Transgenders Privately Admit, but Publicly Deny, Unresolved Issues
Paula Neira — who served in the US Navy as Paul Neira — has helped stand up Johns Hopkins’ Center for Transgender Health this Spring.
Most articles on the new Center have said little of substance, but one report quoted Neira making a potentially unintentional but fascinating admission:
Under [his] leadership, the Center for Transgender Health will serve transgender patients, teach health professionals and research health concerns facing the transgender community.
And this last point has some urgency. Neira notes that there is still a lot unknown for transgender patients related to gender-affirming care as well as to general health. “You know — what is the health effect of testosterone dosage? What is the most effective dose? There’s all kinds of pieces of information that we want to know…”
Neira, and by extension Johns Hopkins, is essentially admitting society is willfully — even gladly — giving women long-term unnatural hormones without knowing the health effects of that medical 
“treatment”. No doubt the same applies for a biological male taking female hormones in quantities his body does not naturally produce, as with Neira himself.
And, yet, activists have made the case that transgenders can serve in the US military with no negative impact to the military mission.
How can anyone say that with integrity if current medical knowledge can’t articulate the health effects of long term high dosage of cross-gender hormones? Isn’t that a fairly fundamental question to the issue?
Doesn’t quite sound logical, does it?
This “revelation” has shades of the repeal of DADT in it. Despite all the reassurances that repeal had no negative effect on the military, every now and then a story has slipped through about how units and the military mission have been negatively impacted by a homosexual “coming out.”
Which is most important? Advocacy of social causes, or defense of the nation? Troops’ religious beliefs, or their sexual activity?
Aren’t things much simpler when the State at least tacitly supports a moral order?
ADVERTISEMENT
“, is essentially admitting society is willfully — even gladly — giving women long-term unnatural hormones without knowing the health effects of that medical “treatment”. No doubt the same applies for a biological male taking female hormones in quantities his body does not naturally produce, as with Neira himself.”
Of course, we can’t *know* what the effects are until people have lived with them long enough. To follow your logic, one could never engage in a treatment, because we wouldn’t know the long-term effects when we started.
HRT is still relatively young; and if you look at the statement in context, it becomes clear that optimal treatments aren’t yet known — which is not the same as “we have no idea what’s going on.”
“How can anyone say that with integrity if current medical knowledge can’t articulate the health effects of long term high dosage of cross-gender hormones? Isn’t that a fairly fundamental question to the issue?”
They can articulate some of them; there is still more research to be done.
“Which is most important? Advocacy of social causes, or defense of the nation? Troops’ religious beliefs, or their sexual activity?”
Defense of the nation, which trumps religious advocacy of social causes. And troops’ lives broadly, as opposed to the narrow religious views of some of them.
Your willingness to be dishonest in the pursuit of your religious goals does not reflect well upon your religious views. Fortunately, there are many more Christians out there who *do* reflect well upon the faith.
You are liar, and a con artist, Schwartz. You don’t know anything about Christianity, so do the world a favor and shut your oral sewer.
Here let me replace some of your own words: “Defense of the nation, which trumps advocacy of *LGBT* causes, and troops lives broadly, as opposed to the narrow *social* views of some of them.”
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Just another man in a dress!
“You are liar, and a con artist, Schwartz.”
Do, then, please point out any lies I’ve told.
“You don’t know anything about Christianity,”
My theology teacher would be suprised to hear that.
“Defense of the nation, which trumps advocacy of *LGBT* causes”
If it’s a “cause” to be treated like a human being, and be allowed to serve, then you might have a point. Of course, being allowed to serve, not being forced to hide, etc., strengthen the defense of the nation, so the two aren’t at all incompatible.
@Steven Scwartz, so what kind of theology teacher was this and where did they get their theology degree from?
Episcopalian, and I do not recall.
