Translated by Curtis E. Hinkle with permission from the author.
There are scientific claims which maintain that language produces and constructs our world. What this means is that if there is not a word for something, then it does not exist in reality, and by extension, that if people do not identify in a positive manner with the word used to define their sex and sexuality or an aspect of it, they have identity issues.
This study was designed to investigate the impact of medical terminology on perceptions of disease. Specifically, we look at the changing public perceptions of newly medicalized disorders with accompanying newly medicalized terms (e.g. impotence has become erectile dysfunction disorder). Does using “medicalese” to label a recently medicalized disorder lead to a change in the perception of that condition? Undergraduate students (n = 52) rated either the medical or lay label for recently medicalized disorders (such as erectile dysfunction disorder vs. impotence) and established medical conditions (such as a myocardial infarction vs. heart attack) for their perceived seriousness, disease representativeness and prevalence. Students considered the medical label of the recently medicalized disease to be more serious (mean = 4.95 (SE = .27) vs. mean = 3.77 (SE = .24) on a ten point scale), more representative of a disease (mean = 2.47 (SE = .09) vs. mean = 1.83 (SE = .09) on a four point scale), and have lower prevalence (mean = 68 (SE = 12.6) vs. mean = 122 (SE = 18.1) out of 1,000) than the same disease described using common language. A similar pattern was not seen in the established medical conditions, even when controlled for severity. This study demonstrates that the use of medical language in communication can induce bias in perception; a simple switch in terminology results in a disease being perceived as more serious, more likely to be a disease, and more likely to be a rare condition. These findings regarding the conceptualization of disease have implications for many areas, including medical communication with the public, advertising, and public policy.
This Christmas message is about maintaining an oppressive gender system which has enabled him to occupy the supreme position within one of the most powerful male hierarchies on the planet. If he could get LGBT people out of the way, women could be put back into their 'natural' place - the home - to get on with a life fit only for breeding. Why we have to suffer this man's repressed homosexual paranoia and misogyny any more is beyond me. Christmas is about the coming of the Good News, yet this is not the Gospel; it is bad news for LGBT people and for women - so why is the Pope preaching a message of hatred at Christmas that bears no relation to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Why is the Pope seeking to deny a significant group people their humanity, excluding them in the same way he has had them thrown out of convents, monasteries, seminaries and churches?This message of ill-will at Christmas will have negative consequences for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender and intersex people around the world, both within and beyond the Roman Catholic Church.
Response from Curtis E. Hinkle:
Christianity was a Jewish sect. For quite a while, all early Christians were Jews. Jesus, the original founder of this offshoot of Judaism, was eventually turned into a Deity himself by the Church of Rome.Instead of putting the emphasis on the teachings of Jesus, who was called Rabbi, the Church of Rome deified him and made the churchitself the Rabbi or teacher of this early sect. There are some very serious logical errors in the theology of the Pope who seems to have misread the teachings of Jesus concerning marriage and the two sex system. The teachings of Jesus on this topic are still in the official cannon of the Church of Rome and I think there is an intentional omission of these teachings in this Christmas message from the pope.
Matthew {19:10} His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry. {19:11} But he said unto them, All [men] cannot receive this saying, save [they] to whom it is given. {19:12} For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it,] let him receive [it.]
Jesus is referring to eunuchs, intersex people, when he says that some were so born from their mother's womb. So the pope is accurate when he says that Jesus did not change the message of creation. However, that message of creation is not based on a two-sex system, nor is it based on the primacy and superiority of being male or female. Quite the contrary, the message is based on the fact that the Creative Spirit is a composite of all - and the eunuch would therefore be the androgynous human form which other men should try to emulate. So far, the Church of Rome has failed at this miserably and done everything to erase the need for men to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Instead they sexualize people as reproductive instruments who are needed to perpetuate their own material forms to [overpopulate] the earth. We could save the rainforests if we listened to what Jesus said. The problem is not intersex people or transsexuals and Jesus makes this very clear. The problem is the uncontrollable lust that rules many men's heads and which has led us to the situation where the rainforests are in peril.
I suggest the pope reread the message that the Rabbi Jesus taught. He held eunuchs (intersex people) to be of particular merit because of their nature.
It is also very symbolic that the first non-Jew to become a member of this Jewish sect was the Ethiopian eunuch. (See footnote.)
Jesus was not a big advocate of marriage. He simply concedes to the fact that most men will not live up to their high calling of rising above their carnal desires and lets marriage be a default for fulfilling their sexual needs.
Intersex people are missing from this papal message. Why? Because the church of Rome is not willing to deal with the real world that is not based on a two-sex system but which reflects the Father-Mother God, the All in One. The church of Rome is a phallocratic institution and as such, is perpetuating the very slavery to sexualized commodities (in the form of women who become objects for men's use and abuse) and makes intersex people not only invisible but lower than women in this hierarchy.
Footnote
Acts {8:26} And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. {8:27} And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, {8:28} Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. {8:29} Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. {8:30} And Philip ran thither to [him,] and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? {8:31} And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. {8:32} The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: {8:33} In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. {8:34} And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? {8:35} Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. {8:36} And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? {8:37} And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. {8:38} And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. {8:39} And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Newborns with atypical genitalia are more common than you might think. Should having an intersex condition be considered a medical problem? What role do social factors play in determining gender? In a new book Katrina Karkazis explores the many debates affecting how intersexuality is viewed, treated and experienced.
This morning (23rd December 2008) I woke up to be confronted by a very interesting news item stating that Pope Benedict was speaking against the "ecology of man and woman being undermined by homosexuals and transsexuals". He went on to discuss homosexuality and transsexuality in the context of the environment. It crossed my mind that I myself may have struck a raw nerve when I wrote "Mater Salmacis Solanas" a few weeks before. I was myself responding to a number of newspaper articles discussing Phthalates and talking about how the two sex system (in the biological sense) was not doing so well right now and I suggested that it may well be a part of natural evolution.
One thing I did mention was how moral panic was being whipped up and anyone who does not conform to the two sex system would be scapegoated with the drawing of parallels between the two sex system and the environment.
I will admit to being the one of the very few people who appear to relish the idea of the two sex system facing a demise. Admitted, there were feminists and so on talking about the eradication of men in a half joking manner. But I said what I felt straight out, that the two sex system is probably in trouble and that may not be a bad thing.
'Boy or girl?' tends to be the first question asked when a baby is born. And a cursory look at the genitals usually provides the answer. But it's not that simple, says Zachary I Nataf.
'Whatever I feel, that's the way I am. I was born a girl, and that girl died one day and a boy was born. And the boy was born from that girl in me. I am proud of who I am. A lot of people actually envy us.' Chi-Chi, who lives in a village in the Dominican Republic, is speaking to filmmaker Rolando Sanchez for his 1997 documentary Guevote.
Executive Director Anne Tamar-Mattis of Advocates for Informed Choice (AIC) has written an overview for medical professionals on gender transition as it pertains to intersex people:
That led to a discussion about use of terms like "disorders" and "conditions" to describe these characteristics and traits. I have asked her if I could publish our correspondence on this, excerpts of which are listed below.
Thanks for this article. It's a shame you didn't acknowledge the controversy about repathologizing intersex people by describing their traits as "disorders of sex development" or "DSD." This push by the Accord Alliance and its predecessor ISNA is considered highly problematic to many forward-thinking researchers and people with these traits. See for instance noted intersex researcher Milton Diamond:
Posts
