“Updated Version: May 12, 2010”

The Case Against Cross-dressing or Transgenderism in Guyana

Is the Supreme Court being misled by sasod on Gender Identity Disorder?

Table Of Contents
Pg.

1. Executive Summary of Main References ……………………………………………………………………………... 2

2. Friend-of-the-Court Briefs ………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3. Definitions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
4. What are the usual legal requirements for “human-rights” legislation? ………………… 6
5. Pit religion against religion? ... Or go to referendum? …………………………………………. 7
6. What are the practical repercussions that Guyanese can immediately expect? ……. 8
7. Transgenderism as Gender-Identity/Mental/Psychosexual Disorder ……………………………. 9
8. What is to be learned from Proposition 8 and the Delhi High Court decision: ……………….. 9
9. Transgenderism simply a subset of unconstitutional “Sexual-Orientation” issues ……………….. 10
10. Using Transgenderism/Gender-Identity-Disorder to further gay-rights ……………….. 11
11 Should laws be passed to “protect” transgenders from “discrimination”? ……………….. 12
12. Do parents know that sasod is targeting teens for homosexual/transgender relationships? …… 13
13. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

WHAT DOES THE LEGAL AND MEDICAL COMMUNITY CONCLUDE?

“… Legal protection against discrimination based on mental illness is not provided for any
other disorder. Those who wish to assume a “gender identity” contrary to their biological
sex are in need of mental health treatment to overcome such disturbed thinking, not
legislation to affirm it.

“Gender identity” legislation endangers the physical and mental health of the very people it
is trying to protect. Physically mutilating the mentally ill is not the answer. For example, will
healthy limb amputation, another mental disorder known as Body Integrity Identity
Disorder (BIID), be the next protected class? (See Newsweek story:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138932 )

Nor should we encourage men and women to consume life-long hormones in a daily battle
to overcome their natural biology. Hormones cannot change the chromosomes that
determine one’s sex.

Abolishing gender and making believe it doesn’t really matter for the rest of the population
is also not the answer.

One goal sought by gay groups is to ensure that transgenders of all types have legal access
to the public bathroom of their choice, regardless of their actual birth sex
http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/PIP%20Resource%20Guide.pdf This can
make public bathrooms and dressing rooms unsafe for women and children. It is a huge
step backwards for women’s rights.

After disrupting their bodies with radical surgery and hormone pills, transgenders approach
PFOX for help in leaving the transgender lifestyle. They need funds for gender affirming
therapy, reversal surgery, and breast explants. If legislators want to protect transgenders,
they can start by giving them the therapy they need”

(http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

“… We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional
credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and
ultimately prevent it. …” (“Surgical Sex” … article by Dr. Paul McHugh, University
Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry
 Executive Summary of Main References

1. “Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria”
( http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8309&context=expresso ).

Assesses every decided case in the USA to 2006 to pronounce on the legal morass … based on
deception and highly questionable “science” … that the GLBT-community deliberately induces in
its strategy to attack creation-structures such as sex, marriage, manhood, womanhood.

“… Whether sex is immutable or transitory, objective or subjective, has now

become an international concern. This article addresses every case in the world
every decided on this issue. The resolution is centrally important to the battle
over marriage and sex-based classifications.

The thesis of this article is that sex is an immutable characteristic at the time of
birth and must be determined by objective criteria.

Sex must be determined by objective factors such as biology and physiology. A

person's sex is determined by chromosomes. When there is harmony between
biology and physiology, surgery cannot alter a person's sex merely because that
person desires a different gender. If sex is primarily a state of mind and based on
subjective mental desires, equal protection for sex-based classifications becomes
meaningless. To maintain any stability and meaning to sex-based classification,
sex must (and can) be determined by objective factors….”

3. “Q&A on Gender Identity Confusion -- Sexual Behavior Disorders”;

( http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

The literature is clear about the medical/mental-health basis of the “transgender” condition!

Definitions:

“… The term Transgender is an umbrella term that includes transvestism and

transsexualtiy. Medical professionals acknowledge that a Transgender condition
is a Gender Identity Disorder (GID). Gay activists purport that gender identity is
defined by how a person feels at any given moment.

Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender

group. Cross-dressers wear the clothing of the other sex. They vary in how
completely they dress (from one article of clothing to fully cross-dressing) as well
as in their motives for doing so. Some cross-dress to express cross-gender
feelings or identities; others cross-dress for fun, for emotional comfort, or for
sexual arousal. The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of
whom are sexually attracted to women.

Transvestism involves an emotional need that requires a male to wear female

attire to meet a sexual need or reduce one's anxiety. “Transvestism is not just
cross-dressing’

Transvestic Fetishism -- intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or

behaviors involving cross-dressing.

Transsexuals are transgender people who live or wish to live full time as
members of the gender opposite to their birth sex.

Transsexuality and Transvestic Fetishism are all chosen or compulsive

behaviors -- not genetics. They are no different from smoking, alcoholism, drug
addiction or other self-destructive behaviors. They are not a fixed identity…”

2
2. “Is transsexuality biologically determined?”
(http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm )

“…the language used about homosexuality or transsexuality (mainly

by media people) becomes slippery and practically dishonest.
Typically, a scientific study is quoted which etc. (The actual strength
of the link is almost never mentioned.) This link is taken to show that
transsexuality has “a biological basis”, or “is biological”, or “is
genetic”, or “is due to hormones”. The implication then taken from this
equivocal use of language is that the condition is biologically
determined, whereas in all cases the evidence shows nothing of the
kind and most of those with the physiological condition described do
not become transsexual. Those conditions therefore are no more than
minor influences. If they were major influences we would already
understand unequivocally the origin of transsexuality in all cases. We
don’t. More of these studies come out every year, get misreported, and
the gap between what scientists really think and what the activist
believes, becomes larger every year.

Thus there are studies on enzymic or hormonal abnormalities, physical

dexterity, auditory phenomena, psychological profiles (Dörner,Poppe,
Stahl, Kölzsch & Uebelhack, 1991;Bosinski, Peter, Bonatz,Arndt,
Heidenreich, Siffell & Wille, 1997) The outstanding feature of these
studies is little consistency - no obvious single cause and only minor
links…”

4. “Science and Homosexuality”

( http://www.mygenes.co.nz/ )

This site provides continuously updated links to illustrate that same-sex attraction disorders …are just
that, and should be medically addressed, not legislated into “acceptance”.

5. “Surgical Sex”
Article in “Transgenderism is a Gender-Identity-Disorder; Transgenderism is a Mental Disorder” by Dr.
Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, in
2005 ( http://www.pfox.org/Transgenderism_is_gender_identity_disorder.html )

“…. Where did they get the idea that our sexual identity (“gender” was
the term they preferred) as men or women was in the category of things
that could be changed? …”

“…“… We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged

our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than
trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it. …”

6. “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality”

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-
Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality )

“… One of the major objectives of this exercise will be to expose readers in the
Caribbean to the solid evidence hitherto avoided, and to show that almost every
argument posted by pro-gay or gay-militant contributors will, upon closer
examination, be seen to have engaged in outright lies, twisted logic, wholesale
efforts at deception, or some subtle combination of the three…”

3
7. “A Critique of the Brain-Sex Theory of Transsexualism” by transsexual Anne Lawrence, M.D., Ph.D.
(http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/brain-sex_critique.html )

He is forced to conclude that the issue of “Female Neuron Numbers In a Limbic Nucleus” is junk science.
Which “biological” pillar will fall next?
“…The brain-sex theory was never helpful in explaining clinical observations; now
it has become irrelevant to explaining neuroanatomical observations. It is time to
abandon the brain-sex theory of transsexualism and to adopt a more plausible
and clinically relevant theory in its place…”

8. “Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense of the Controversy!”

(Multnomah Press; 1992; Portland, Oregon 97266).

“… As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an

analogy to other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided
protection to other minorities, why should society not add one more group to
those protected from discrimination?

Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally
given civil rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the
past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot
withstand careful analysis…”

9. “The Case Against Cross-dressing or Transgenderism in Guyana”

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/27698238/The-Case-Against-Cross-Dressing-or-Transgender-
ism-in-Guyana )

“… We have offered before that there is proximity between transgender (cross-

dressing) and homosexual issues, hence the nomenclature “GBLT community”.
The contemporaneous nature of the diagnosis is everywhere in the literature. The
activity of the one group inevitably becomes the “opportunity” for the other!

Guyana’s courts should be in no doubt about whom or what sasod is promoting in

this case! It is not just “cross-dressing”, but rather seeking legal footholds on all
Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian and Transgender (GBLT) issues, including sex-change
operations, homosexuality and same-sex marriage …”

10. “Homosexuality is not a Civil Right”

(http://www.catholicsocialscientists.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf )

“…Submits that no new psychological or sociological research justifies this shift.

Research did not settle the question. Research simply stopped, and it is politics
that has silenced the professional dialogue. Now, the only studies on
homosexuality are from an advocacy perspective.

Militant gay advocates working in a small but forceful network have caused
apathy and confusion within our society. They insist that acceptance of the
homosexual as a person cannot occur without endorsement of the homosexual
condition. Intellectual circles too—who are self-conscious about sounding
intolerant—proclaim homosexuality as normal, yet it is still not so for the
average person for whom it “just doesn’t seem right…”

11. “Supporting Gay Rights Laws Would Court Legal Disaster”

(http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/supporting-gay-rights-laws-would-court.html )

4
12. "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement"
(http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.doc )

Raises fertile opportunity for research scientists and policy-makers in the Caribbean:

".... Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that
homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the
mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children.
Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue for the freedom to engage in consensual
sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a shockingly high number of
homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the homosexual
community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent...."

13. “Transsexualism and the Binary Divide: Determining Sex Using Objective Criteria”
( http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8309&context=expresso ).

“… Conferring legal status upon transsexuals opens a Pandora’s box

which will undermine not only equal protection, but objective law
itself…”

14. “Why Narth? The American Psychological Association’s Destructive & Blind Pursuit of Political
Correctness!” by Ben Kaufman. 14 R EGENT U. L. REV. 423 (2002).
(http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2kaufman.doc )

15. “Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy”, by Ty Clevenger

( http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Clevenger.doc )

“…Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association [not to be confused with APA,

which is American Psychological Association] offered luridly titled presentations on
counseling aspiring transsexuals. This creates a rather bizarre contrast.

On the one hand, “mainstream” academic/professional organizations publish

research suggesting adult-child sex may not be harmful, and they endorse
supportive therapy for individuals who wish to surgically alter themselves (some
would say physically mutilate themselves) from one sex to the other.

Yet, they denounce as unethical any healthcare professionals who offer therapy to
homosexuals who wish to become heterosexuals. In other words, it is ethical to
counsel a man to have his penis removed so he can have sex as a heterosexual
woman, but it’s unethical to counsel a man to have sex as a heterosexual man
even if he wants to have sex as a typical man...”

5
Dear Attorney-General Charles Ramson,
Dear Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Legal Affairs
Dear Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Priya Manickchand
Dear Minister of Education, Shaik Baksh
Dear NGO-Community Members in Guyana
Dear Leaders of the Christian, Muslim and Hindu Community in Guyana
Dear Attorneys-General of the Caribbean
Dear Editors

I refer to the letter by Antoine Craigwell (KN 26 2 10) captioned “Cross-dressing in Guyana; Is the
Supreme Court Courageous?” and would appreciate the opportunity to respond. This response is copied to
Guyana’s Attorney-General, the Guyana Bar Association, and the Bar-Associations and Attorneys-General of the
Caribbean. It follows an appeal (constitutional motion) to Guyana’s courts by sasod and Vidyaratha Kissoon.

I hope that the information herein can inform The Attorney-General’s response due by May 31,2010.

A. “Friend-of-the-Court” Briefs:

We have already dispatched correspondence to the Attorney-General of Guyana advising our interest in having
the online document “The Case Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of Homosexuality” be
considered as a friend-of-the-court brief in relation to the constitutional motion filed by sasod! The document is
44 pages long, and addresses the wider issue of GBLT-militancy in general.

