The recent spotlight on the breakdown of the marriage between a transsexual and “his” wife points to the need for a deeper look into methods of helping a transgender rather than the simple solution often proposed rhetorically by LGBT activists.
LGBT activists spearhead the rhetoric that accepting homosexuality is the be all and end all to helping same-sex-attracted persons. To this end, they support sex-change therapy as a feasible solution for transgenders.
If the case between “Mr” Chai and Ms Chua is of any indication, complications seem to abound even after a medically “successful” sex change operation.
According to Mypaper reports, “Mr” Chai was formerly a woman, named “Margaret”, before he underwent a sex change operation to become a man. Since then, he had married three times.
While not much is said about “Mr” Chai’s first two marriages, his third marriage has made it into news after their divorce and tussle of matrimonial assets make its way into the courts.
It was only when Ms Chua sought to annul the marriage that she discovered that her husband is a transsexual.
In “Wife says transsexual married her for money”, Mypaper revealed how their marriage was never consummated:
“Ms Chua said they only held hands and kissed for the seven years they were dating, even after they moved in together. Then, she was glad she had found a real gentleman.
But after getting married in 2009, when she was more than willing, Mr Chai began to make excuses.
He would say he was tired, sleep in the living room or even sleep in his parents’ room. He even told her to “find someone else” to have sex with.”
Mypaper also had “Mr” Chai airing his views as follow:
“Mr Chai said he did not find his former wife attractive, and married her because he pitied her.
“Once I dated her, I lost my job. Then after we got married, she became unreasonable, shouted at me in public, causing me to lose face,” he told Wanbao.
He also claimed Ms Chua bullied his parents.”
Who has a case here? It might be more straightforward with some understanding into sex change therapy.
The history of sex change therapy is filled with controversy. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, responsible for influencing American culture on the legitimacy of sex change with the setting up of the Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) in 1966, abruptly reversed their position and stopped all sex change procedures at Hopkins thirteen years later.
This was after findings of a study aimed to measure the benefits of the surgery in the long term were published. Dr Jon Meyer, chairman of GIC revealed, “To say that this type of surgery cures psychiatric disturbance is incorrect. We now have objective evidence that there is no real difference in the transsexual’s adjustment to life in terms of jobs, educational attainment, marital adjustment and social stability.”
Dr Meyer, a psychiatrist and an expert in sexual disorders, also told The New York Times, “My personal feeling is that surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me that these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.”
Meyer began his role as Chairman of the Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) enthusiastic about testing the theories about the uniqueness of transsexuals put forth by his GIC medical predecessors. However, his experience in mental health psychiatry and in sexual disorders soon provided the insight that set him apart from his medical colleagues.
He realized that transsexualism is more than a medical condition that can be resolved by a medical solution; which surgically creates genitalia that matched the patient’s gender identity. This was then the prevailing theory which he, upon talking with patients at greater length, observed otherwise.
Dr Meyer found his patients “would start out talking about their wish for sex reassignment but would very rapidly get into anything people would talk about in therapy” – loss, abandonment, grief. Far from finding transsexualism to be the unique condition described, Meyer says the patients were “familiar.”
Dr John Hoopes, a plastic surgeon and ex-Chairman of GIC before Meyers, who wrote in 1969 that sex change surgery “must be undertaken regardless of the censure and taboos of present society,” holds a far different view today. He concurs with Meyers.
“Prior to the surgery, these patients were at least male or female, but after the surgery the males converted to females weren’t really females and the females converted to males weren’t really males,” he says. “You’ve created a new breed. You’ve created something you don’t know what to do with.” He adds: “I never saw a successful patient. For the most part they remained misfits.”
However, by the time Meyer spoke out against sex changes in 1979, it was already thirteen years after Hopkins cleared the way for other medical centres to establish their own sex change programmes. While Meyer’s statements signal the end of Hopkins’ approval for the surgery, as well as the research on transsexualism, other surgeons continue to perform sex changes at private clinics and hospitals nationwide. But as private clinics don’t conduct researches, little is known about transsexualism or the long term effects of sex change surgery, than when the GIC first started.
In other words, sex change, or what is now politically termed “gender realignment”, is actually nothing more than just an aesthetic plastic surgery. Outwardly, the appearance changes, but inwardly, it has no power to alter nature. Even though patients are required to undergo hormonal therapy prior to the operation, the hormones do not make a male out of a female or a female out of a male. Transsexuals become permanently sterile after the operation. Their organs are plastic surgery constructions that lack the sexual functions of a biological male or female. It is a radical, irreversible procedure and it does not resolve the psychological issues faced by transgender.
Quite obviously, Ms Chua is a real victim in a climate where medical sex change is legal and deemed as a lawfully recognized solution to transgenderism. It legalizes officially that a man is now a woman, or a woman is now a man, after a sex change, even when biologically, each is unable to fully function in their capacity as a man or a woman. This does not make sense as such a law will fail to protect ordinary citizens. “Reassigned” transsexuals are not expected to make full disclosures of their sex change to their partners before they enter into marriage. Ms Chua is a direct victim of this and she suffered physically, emotionally, mentally and economically.
Under this climate where what is unnatural has been deemed legal, Ms Chua might not have been the first victim. It does look like “Mr” Chai’s first two wives might have been victims as well. Mypaper also reported that currently “Mr” Chai is now dating another woman. This pattern of victimization seems likely to continue, unless some radical changes to the law are proposed.
Thankfully, no children are implicated in the case. There has not been any mention of the couple adopting or having kids. I imagine what the child would feel if he discovered that his “dad” is not his real father, but is in fact a woman. It would have totally been traumatizing. Such home environments make victims out of kids. Whenever something unnatural is forced down upon society, it makes victims out of people, including children.
Less we forget, “Mr” Chai is himself, a victim as well. He was given the unnecessary choice to alter his biological nature, when he should have been helped by psychotherapy. While he has managed to marry three times after his surgery, none of his marriages had bore the fulfilling fruit he probably wished. It has all been a futile “adventure”. The illusion that one’s psychological problems will be resolved after a medical operation ends up as a giant disappointment which adds on to one’s psychological burden.
On top of that, the procedure irreversibly harms the patient’s healthy functioning biological organ. The diminished sexual ability is likely to inflict more trauma upon one’s identity. Stories after stories affirm the fact that hundreds of people who had undergone sex change procedures end up in deep regret. Sex change clinics and doctors who perform the operations continue to get mired in controversy as victims speak out.
Objectively speaking, if reparative therapy is deemed bad, then sex change operation has to be strongly condemned and banned.
So before you accept another huge rhetorical gimmick flying on the exploitative but meaningless banners of tolerance, diversity, human rights, freedom to love, stop and ask yourself – is it as simple as it looks? Big claims and talks often ignore finer issues that really matter. Things that are contrary to nature but forced down upon society would mean some will be made victims.
Take for example if same-sex marriage is legalized, it would result in same-sex parenting. Same-sex parenting means that the child is forced to miss out on a mother or a father. Legalizing same-sex marriage will institute the motherless family, or the fatherless family. This is a structural injustice and depravation imposed on a child by the state. Should we give priority to children’s rights, or should we give priority to LGBT activists’ claims?
Claims that are controversial are often more complicated than it seems. Where is the sociological data? Where are the scientific studies? Where is the reliable insider insight? Rhetoric often ignores evidences so as to present falsehoods as truth by persuasion and impression. Rhetoric is what you use to snare innocent followers who have sympathy and compassion but have yet to understand or discern the root problem of the issue.
In this climate where political correctness increasingly overwrites truth, it is important that we rise above the pink rhetoric, and learn how to check out the full story.