Society Confusion Disorder

by Larry Richman

In http://richmanramblings.blogspot.com

I'm trying hard to be tolerant and to embrace diversity. But it seems that every time I start to get a handle on things, something pops up that throws all of my recent sensitivity training out of the window. I guess my brain is just impossible to wash. Maybe I am not the one who is confused. We are purposely being confused by the confused. We are receiving a cultural lobotomy as we watch the confused media parade confused experts into our living rooms, to confuse us on the meaning of things for which there should be no confusion.

Up until the mid 1970s, psychiatric experts classified homosexuality as a "mental illness." Then they decided that it was merely a disorder. Then they decided that it's not even a disorder, but something perfectly normal and natural. We're told that it is not a lifestyle choice, but an inborn, inherent, immutable, born-that-way-characteristic that should be embraced with pride and its virtues should be taught to elementary school children.

Two decades ago, Chastity Bono, the daughter of Sonny and Cher, announced to the world that she was a lesbian. She said she was sexually and emotionally attracted to other women. We're told that this is an inborn, inherent, immutable, born-that-way-characteristic. But last week, she announced that she was no longer a lesbian, but a man and would undergo surgery to change her female parts to male parts.

It used to be easy when there was just gay and straight. But now, sexual identity is a very a complex continuum of heterosexual, homosexual (gay and lesbian), bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, transgendered (transwomen and transmen), transsexual, cross-dresser, transvestite, drag king/queen, genderqueer, cross-gender, androgyne, pangender, bigender, ambigender, non-gender, agender, gender fluid, intergender, and autogynephilic.

Back to Chastity Bono's condition, or disorder, or whatever it is. Wikipedia says that "the precise definition for transgender remains in flux." What? I thought these were inborn, inherent, immutable, born-that-way characteristics? Aren't we told that people are born with a "gay gene?" Transgender, which is a form of Gender Identity Disorder (GID), designates "a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these."

Apparently, Chastity's gender confusion has confused her and now she realizes that she has been living a lie. She wasn't really a lesbian, but a Sonny trapped in a Cher's body. So, after a little plastic surgery, a shave, and a haircut, Chastity will no longer be Chastity the lesbian, but Chaz the artificial man. The gender "experts" tell us it is perfectly normal and that anyone who would question it is not normal but hateful, judgmental, and intolerant. I am confused by all the confusing disorders. Let me ask a few questions to see if it can begin to make sense:

After the sexual reassignment surgery, will Chaz be a man or still a lesbian just in a man's body?

Since Chastity was born with a "gay gene," when she becomes a man, I assume he'll then be attracted to men. If not, and Chaz is still attracted to women, would that make him a heterosexual man?

Was Chastity living a lie as a lesbian, because she wasn't really a lesbian at all, but a man trapped in a woman's body? If she really isn't a lesbian, was she born a heterosexual or a homosexual? Did she have a gene transplant?

When Chastity becomes Chaz, will he stay with his current lesbian girlfriend? Seems to me if Chastity was really born with the "gay gene," her girlfriend is about to lose her former girlfriend to a gay man. (This gives new meaning to the term ex-girlfriend.)

If Chaz stays with his lesbian girlfriend, would they be a heterosexual couple? What would we call them? Husband and wife? Bi-sexuals? Or are they something new, perhaps tri-sexuals (a lesbian with a former lesbian who converted to a heterosexual-homosexual-artificial-man)?

If Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is acceptable and sexual reassignment surgery is acceptable, why not consider Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) as normal and acceptable? (Yes, it's a real thing.) BIID sufferers obsessively perceive their "true selves" as missing one or more arms and legs (hence the nickname "amputee wannabe"). Rather than trying to help patients learn to live with their desperate yearning to harm themselves, some fringe transhumanists argue that the principle of personal autonomy requires that BIID patients be aided in "safely" becoming the amputees they so desperately want to be. How is this different from sexual reassignment surgery, which involves cutting off healthy body parts to satisfy a yearning to become something they are not?

Shouldn't we just label pedophilia as Age Confusion Disorder (ACD)? Sex with animals as Species Confusion Disorder (SCD)? Rape is really just Date Confusion Disorder (DCD). Adultery is Spouse Confusion Disorder (SCD).

Will Chaz be forced to get a new birth certificate? Not that it matters. (Why would anyone ever need a real birth certificate anymore?) Is she still an American? The US Constitution says you have to be a "natural born" citizen. What s/he will become is certainly not natural. I guess s/he could just put a Certificate of Live Birth (CLB) on her Web site.