To satisfy the need for a more reader-friendly document for citizens, parliamentarians, the media, Guyana
Teachers’ Union, Guyana trade Union Movement, and members of the Guyana Bar Association, this 15-page
brief summarizes the major issues on transgenderism, and is also forwarded to the Attorney-General.

As introduction to the issues confronting Guyana and the Caribbean today, readers should also note the
response in a Stabroek News letter “Nothing ‘Historic’ About Cross-Dressing Constitutional Motion in
Guyana” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27559391/Nothing-Historic-About-Cross-dressing-
Constitutional-Motion-in-Guyana ) and a second response to questions raised by a “UG-student” in the
Kaieteur News letter “Laws Against Homosexual and Transgender Activity Exist for a Number of Good
Reasons” (http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2010/02/27/laws-against-homosexual-and-
transgender-activity-exist-for-a-number-of-good-reasons/ ) to show the consistent application of
principle against transgenderism and gay-militancy.

B. Definitions:

Please refer to “Q&A on Gender Identity Confusion -- Sexual Behavior Disorders”;

http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf ), and the shortlist in the Executive Summary.

C. Why are the legal requirements for “human-rights” legislation”?

We have offered before that there is proximity between transgender (cross-dressing) and homosexual issues,
hence the nomenclature “GBLT community”. The contemporaneous nature of the diagnosis is everywhere in the
literature. The activity of the one group inevitably becomes the “opportunity” for the other! Guyana’s courts
should be in no doubt about whom or what sasod is promoting in this case! It is not just “cross-dressing”, but
rather seeking legal footholds on all Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian and Transgender (GBLT) issues, including sex-
change operations, homosexuality and same-sex marriage

As to the fallacy of strategy that the GBLT is wont to pursue, essential reading is the book by lawyer and author
Roger J. Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right: Making Sense of the Controversy”; Multnomah Press; 1992;
Portland, Oregon 97266). The excerpt below is taken from his arguments at pgs. 67-107, specifically p. 82-89):

“… As we have already seen, proponents of gay rights laws rely heavily on an analogy to
other human rights legislation. If human rights laws have provided protection to other
minorities, why should society not add one more group to those protected from
discrimination?

6
 Hitching their wagon to the broadly based support Americans have traditionally given civil
rights laws, gay rights advocates have made surprising progress in the past decade.

The human rights analogy, though popular and politically understandable, cannot withstand
careful analysis. Adding homosexual behaviour to a list of classes that includes racial and
religious minorities makes no sense. The tenuous balance of social interests represented by
these laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes they protect. Relief has
been given only in extraordinary circumstances.

To add another protected class, at least five requirements have had to be shown:
(1) A demonstrable pattern of discrimination …
(2) … based on criteria that are arbitrary and irrational …
(3) … causing substantial injury …
(4) … to a class of people with an unchangeable or immutable status …
(5) … which has no element of moral fault …. ”

Transgenderism and gay-militancy fail on these criteria! The real tragedy may well be that sasod never alerted
its constituents to the public policy implications that their decision would have.

Again, to the extent that there is proximity, please note the following words of Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia
in their online article “Homosexuality is Not a Civil Right” (http://www.crrange.com/wall34.html ):

“… When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between
liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity,
not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and
moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as
stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to
the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community….”

After reading Regier & Garcia’s treatment, and given the legal, social, medical and moral evidence to
the contrary, does Guyana really want to follow the trajectory of tragedy other nations have taken
regarding gay militancy and “sexual orientation”? Seven clear rebuttals apply to Craigwell’s letter!

D. Pit religion against religion? ... Or go to referendum?

Firstly, Craigwell’s letter is memorable for the number of factual misrepresentations it makes, and perhaps also
for advocating that, from a religious standpoint, it will be Hinduism that drives the local effort for the GBLT
community, albeit that such initiatives will be diametrically opposed to Christian, Muslim and most secular
outlook here in Guyana. We should mention that the official Hindu community has not commented on
Craigwell’s letter at February 28, 2010, or at May 12 (the date of this update).

