Jocular Georgina’s gender jaw-dropper
1 March 2005
Reformation Testimony Garnet Milne www.reformationtestimony.org.nz
Jocular Georgina’s gender jaw-dropper and the source of inhuman rights.
All men are essentially religious. This is just as true of the superstitious pagan worshipper of the god of the forest as it is of the self-confessed atheist/agnostic. It is equally true that devotees of all religions express themselves in recognisable ways. Each religion, at the very least, requires its adherents to pay homage to another entity as a source of ultimate truth. Since the object of worship, the god of their devotion, is the source of ultimate truth, the worshippers equally derive their ethical mores from that god.
The god of hedonism, worshipped by the ruling Labour govt and their friends, can also be defined as a trinity from hell: The idols of the United Nations; the civil government or state; and secularism make up this trinity of hedonism, or perhaps we could say shedonism.
Shedonism is a religious system. All religious systems have a theory of how we know what is true. In secularism empirical science is considered the most reliable guide to ultimate reality. Its conclusions, based upon an appeal to evolutionary theory that man and reality are just the product of impersonal processes, help reinforce the notion that science (including social science) is a sounder and more rational source of knowledge than that revealed by the true God. An appeal to a transcendent and invisible Law-Giver and to His revelation is rejected in favour of a “scientific” analysis which is believed to produce conclusions that are rational and provable. Ultimate truth is to be found through empirical science. In the realm of ethics, the secularist theory of knowledge reliant as it is upon scientific empiricism will produce conclusions about what is good or bad which will be often at odds with the conclusions of revealed religion - Christianity.
This is because of secularism’s false optimism that an ethical system which is authentically human can be established as a result of scientific investigation alone. Since the secularist does not believe that there is a transcendent Law-giver, how does he decide in practical terms what is right and wrong? How does he identify a human right?
The UN Idol Since all human beings are considered by the worshippers of shedonism to be the product of the same evolutionary process with a common ancestor, a ‘human right’ must be universal. If a society has certain human rights in Africa, the New Zealander should also have access to the same rights. While this is true of revealed religion, in the case of shedonism rights are defined by UN committees. The UN then tries to impose its regime of rights upon all the nations of the world and has had some degree of success in its endeavours, as we see here in our fair land.
This present Labour-led government and its supporters like the Greens look to the UN for ultimate truth. Part of the reason for this may be the simple sin of pride. Our political leadership may derive pleasure from publicly preening among the godless at the UN, getting themselves on TV and on the front page of the worlds’ dailies. Their ultimate truth, however, is found in human rights established by the amorphous collection of dictators, socialists and general bad apples that largely make up the United Nations. An atheistic government like our own, because all men are essentially religious, still needs to pay homage to another entity. It finds its object of worship in the UN. Margaret Wilson when attorney general wrote “Human rights should be the foundation and basis of all policy. On a practical level it is essential that human rights underpin much of this Government’s programme (HRC, Annual Report 2000, p. 9)”.
This sounds very noble, but it must be remembered that Wilson and co are not talking about human rights given by a divine Law-Giver, but rights invented by the assorted idolaters who make up the UN. Their base document is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), but many other instruments established by UN committees are also relevant and have been ratified by New Zealand governments – among those instruments are conventions that promote abortion and undermine the family. And incidentally, it is from the foot of the UN altar, where millions of unborn children are murdered with the blessing and promotion of the UN, that Mrs Helen Clark has discovered the profound insight that New Zealand women should park their children with strangers and go off to work in the city. This will apparently make New Zealand better off. One wonders why Labour does not adopt the China one-child policy. After all we already have the state-funded abortiories to make it function well. Perhaps we will hear about this policy soon in time for the next election.
While there are obviously similarities between some of the rights given by God and revealed in Scripture, and those established by the UDHR and its offshoots, since sinful men have decided to invent rights without reference to the Triune God, we can easily understand how the depraved lusts of people who worship the pagan god of hedonism will want to establish godless ‘rights’ to justify their practices and lusts and those of their pagan friends and supporters.
One example of this invention of ‘rights’ received from the UN deity is found in the desire of pagan governments to legitimise homosexuality. Thus contrary to what God declares by divine fiat, Helen and her marauders have earnestly sought to engineer society so that the depraved habits of the sodomites will be normalised, and even children taught that these abominable practices are legitimate expressions of human sexuality. Following the success of the campaign for civil unions aka homosexual marriage, the government is now taking the UN mandate to a new low point by supporting a bill to grant special rights to men and women homosexuals who want to become the opposite gender God had made them.
Consider the appeal of Georgina Beyer that transvestites, or people who claim to be a different sex than their sexual organs imply, should have special rights. In particular they crave a ‘right’ to be recognised in law as someone who is to have access to all human rights. Because the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1993 does not include a reference to transgender people, therefore, this allegedly has to be redressed. It is important to do this because, according to Beyer, transgender people are discriminated against in “employment, housing, and in some matters covered by the law”. The bill does not say just how this discrimination occurs, but asserts that the HRA reference to discrimination on the grounds of one’s sex does not adequately cover ‘transgenders’. Typically, the bill is completely lacking any argument to prove that this is the case.
