Posted on 11/08/2006 10:13:21 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
But a huge story broke yesterday that got almost no attention because it was overshadowed by stories of people going to the polls voting. In fact, I would dare say that this story could have more impact on our lives in America in the next 20 years than the results of yesterday's midterm congressional elections.
I'm talking about news of an imminent action by the New York City Board of Health to permit people born in the city to change the sex recorded on their birth certificates and, thus, change their legal sexual identity.
Think about the implications of this move.
At first blush it may not sound so momentous: It's just New York City; It's just for people born there.
But, if that's your reaction, you miss the point.
Boards of health have not historically been considered political agencies subject to lobbying pressures by activist groups. But this action is very much the result of such lobbying activity by a small but determined group of "transgendereds" and wannabe "transgendereds."
Let's face it: There's no good health reason for such an action even to be considered.
Since boards of health are unelected and relatively unaccountable bodies, they can take actions like this without suffering political fallout – just like unaccountable judges.
Surely everyone can see how this action can bring to a screeching halt all of the political debate taking place across the country over same-sex marriage. Because if all Person X has to do to marry Person Y is make a cosmetic change on his or her birth certificate, than all the constitutional amendments in the world can't save the institution of marriage.
And, fundamentally, I think that is the real intent behind this move.
This is the way the manipulative "social engineers" operate. They know they can't win an election. They know they can't win an honest and open debate on their issues. So they force their will upon the people – whether it is through a judge's ruling or an action of an unaccountable bureaucracy that can say its political decision was made for "health reasons."
Now imagine the next domino falling. Will it be Los Angeles? Will it be San Francisco? Will it be the whole state of California? Or will Massachusetts beat the Golden State to the slap?
Do you see why this overlooked local story may someday overshadow in impact all of the millions of votes cast in yesterday's election?
This is why I've been telling Americans for years and years that they focus too much attention on elections and too little attention on other ways our nation's political and social and cultural agenda is being set, often in spite ofthe way Americans vote.
Think about this sexual identity story. Beginning next month, people born in New York will be able to change historical records – permanently. People who were born girls will be able to say they were actually born boys. People who were actually born boys will be able to say they were born girls.
Since when does lying have anything to do with health? Don't ask me. But that's the story from New York – and I believe it could have profound ramifications for the nation.
Don't worry about how states voted on marriage amendments yesterday. The debate is over – because sexual identity just became as simple to change as a stroke of the pen.
Looks like there's lots more to be said. Again, links?
This is supposed to benefit those who believe they were born the wrong sex and want to change their sexual identity.
How about people who don't like how old they are? They should be allowed to have their birth certificates changed to show a later date of birth, so they would be younger.
If racism is wrong, and sexism is wrong, and heterosexism is wrong, then certainly ageism is wrong too.
I actually talked to some D's at the polls yesterday about this and they had no problem with changing the gender or unisex bathrooms....one actually said...."well your own bathroom is unisex and so are the hospitals"...???!!!
You want me to link to the radio and TV reports of the past two days? Take my word for it or don't. Or look it up.
OK. I looked it up and came up with this, from the Washington Post --- an article which says that the transgender person can show that he has taken "other steps" toward gender reassignment: homone therapy is mentioned, but like surgery, is not apparently required. The Lambda Legal lawyer, Cole Thaler, puts them emphasis on congruity between appearance and sex, which is, of course, a loose and easily-changed criterion.
None of this effaces Farah's point, which is that anybody who wanted same-sex marriage in a state where devant forms of marriage are legally nonexistent or even unconstitutional, could accomplish his end by changing his legal sex.
Nor does it efface my point, which is that public records lose their demographic and medical significance if they are falsified as to sex as birth. This is so whether the records policy changed in 1971 or in 2006.
A DNA sample should be taken of each idiot who wants to avail themselves of this new law to prove true gender.
This is the kind of thing that makes me glad that I will only live a few more decades.
You appear to be emotionally invested in maintaining an aura of infallibilty in Farah's writing. The radio and TV news reports were as I stated. As I said you can take me at my word or not, it doesn't matter to me. The bottom line is that Farrah misrepresented the facts to make a point. That's the same tactic Air America types employ.
I have no interest in Farah whatsoever. I very rarely read Farah or WND, and I have never posted him before. And if you read my last post (#25) you'll see no emotional investment. You would be more persuasive if you would simply provide the facts as requested, and refrain from ad-hominem insinuations.
You asserted that "farah conveniently left out the part of the change that requires each applicant to document an on-going process of treatment leading to a complete 'sex-change' procedure." That's quite significant, if true, but you have been asked twice to document this, and have twice declined. (Why?)
The link I provided to the Washington Post article on this, did not report any such requirement. Again, can you document that this is a requirement? All it would take is a link. I'd be interested in seeing it.
"The new plan, unveiled in September would also allow changes for people who hadn't had genital surgery, but could show substantial proof that they have undertaken other steps to irrevocably alter their gender-identity - like undergoing hormone therapy."
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1106/373428.html
Of course, just as big a problem than "journalists" writing misleading articles, is "journalists" who don't know the difference between homosexuals and transsexuals.
Thank you, ErnieBert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.