That this current initiative may therefore involve an intense, and perhaps gory, clash between local religions
should not be lost on the government and the judiciary. If we needed proof of that effort to pit religion against
religion, then we had to look no further than a previous and hopelessly biased and one-sided statement by Arif
Bulkan, one of the lawyers representing sasod in this current constitutional motion:

“… In Guyana, as in the rest of the Commonwealth Caribbean, we inherited as part of the

colonial legacy, Judeo-Christian (and) Islamic homophobia and anti-sexuality attitudes
which found expression in laws that criminalize private sexual behaviour between men and
certain acts relating to commercial sex work…” (“National Assessment on HIV / AIDS, Law,
Ethics and Human Rights in Guyana”; by Arif Bulkan; Page 4, paragraph 3; 2004)

Apart from illustrating scant regard for the tenets of two major faiths in Guyana, the above statement confirms
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi’s contention that most current research on GBLT-issues has abandoned solid clinical
evidence and research and is now conducted from an “advocacy” or pro-GBLT perspective.

However, the evidence will show that Guyana’s Supreme Court has ample legal, medical, societal and personal
reasons to reject the petition by sasod, and, further, that the court would be wise in not generating inter-
religious acrimony among Guyanese citizens and take the safe path of referring the issue to referendum later.

7
Readers should assess the article “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of
Homosexuality” ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17685588/The-Case-Against-PANCAP-and-the-
Decriminalization-of-Homosexuality ). Sasod’s puerile arguments about the “victimless” nature of “sexual
orientation” cases is dealt with at pages 21, 23 and 24 of that treatment. Read also the dissent by Justice
Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v Texas on pages 25-35. In particular, the following comments should be helpful in
illustrating that an emotional and ad hoc approach to interpreting the law has serious repercussions:

“…. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the
promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the
above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review….” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 30 of
“Arguments Against Pancap …” above)

“…. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations
can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be
made by the people ….” (Scalia, J. dissenting at page 32 of “Arguments Against Pancap …” above)

E. What are the practical repercussions that Guyana can immediately foresee?

Secondly, consistent with our submissions in 2007 captioned “Supporting Gay Rights Laws Would Court
Legal Disaster” (http://rogerwilli.blogspot.com/2009/06/supporting-gay-rights-laws-would-
court.html ) Valerie Leung (25/2/10) poses the following commentary to the Guyanese plaintiffs, defendants,
lawyers and judges, and anyone else who would listen, or who would be tempted to listen to Craigwell’s
romanticized version of chaos and social degeneracy:

“… I noted with grave concern a recent report in the Stabroek news that SASOD has
brought a case before the courts in Guyana in which they claim that it is unconstitutional to
prosecute cross-dressing. The nation should be made aware that this is a slippery slope.

Besides, I wonder if the very lawyers who are representing SASOD would like to have any of
their male staff, lawyers included, arrive at work dressed as a woman, or meet clients or
attend court dressed as a woman, and not be able to prevent this. This is actually how it is
in California.

If, for example, you hire a man who is in male attire and a few days after he commences
employment he comes to work dressed and made-up as a female, you can not dismiss him
or even require him to dress as a man while at work. As far as I have heard there is a hefty
fine for any employer who dares to do this.

Would the judges who will hear this matter, or employers in general, like to live in a Guyana
where it is normal and acceptable to have male bank tellers, teachers, MPs, mayors, etc;
dressed in pearls and lipstick and skirts while at work if they so desire? In a
few jurisdictions in the US the majors are openly cross-dressers and go to their offices in
mini-skirts, etc;!! …”

With these words, we infer that Craigwell’s reasoning will reach its illogical end in a futuristic free-for-all of
societal chaos. That it is much closer that we thought in other jurisdictions is clear. The article “The A.P.A.
Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber”, found at
http://www.narth.com/docs/normalization.html concludes with the following astonishing speculation
which illustrates what happens when science is replaced by “human rights” arguments:

“… Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did
not fulfill the “distress and social disability” criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism,
and masochism. A.P.A.’s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be
removed from the DSM-II — and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the
gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized…”

Is this the message we want to send in Guyana?

8
F. Transgenderism as Gender-Identity/Mental/Psychosexual Disorder

Thirdly, Craigwell clearly ignores the evidence in the scientific community about transgenderism being a gender-
identity and mental disorder. Now, societal affirmation of transgenderism as “normal” will inevitably lead to
clamours for sex-change operations as in the American experience.