We must confess to being gob-smacked that this nonsense has seen the light of day. Surely, we thought, Georgina must be joking. But, of course, UN sanctioned paganism is a religion with its own ethical standards; and those standards stand radically opposed to the morality established by the Moral Governor of this universe. We can only guess, at this stage, what Beyer and the Labour/Progressive/Green coterie have in mind.
New rights for transvestites Perhaps Beyer is thinking that a transvestite might want to use a women’s toilet, but is prevented from doing so. Therefore, we must change the law, so that a cross dressing male can legally pass himself off as a female and have access to women’s toilets.
Another possible discrimination would be a transvestite male being refused when applying to join the police department as a police woman. If he is legally a she, then the police department will have to give him a woman’s uniform and allow him to frisk women prisoners. Transvestite doctors, who are actually men, will also want to be able to examine the bodies of women patients who may be oblivious to the fact that the feminine features of their doctor are the product of hormone injections, silicon implants and surgery. The patients would be unaware that they are actually exposing their personal features to a man, who considers himself a female lesbian.
One the other side of the coin, a woman who passes herself off as a man could play rugby as a man and not disclose her true sex. This could mean that we could actually have women in the front row of the all blacks, which might be a good tactic to throw the opposition into a state of confusion. Furthermore, it may result in the Wallabies refusing to play against women (albeit girls with hormone induced facial hair) and leaving the ground in disgust.
This, of course, would benefit New Zealand especially if it was the final of the world cup. Think of the disastrous consequences such a hollow victory would, however, have on the egos of New Zealand men if women could usurp men in the fifteen in black. On the other hand, this might involve the NZRFU in expensive litigation and soak up the $10 million windfall it has just landed.
Humour aside, the effect of the bill will be to allow males to encroach on territory we have customarily reserved for true women; and females on territory once the preserve of those born men. God made man male and female, not male in order to become female (Gen. 1:27). Yes there are God-given rights, but they are rights for men and women. In God’s eyes, Georgina has all the rights any other male might have.
Beyer’s bill also rejects the idea that the protections given those who have a different ‘sexual orientation’ can apply to transvestites, because the bill claims that the latter are not homosexuals or lesbians, but are actually (presumably by nature) the sex they now claim for themselves. However, biblically they will always be looked upon by Bible-believing Christians (that is true Christians) as homosexuals whom God excludes from the kingdom of heaven, unless they repent and trust in Christ as Lord and Saviour (1 Cor. 6:9).
So the ‘right’ that Beyer now claims is the legal right for a male to be a she. This, according to the bill, even applies to cross-dressers. The ‘right’ is in the first place the right to be considered a member of the opposite sex, which would as we have noticed allow such men to transgress into the space preserved for women, in toilets, women’s dressing rooms, in employment – indeed in any facet of life, and no one could discriminate against them.
This is an attack on our culture. No matter what the pagan law of the land might say, faithful churches would not allow membership of such a person without full repentance of their sin. Such people would also be excluded from any leadership role or office in the church.
How could this ‘right’ be argued by the secularist in any convincing fashion? He can appeal to evolutionary theory and justify transgenderism/transvestitism along the same lines as some justify homosexuality. Man, in their view, is just the product of impersonal forces, and there are no transcendent norms from a universal Law-Giver to be taken into account.
Therefore, a person who ‘feels’ that he is the wrong sex biologically, should be able to change sexes and have all the privileges and rights of that new sex because he just evolved that way. The true sex of the individual can purportedly be tested empirically by asking a series of questions why a man thinks he is actually a women.
The psychologists’ test questions would become the objective standard to legally declare a person to be a member of the opposite sex with all the rights and privileges of that sex. But here is the irony. The secularist does not actually listen to the conclusions of science when it does not suit, showing that science still cannot overcome man’s fallen nature anymore that it can escape the limitations of the finite mind in its conclusions.
Professor Paul McHugh, at one time University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, is an expert in transgender issues. He has concluded, based upon empirical studies, that changing sexes is actually not a good idea but is instead harmful for the individual. Georgina and Helen will not buy into that one. God has given His will for this world, summarised in the Ten Commandments.
The Christian finds that God’s law is beneficial for all, while the faulty conclusions of science-so-called are often destructive to the individual and to society as a whole. This is true of abortion. Studies show that women who have abortions are actually more psychologically damaged than those women who take their babies to full term. Even women who become pregnant through rape are far more emotionally stable than those who abort the baby.
New Zealand may have to go into full-blooded paganism, before many wakeup and truly understand what is happening to their society. As Christians, we must point out the unpopular truth that Beyer and fellow pagans will not find happiness in defying the moral absolutes of the one true God. We must speak out so that the disciples of the UN deity and those they are corrupting will be under no illusions that their present path is destructive for both their own souls and those they mislead.