The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) is already a haven for gay and lesbian activists (according to our inside source). Adoption and foster care has been channeling children to homosexual couples for many years. In 2006, the DSS honored two homosexual men as their adoptive "Parents of the Year". In fact, it's become easier for homosexuals to adopt through the DSS system than heterosexuals. Soon, the DSS will be parading transgender/transsexual parents as a boon to Massachusetts’ diverse society.
And what will DSS’s response be to parents who want to disabuse their own children of radical notions that they’re transgendered? If the child (or school counselor) files a complaint that the parents are abusing him (by not supporting his transgenderism), will the child be removed from the home? Already, the DSS and Dept. of Public Health are funneling money into a special home for transgender youth whose parents disagree with their “gender identities” and “expression.” More funds will be directed to such projects, more parents will be undermined, and more families will be disrupted by our state government.
Here's how the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows describes the Waltham House, a living center in Waltham, MA, paid for by the state, where "transgender" youth are taken from their parents who disagree with their "choices" of sexual lifestyle:
Waltham House [is] one of only three residential programs in the country specifically serving GLBT youth (the other two are in New York and Los Angeles). One of the residents, Justin, 17, who is transgender, said he was repeatedly harassed by students and administrators at the Catholic girls' school he attended for wearing his hair short. He said he was eventually expelled from school for shaving his head after the principal insisted he let his hair grow out.
"Coming to the Waltham House really turned me around and really gave me a huge amount of self-esteem that I didn't have," Justin told the legislators. "... This place turned me into the person I always wanted to be, turned me into the person where I can stand up and say, and shout out to people what I believe in and not have to just back down because I feel that I'm scared."
Al, who spent four years living in an all-girls residential facility before coming out as transgender, credited the staff at Waltham House with providing a stable environment for kids dealing with a whole host of issues, including GLBT issues. "When I feel like, how can anyone love me when I've done so many things wrong, how can anyone love me when my own family doesn't love me, [that] question is answered when the staff come in every single day, every single day regardless of what happens," said Al. He said that he worked in his own school to create a supportive environment for GLBT students by founding a gay/straight alliance, and he urged the legislators to work to make schools safer environments in which to come out for students with unsupportive families....
Opened in October 2002, the program currently houses 10 kids, with a potential capacity of 12. Like many kids in residential programs, residents of Waltham House may face a range of issues including abuse, familial rejection, substance abuse, homelessness, and other factors that have prompted the state's Department of Social Services to intervene and place them in a healthy and stable environment.
Program Director Karen Voorhees said that for all of the Waltham House residents, issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are central to many of their problems."I would say the target kid is the kid whose significant functioning problems are due to not being accepted for their gender or sexual identity, and so they come here and are able to function in a group home while being accepted for who they are," said Voorhees. "A lot of them come in and they say they haven't been allowed to talk about their sexual identity of their gender identity to even figure out what it is, so whatever it is they figure out is fine with us." (“A Port in the Storm,” Bay Windows, 8-12-04.)
Our society is supposedly concerned about smoking, illegal drug use, steroid use, obesity, etc. So why would our state government encourage the physically and psychologically unhealthy behaviors of transgenderism and transsexuality? (This question can also be asked about the acceptance of homosexuality.)
Homosexual sex is risky enough. But transgenders and transsexual people have a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Many transsexuals (especially biological males) are involved in prostitution. Apparently, many transgenders are promiscuous and/or polyamorous (which is not surprising since the whole idea is to overthrow traditional standards of sexual decorum and gender roles). Transgender youth are especially at risk.
The new problems transsexuals will experience due to hormone treatments and unusual surgeries are little known now, since this is such a recent phenomenon. But common sense hints that injecting hormones of the opposite sex into one’s body over extended years, or having early hysterectomies, or having artificial cavities constructed in one’s pelvis, have to be serious shocks to a body. What risk do males run for breast cancer, for instance, with repeated injections of female hormones, while the breasts they develop will never be used to nurse an infant? (Even the Barbara Walters ABC 20/20 special on transgender children – sympathetic to the transgender agenda -- raised this question.)
H1722, if it becomes law, would encourage psychologically troubled men to become “transwomen” – instead of getting the help they really need. Many of these individuals become prostitutes, presenting themselves as females to male customers – exposing them to violence from some of their customers. Drug use, partner abuse, depression and suicide are much higher for transsexuals than for the general population.
The new law would also encourage troubled young women to become “transmen.” If one’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are fluid, as the activists themselves sometimes admit, what happens when someone regrets their removal of body parts? There’s no going back.
How can any sane society sanction, and thereby promote, such cruel and dangerous body mutilation and hormonal manipulation?
The confessions of people involved in transgenderism are disturbing. Matt Kailey’s book Just Add Hormones (2005) indicates that there is an insatiable urge for more change, always hoping against hope that the next procedure or apparatus will bring satisfaction. The Harvard online trans publications quench zine and “Trannys Talk Back” include very sad and disturbing articles revealing the psychological distress of transgenders: the difficulty wearing breast or penis “binders” in order to “pass” as the opposite sex; finding a bathroom they can use comfortably; being upset when addressed as their actual sex instead of the sex they’re trying to pass for; finding sex partners; involvement in BDSM; dealing with parents and families. Their anger is raw. And these are members of our Harvard “elite” who convey these problems (and unable to resolve them), not some weirdos hiding out in the mountains. Why should our society want to promote more such unhappiness and bizarre and unforeseeable health problems?
Typical page from the Harvard transsexual online publication, quench zine. Note the lash, underscoring the frequent alliance of transgenders and BDSM practice. Drawn by a college student, it reflects the seemingly infantile state of mind of people involved with these behaviors.
Speaker at Harvard transgender rights rally, April 2006. Shirt says “Fags hate God.” (photo: InNews Weekly)
A few years ago the Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began adding a checkoff box to their license renewal forms to use if one's sex had changed, with the note that "additional information may be required" (without spelling out what information). The Mass. Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC) has been collecting feedback on if or how that requirement is met by various Registry of Motor Vehicles locations. Certainly, if H1722 passes, the demand will be made that no surgery needs to have occurred to change one's sex designation -- just a declaration by the individual that his or her "gender identity" has changed! One further option MTPC plans to push is that the sex designation should be totally optional! (Already, the use of “Party A” and “Party B” on the Massachusetts marriage licenses has overcome the sex designation problem, as the Commonwealth marches to its brave new androgynous future!)
If the DMV kowtows to such insanity, will federal agencies follow? Already, the Social Security administration allows sex designation to be changed with “a letter from the surgeon or attending physician verifying sex change surgery has been completed.” But that isn't radical enough for MTPC. The transgender activists want to set a new standard, that an individual's sense of his or her “gender identity” is enough to officially change the sex designation on government documents. And then, they want to do way with the required declaration of male or female altogether. Will U.S. passports make sex designation optional?
Passage of H1722 would be radical social engineering at its worst, with unforeseeable consequences. It would bring further government incursion into our freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom to run our own businesses, and freedom to express our thoughts. It would violate our parental rights and our property rights. It would drive deep conflicts underground which could eventually surface in ugly ways.
Copyright © 2008 MassResistance