We should refer the court to the testimony of a University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns
Hopkins University, in 2005, as he makes a fatalistic pronouncement on the tragedy that this represents
(“Transgenderism is a Gender-Identity Disorder; Transgenderism is a Mental Disorder” found at
http://www.pfox.org/Transgenderism_is_gender_identity_disorder.html ). At the beginning he asks a
deeply worrying question, illustrative of the fact that even our most academically qualified citizens have an
innate awareness of the significance of creation-structures such as manhood and womanhood:

“… When the practice of sex-change surgery first emerged back in the early 1970s, I would
often remind its advocating psychiatrists that with other patients, alcoholics in particular,
they would quote the Serenity Prayer, “God, give me the serenity to accept the things I
cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the
difference.” Where did they get the idea that our sexual identity (“gender” was the term
they preferred) as men or women was in the category of things that could be changed? …”

Towards the end of that treatment on ‘Surgical Sex’, we find these disturbing words: …

“… Reiner, however, discovered that such re-engineered males were almost never
comfortable as females once they became aware of themselves and the world. From the
start of their active play life, they behaved spontaneously like boys and were obviously
different from their sisters and other girls, enjoying rough-and-tumble games but not dolls
and “playing house.” Later on, most of those individuals who learned that they were
actually genetic males wished to reconstitute their lives as males (some even asked for
surgical reconstruction and male hormone replacement)—and all this despite the earnest
efforts by their parents to treat them as girls. …”

It gets worse! Dr Paul McHugh, the author of that report, goes on to make this cataclysmic pronouncement:

“… We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional
credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately
prevent it. …”

G. What is to be learned from Proposition 8 and the Delhi High Court decision:

Thirdly, it was in fact the Delhi High Court that passed the decision to repeal Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code, but Craigwell sees no discomfort in not making that distinction, and this validates our previous contention
that the arguments of the GBLT community and gay-militancy are constructed upon a colossal web of half-
truths and misrepresentations. Opposition to the ruling by the Delhi Court is still very strong!

We have already detailed the case against the Delhi decision in the online article “The Delhi High Court
Decision should be Rejected, not lauded!” (http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2009/07/09/the-
delhi-high-court-decision-should-be-rejected-not-lauded/ ). Part of that fateful document reads:

“… Second, there is a geo-political thrust to Sidibe’s arguments, having nothing to do with HIV/AIDS.
For Sidibe, then, India’s activist High Court ruling, sure to be challenged, represents a shot in the arm
for the tired arguments spawned by gay militancy and a recklessly unprofessional confederacy of its
supporters in the UN ….anxious for any “victory” after the astonishing defeat to opponents of
Proposition 8 in the USA (see “Why Proposition 8 will Stand in 2010”;
http://www.esnips.com/web/Proposition8 ).

9
 There, the people simply got fed up with “court decisions” that pilfered their traditional values and
democratic principles, and voted down yet another effort to redefine marriage, this being the holy grail
of “decriminalization” crowd.

We had hopefully addressed some of the issues in the online article “The OAS Resolutions on
Sexual Orientation Do Not Reflect the Will of the people of the Region”
(http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/letters/06/13/oas-resolutions-on-sexual-
orientation-do-not-reflect-the-will-of-the-citizens-of-the-region ). The caption of this article
was not accidental, since, with the threat of democratic opposition action at the grassroots,
an entire swathe of gay-rights “victories” are being engineered not in the polls where the
people have a voice, but in activist courts and legislatures, and by executive order. This is a
slap in the face for voters, and all done in the name of “human rights! …“

H. Transgenderism simply a subset of unconstitutional “Sexual-Orientation” issues/arguments

Fourthly, transgenderism DOES in fact relate to “sexual orientation” issues (however camouflaged as “gender’ in
the current constitutional motion), and lawyer Roger J. Magnuson offers to Guyana’s Supreme Court that to go
further in supporting GBLT and/or “gay rights” ordinances, “anti-discrimination” or “hate-crime” legislation of
the sort sasod wants would be to court the following legal disasters (cited in “Are Gay Rights Right? Making
Sense of the Controversy” by Roger Magnuson; Multhnoma Press, Portland Oregon , 97266 ; 1990; Pages
98-100):

(1) Negating the right of parents or school districts to control the moral calibre of the person who teaches
their children;
(2) Negating the right of an employer to determine whether an applicant’s moral character will affect his job
performance, and;
(3) Negating the right of churches and other religious entities to exclude, or refuse to hire, someone
whose lifestyle is contrary to their religious convictions.