Why aren't the pro-gay factions desperately trying to get Chastity to stop? They argue that people are born gay or lesbian and it is inherent and immutable, and it will cause great harm to anyone who tries to change from being gay or lesbian. That's why they constantly protest ex-gay groups like Exodus and Evergreen. Why do they embrace Chastity's choice to change from being a lesbian to a heterosexual-homosexual-artificial-man but curse those who choose to change from being gay to straight?

Well, I hope this cleared everything up. I'm sorry if I seem so narrow-minded. I've always been accused of being too analytical. Thanks goodness it will never happen in today's schools. People who think for themselves are labeled with a disorder, put on Ritalin, and assigned to special classes where the experts will straighten them out.

Some of the material in this post was adapted from "Gender Confusion, Confusion" by Coach Dave Daubenmire.

A nova questão religiosa

João César das Neves

In Diário de Notícias - 13. 07. 2009

Neste período eleitoral acontece um fenómeno inaudito na nossa democracia. Pela primeira vez desde 1974 um dos grandes partidos nacionais apresenta no seu programa uma medida claramente oposta à doutrina da Igreja Católica. A moção aprovada no XVI Congresso Nacional do PS de 1 de Março propõe "a remoção, na próxima legislatura, das barreiras jurídicas à realização do casamento civil entre pessoas do mesmo sexo." (III 4 F).

Pode dizer-se que a medida não pretende ofender os católicos, tendo o propósito genérico de igualdade entre cidadãos. Aliás os dirigentes do PS têm muito cuidado em declarar cordialidade com a Igreja. Pode até dizer-se que a verdadeira finalidade do anúncio é apenas gerar um debate violento em assuntos laterais de forma a distrair o eleitorado da dureza da crise e dificuldades do Governo. O que não há dúvida é que, depois de toda a campanha do aborto, das várias leis antifamília e múltiplas beliscadelas administrativas, se pode dizer que a Igreja Católica, pela primeira vez desde o 25 de Abril, enfrenta uma oposição séria e profunda do poder político.

Todos sabem que as relações entre religião e Estado sempre foram controversas ao longo dos séculos. No mundo ocidental, a longa interacção entre Igreja Católica e governos passou por fases muito diferentes. Em particular em Portugal, os últimos 200 anos foram especialmente dolorosos. Do dirigismo pombalino e salazarista à perseguição liberal e republicana, houve mais de dois séculos de desentendimento, conflito e incompreensão. Sem nunca surgirem as multidões de mártires de quase todos os outros países europeus na época, Portugal passou muito tempo privado de uma relação saudável e equilibrada entre fé e poder.

Tudo isso mudou após 1974. Era evidente desde o princípio, quer para os bispos quer para os dirigentes revolucionários, que se deveriam evitar lutas antigas que tinham sido tão negativas para ambos. Por isso, apesar de escaramuças iniciais, sempre existiu muito cuidado das partes em prevenir choques e melindres. Todos declararam repetidamente o desejo de conviver e colaborar lealmente. O resultado foi o melhor período de relações Igreja-Estado de que há memória no nosso país. A revolução de Abril afirmou-se sem as dificuldades das suas antecessoras e os católicos viveram calmamente a sua vida, dispersando-se pelos vários partidos sem problemas.

A questão do aborto criou em 1984 o primeiro conflito aberto. Mas essa questão, que ainda permanece, mostrou bem os frutos dos esforços anteriores de diálogo. O confronto, que é grave e radical e tem tido fases opostas, foi em geral conduzido com serenidade e elevação, dentro dos termos do respeito institucional. Nunca se ouviram apelos à guerra santa ou ao anticlericalismo.

O Governo Sócrates, porém, mudou sensivelmente o tom da relação.

Formalmente as coisas estão na mesma mas, talvez porque se dá como adquirida a bonomia comum, o poder tomou várias atitudes claramente hostis à Igreja. Os mais de cinco anos de atraso na regulamentação da Concordata são o facto administrativo mais ostensivo. Mas politicamente são os sucessivos agravamentos das leis sobre a família e a vida humana, muitas vezes impostos de forma arrogante e apressada, que constituem o aspecto decisivo.

Começa a existir uma questão religiosa em Portugal. No meio da crise, e após décadas de juras universais em contrário, é difícil notar tal facto, mas ele torna-se indesmentível. Isto tem implicações a vários níveis. Depois do Verão a implicação será para os eleitores católicos na decisão do voto. Os bispos portugueses formularam já, em Nota Pastoral de 23 de Abril, os princípios a seguir. Apesar da linguagem, que mantém as cautelas e diplomacias de antes, foram claros para quem quiser ler bem.

Agora são os partidos políticos, em vias de construir as listas e estratégias eleitorais, que têm de tirar essas implicações. É bom que todos tenham em conta e tomem posição nesta triste questão que a irresponsabilidade de alguns faz renascer na sociedade portuguesa.