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.
I wonder what the standards are to make such a change (I know, standards obviously mean nothing to these people)?
I also wonder about the effects of this on criminal investigations.
We live in a very, very sick world, and its only getting worse.
Great, just great. Now we get to use the restrooms with guys. Can hardly wait 'til the next draft, the drafted will just all become females. Cheaper than going to Canada.
How about the troublemaking teen boy who wants to peep around the girls' bathroom or locker room? Can he change his sex to be allowed to travel unmolested into these private areas?
Can a man who impregnates his girlfriend change his sexual identity to female to excercise his (her) right not to become a parent?
And if a 6'3", bearded, 250 lb body builder is turned down by the female basketball team (even though his NEW NYC birth certificate says he is a female) - he will sue the school to high heaven. This actually could be the end of affirmative action...
Yes, then he can sue the state for not paying for his hysterectomy on the flimsy excuse that he does not have a Uterus. Now operate doctor or you'll be sued for malpractice.
We are becoming a depraved society.
And for use in establishing personal identity, essential in preventing fraud, identity theft, and for the purposes of criminal investigation --- it is simply absurd to permit a person to falsify the records by chnging the record of sex at birth.
Even surgical transgenders should be satisfied with an asterisk and a codicil attached to the original document --NOT a falsification of the birth record.
And of course, if copied by other jurisdictions, this ruling would in practice overturn all the monumental efforts made by defense-of-marriage activists (and supported by huge majorities of Americna voters) because the sex categories of "man"and "woman" would become completely fluid, and thus meaningless.
This has to be overturned by lawsuit, and the officials responsible for it sacked. And soon.
We're becoming more like Europe all the time. They've been around longer so they just got to their current state before we will.
Very very poor journalism.
"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."
Fact is that..
"All but three states now allow people who have had a sex change to get a new birth certificate and New York City has done so since 1971. The city now issues about a dozen of the revised birth certificates a year. "
The story here is that in NYC, you no longer need to show proof of surgery any more. But unfortunately, this very very poorly written article misses the main point.
Am running out the door, I'll ping it later if wag doesn't get to it.
A Two-Fer.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Follow-up to yesterday's story.
Farah's purpose in this article is not, I think, to report on the whole process of the deconstruction of sex, but to spell out the implications of this latest kink: namely, that sex-reassignment is now a matter of say-so rather than one of surgery.
Sex-change surgery, unethical as it is (damaging a healthy body so it will match a dysphoric mind) at least requires a major commitment on the part of the shape-shifter: a sizeable sacrifice of time, money, and various body parts.
Now it approaches a level of mere self-identification: for instance, you have to establish that you have lived "in the manner of" the opposite sex for two years. How could anyone contest that? How could it be proved or disproved?
If the categories of "male" and "female" or "man" and "woman" are now too socially ambiguous or ideologically fraught, birth records should specify that the party was born with "XX" or "XY" chromosomes (or "other," in the exceedingly rare case of chromosomal anomalies.) That way the records would still have some relationship to demographic and medical reality. And if there's no commitment to medical reality, why keep records?
I'm not sure the article as written is all that misleading.
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.
The concept is despicable but not exactly as Farah chose to describe it.
The *really* sick thing is that this will negatively impact health. There are distinct medical differences between male and female and with this decision medical histories can become meaningless..
You evidently have another source of information. Link?
Not misleading? The article is about...
"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
"Beginning next month, people born in New York will be able to change historical records – permanently."
Now, if the guy wrote the article in 1971, maybe it would make sense. Do people look into stories like this before they post them or just believe it as gospel because of the source??
I live in NY. All local outlets covered this story more completely, including WABC radio during Rush's show.
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.