A literal-minded judge would find that such laws give protection to a large number of sex criminals. Take, for
example, the possible “protected” behaviours under a (GBLT) rights ordinance:

* A convicted child molester, homosexual or heterosexual, could sue a day-care center that refuses to
hire him, claiming discrimination on the basis of his “sexual orientation”; such an ordinance would
thus protect behaviour declared criminal under state law.

* An insurance company could be sued for refusing to extend health insurance benefits to the sodomy
partner of a homosexual or to the wives of a polygamist. The insurance company would be
discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation” by refusing to extend coverage to “spouses”
because of their sexual preferences. Since both sodomy and polygamy are prohibited under … state
law, such an ordinance would protect behaviour already declared criminal.

* A landlord who refuses to rent or sell a facility to a person running a house of prostitution could be
sued for refusing to rent or sell housing based on the person’s “sexual orientation”. Yet prostitution
is a crime under (state) law.

* A bank that refuses to loan money to moviemaker who enjoys making and selling child pornography
would be discriminating against the moviemaker on the basis of his “sexual orientation”. Yet the
making/selling of child pornography is a crime under most state law.

* Law enforcement officials who arrest the customers of prostitutes, pornography stores, or child sex
rings could be sued under the ordinance for “obstruction of practices unlawful under this chapter (of
the law)” if it is viewed that the police are discriminating against people who patronize certain “public
accommodations” based on their specific “sexual orientation”. Prostitution, the sale of pornography,
and sex with children are all crimes under state statutes. Such an ordinance could protect behaviour
declared criminal under state law.

I. Using Transgenderism/Gender-Identity-Disorder to further gay-rights and gay militancy

10
Fifthly, it will not escape the attention of readers that the situation that Magnuson is so clear at defining above
now becomes the issue of tyrannical court behaviour in the first decade of the 21 st century … “tyrannical” in the
sense that judges are now wont to make law rather than interpret the constitution, or to understand that the
will of the people in referendum or voting is to be respected.

Again, we have offered before (page 2) that there is proximity between transgender (cross-dressing) and
homosexual issues, hence the nomenclature “GBLT community”… and it bears repeating. The activity of the one
group inevitably becomes the “opportunity” for the other! Guyana’s courts should be in no doubt about whom or
what sasod is promoting in this case! It is not just “cross-dressing”, but rather legal footholds on all Gay, Bi-
sexual, Lesbian and Transgender (GBLT) issues, including homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
The intersection all comes together in the stated goals of the gay militant agenda … these have always followed
the “rights” argument!

Source: (Gay Pride March on Washington DC April 25, 1993)

1. Demands for the repeal of all laws regarding sodomy!

2. Demands for the legalization of all forms of sexual expression including paedophilia!
3. Demands to change the age of consent to allow sex with minors!
4. Demands for public funding to cover Aids patients medical expenses!
5. Demands for public funds to cover sex-change operations!
6. Demands for the legalization of same-sex marriages!
7. Demands for legalization of adoption, custody and foster care within the same-sex
marriage structure!
8. Demands for the inclusion of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgenders in
education and childcare!
9. Demands for public funding of artificial insemination of lesbians and bisexuals!
10. Forbid religious (now artistic) concerns regarding homosexuality from being
expressed … already the case on radio/TV in Canada (and now England). This is done
through “anti-discrimination” and “hate-crime” legislation.
11. Ban prayer in public schools.
12. Remove God from civic life!
13. Demands that the Boy Scouts and Army be required to accept homosexuals!