I suspect your “don’t know anything” means “don’t agree with me on”, however. :)
The Episcopal denomination is an apostate, counfeit Christian denomination. I refer to them as simply a denomination, and not a church, because their affirmations have become so degenerate that they could never be called a true church unless they repent.
I expected something like this the moment I mentioned the word “Episcopalian”. Just so you know, views such as yours are exactly *why* we have things like the Religious Test clause, and the Establishment clause. Because the Founding Fathers were not very far separated from the religious wars (and not at all separated from religious enactment into law) that comes from notions such as “counterfeit Christian denomination”.
Fortunately, you do not get to define “Christian” for anyone but yourself.
@Steven Schwartz
Nothing in SH’s “views” had anything to do with public office. You’re interpreting one’s critique and disagreement with a statement on the legal ability to serve in public office, an assertion not made by SH.
You are wrong.
By contrast, you have asserted that qualification for public office can be restricted based on religious views (you did so right here).
In other words, *your* views are *exactly* *why* the Constitution was written the way it was. It prevents the government from establishing the “religious test for public office” you support.
Your understanding of religion and the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed — conveniently in your favor, notably.
Mr. Schwartz,
As a Christian, I interpret evidence and espouse my convictions from a biblical worldview, while you interpret evidence and espouse your convictions from a non-biblical worldview.
As a result, I presuppose what is right and wrong by appealing to a standard that can justify knowledge claims, while I would argue that you have no ultimate standard which renders your arguments either unknowing or arbitrary.
This is the difference between you and I. I appeal to the Savior, while you appeal to the one who opposes Him.
For you to comprehend my worldview (Christian), you must repent.
Trolling the CFP site cannot save you. All of your responses do not prove anything except that you hate God (John 3:19).
The Gospel (Rom. 1:16) is your only help. Repent and believe (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
@SH Short form: “I have the Bible and no evidence will reach me, because I have presuppositions.”
Fine; but do not be surprised, then, when people dismiss your views, as they come from such a strong religious bias that they will fail most Constitutional tests, and have very little persuasive value outside your particular bubble.
I do not appeal to “the one who opposes him”. I appeal to rational evidence, with a minimum of presuppositional requirement. I can comprehend your worldview — one does not need to *agree* to comprehend, as I have pointed out repeatedly here. (It is, indeed, most often here the Christian who seems to think disagreement is non-comprehension.)
I do not hate that which I am not at all sure exists. I am quite sure, however, I hate the results of unthinking bigotry based on ancient texts, because those results do exist, and I have seen them.
@JD “Nothing in SH’s “views” had anything to do with public office.”
I never said they did. However, the dismissal of major branches of the Christian religion as “degenerate” and “not even churches” have a great deal to do with the kind of religious attitudes that produced the wars and proscriptions I cited (and you deleted).
“By contrast, you have asserted that qualification for public office can be restricted based on religious views ”
Ah! So you *do* think that a religious view, no matter how contrary to the spirit or letter of the Constitution, cannot be disqualifying for nomination, which is interesting, combined with previous assertions that religious belief is a higher duty than service to the nation. Thank you for *finally* answering that. I presume that you’d have no problem, then, with a person who declared fundamentalist Christianity to be “apostate” and not Christian to be appointed to, say, oversee the Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships? Again — if your answer is “Yes, I would”, then you are contradicting yourself, again. You’ve already said that racial bigotry (if religiously supported) is OK, after all.
“It prevents the government from establishing the “religious test for public office” you support.”
I don’t support any such thing. However, I feel that people who state their religious views require them to either a) act directly contrary to the laws of the nation or b) act in contradiction to said views (when they proclaim such views paramount) is not suitable for public office, since they will be dishonest no matter what they do. It is the *dishonesty* that is the problem there.
I have, for example, no problem with a judge who, despite their Catholic religion, upholds Roe V. Wade as stare decisis. They have put the duties of the job they *chose to take* ahead of their individual religious views. Then again, they have not put being Catholic before being an American, or a judge.
