating “religion” to other federally protected classes doesn’t add up.

“Religion is not the same as race, gender or age, which do not depend on perception at all," said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind).

Meanwhile, there is an awful lot of "bearing false witness" going on. There are exemptions in the bill for religious institutions. Churches would *not* be required to hire homosexual pastors. To say they would implies woeful ignorance of what the bill says, gullibility in believing those of malific intent, or deliberate mendacity. The same exemptions apply here as they do for those of incompatible religious belief, in fact, they've been extended compared to those.

'Gay' Conquest Spells the ENDA Reason

ZoeB »

Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:54 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Zhou J.-N, Hofman M.A, Gooren L.J, Swaab D.F (1997)
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality.

Kruijver F.P.M, Zhou J.-N, Pool C.W., Swaab D.F. (2000)
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus

You don't have to read the papers in their entirety: the titles tell you what they say, based on autopsies conducted on human cadavers.

It's a simplification, but Transsexual people have M type brains in F type bodies, or F type brains in M type bodies. An Intersex condition. A lot have other Intersex conditions too. In the Bible, such people are called "Eunuchs" as in Matthew 19:12 "Some are born eunuchs"

Note that Gay men have M type brains, and Lesbian women have F type ones.

This isn't an issue of post-modernist PC claptrap : it's an issue of Medical Science.

From a recent article in ArzteZeitung (original in German)
"The brains of anatomically male transsexuals, who identify as female, did not react as typical males do to visual erotic stimuli. In a study using functional MagnetoResonanceTomography(MRT) the reaction was instead typically female.
...
In men, the limbic system and upper regions of the hypothalamus, the amygdalae and the insular cortex were activated substantially more strongly. “We confirmed this finding in the comparison between the heterosexual men and women of our Cohort”, said Gizewski.

This specifically male activation of the limbic system was not found in the transsexual sample. Under fMRT, the pictures corresponded rather accurately to those of the female sample.

Radiologists can now confirm what transsexuals report - that they feel “trapped in the wrong body” - on the basis of the activation of the brain when presented with erotic stimuli. There is obviously a biological correlation with the subjective feelings."

It's Matt Barber and the CWA who are living in a fantasy world, where scientific and medical facts can't be allowed to interfere with what they know "just because". Yes this stuff flies in the face of "what everyone knows". It's a rare condition, maybe 1 in 3000. But if they wish to speak out on the issue, they have a duty to research the facts first. A duty as Christians not to persecute those born with a hideously uncomfortable and embarrassing congenital medical condition.