No one is saying “You must believe X as a religious view in order to serve.” They are saying “You must be willing to work within the laws as they are in order to serve.” That is, at heart, not a *religious* test. To say it is is to grant religion broad hegemony over all aspects of life, and to argue that the religious *always* trumps the secular.
Which is, to put it mildly, a massive misreading.
@Steven Schwartz
This will be typed slowly, so there isn’t any confusion when you read it slowly.
You said SH’s *views* were *exactly* *why* the Constitution has the *religious* *test* *clause*.
The religious test clause pertains only to public office.
You now admit SH’s views have nothing to do with public office — which makes the religious test clause irrelevant to SH’s views.
That makes your original statement against SH complete nonsense — but intentional, incendiary and impolite nonsense, nonetheless.
If you’d like to retract your original statement, it might demonstrate you’re here to discuss in good faith. For now, it does not appear you’re here for an honest debate, as this example of your little game shows.
Religion does always trump the secular. Religious countries and laws have always had a higher success rate. Where ever secularism reigns, death follows. Or, perhaps you have never heard of the French Revolution, or Mao Zedong
“You said SH’s *views* were *exactly* *why* the Constitution has the *religious* *test* *clause*.”
Indeed. The view that other branches of Christianity were so utterly unacceptable that they hardly (if at all) qualified as “Christian” is exactly the view that led to the test clause. I meant what I said.
I hope that’s now clear to you. SH didn’t have to make reference specifically to public office for that view to still underpin the clause, and explain why it was put there.
Got it?
If you wish, I can recast my statement: “It is this very argument: that unless you believe in a very narrow set of beliefs you’re not really ‘Christian’ — that led to a great deal of religious strife, deprival of religious liberty, and religious discrimination in the Europe that the colonists left, and the Founding Fathers could clearly see as they wrote the clauses regarding religious liberty into the Constitution.”
Better?
@Steven Schwartz
Appreciate the attempt, but you apparently don’t see your own error — despite repeating it. Even in your “recasting” you forgot to include the necessary phrase “…in the government.” The Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal government. The “exactly why” of the religious test clause was not an individual’s personal feelings, despite your erroneous attempt to cast it in that light.
You should really read up on the Constitution. You might find it interesting.
“Religion does always trump the secular.”
I guess you don’t actually believe in “religious freedom”, then; since only the overarching secular framework permits religious freedom to really exist.
“Religious countries and laws have always had a higher success rate.”
And a high failure rate, and a very high rate of religious warfare; the Thirty Years’ War was more devastating to the population of Gemany than Mao was to China, for example. The failures of religious governance are *why* secularism was attempted, after all, and why it’s generally done quite well.
(As an example, would you rather live in the secular Netherlands, or Indonesia or Iran?)*
And secularism has done quite well in Europe for the past 50+ years, especially when it comes to avoiding, say, warfare. :)
*And yes, I did deliberately choose two non-Christian nations; because that’s part of the advantage of secularism — not having to find yourself in a country where the government thinks God thinks you’re wrong.)
“Even in your “recasting” you forgot to include the necessary phrase “…in the government.” ”
That’s because you are trying to make me say something I didn’t say.
“The Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal government.”
No; the Constitution was written to define the shape of, and the powers of, the Federal government. To think of it as purely *limiting* is an error.
“The “exactly why” of the religious test clause was not an individual’s personal feelings, despite your erroneous attempt to cast it in that light.”
The “exactly why” such a clause was found necessary was due to a set of historical events, that sprang out of the worldview that I described; that would not come out of another one. Ergo, the worldview is responsible for the need for such a clause. Why is this so hard to grasp?
I do find it interesting that while I have often heard fundamentalist Christians described as *bad* Christians by, say, Episcopalians, or Catholics, or more liberal Presbyterians, I have never heard their Christianity be denied by said — while the reverse is common.
But that returns to my earlier point — that the definition of “Christian” is not really something agreed-upon, and is certainly not the property of any one sect or small subset of the larger religious community.