The use and abuse of the judiciary as a vehicle to these long-term ends has been legendary, and the motion
ostensibly aimed at cross-dressing is a first shot at that goal as Craigwell freely admits. The issue has been the
source of much worry in the courts overseas during that time, and it behooves us to learn from their
experience. It is clear to see the trajectory of initiatives that sasod is committed to with this motion.

Roger Magnuson (“Are Gay Rights Right? Making Sense Of The Controversy!”; p.93 – 102) has, as a
lawyer, documented the insidious pursuit of these goals that led to the misguided decision in Lawrence v.
Texas, and Justice Antonin Scalia’s unusual request then to read his dissent to the Supreme Court in the USA:

“… One long term goal of the homosexual movement has been to repeal laws prohibiting sodomy.
Although gay rights activists have concentrated on promoting gay rights ordinances, they have not
abandoned their attack on existing sodomy statutes. As long as their behaviour remains criminal, it is
hard for them to argue that that they deserve special protection for it. When challenging sodomy
statutes, homosexuals argue that there is a “right to privacy” in the Constitution that protects private
acts of consensual sodomy.

In making that argument, homosexuals rely on cases that interpret the Constitution as forbidding
government interference with private decisions. And so, for example, a consensual “right of privacy”
has been held to protect decisions about education and child-rearing, marriage, and more recently
contraception and abortion [Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965) and Roe v. Wade 410 US 1113
(1979)]. Homosexuals have argued from these cases that just as the law cannot unconditionally forbid
a couple to use birth control, it cannot forbid two consenting adults to commit sodomy in the privacy of
a bedroom [Oklahoma City School Board v. National Gay Rights Task Force 727 F.2d1270 (10th
Cir., 1984; US, 1985)].

Although homosexuals had some initial success in state and federal courts using such arguments, the
Supreme Court settled the question in Bowers v. Hardwick (478 US 186, 1986). Mr. Hardwick had
11
 bought suit in federal district court, challenging the constitutionality of the Georgia statute that
criminalized consensual sodomy. He lost at the district court level, but won on appeal to the Court Of
Appeals, which held that the Georgia statute violated his fundamental rights. The Supreme Court
disagreed. In a vigorously written opinion, Justice White pointed out that any fundamental liberties
protected by a right to privacy must be “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”, or deeply rooted “in
the nation’s history and tradition.”. Because sodomy was traditionally a criminal offense in all states, to
find that a right to engage in anal or oral sodomy was deeply rooted in the nation’s history and
tradition or is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” would be “at best facetious”. Summing up, the
Court said:

“And if Respondent’s submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between

consenting adults, it would be difficult to , except by fiat, to limit the claimed right
to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest and
other sexual crimes, even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling
to start down that road.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Burger pointed out the moral dimension:

“To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental
right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”

Justice Burger’s opinion paralleled a recent circuit court decision from the District Of Columbia Court Of
Appeals which had approved the discharge of a homosexual from the military. Finding homosexuality
“a form of behaviour never before protected and indeed traditionally condemned,” the court held that
its decision would be based on constitutional principle, not on shifting public opinion [Dronenberg v.
Zech 741 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir., 1984)].

Such federal decisions have left homosexuals two options: convince state courts that there is a right to
commit sodomy under the state constitution, or convince legislators to repeal the statute.

Because homosexual activists have been unable to convince the courts that their sexually deviant
behaviour should be given special protection, they have tried to work harder on Congress, state
legislatures, and city councils. The passage of gay rights laws would inevitably lead to the repeal of
sodomy laws….”

We would similarly find transgenderism to be “a form of behaviour never before protected and indeed
traditionally condemned” and thereby urge Guyana’s Supreme Court to “base its decision on constitutional
principle, not on shifting public opinion!” Neither is the law “archaic”, since it still addresses compelling social
and medical issues!

It would be prudent at this stage to remind everyone of the stunning similarity between the above account for
the USA and the current push for the transgender issue in Guyana. Thereafter, however, it is also apposite to
refer to the words of Dr. Paul McHugh, quoted earlier above, on transgenderism as gender-identity and mental
disorder:

“… We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional
credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately
prevent it. …”

J. Should laws be passed to “protect” transgenders from “discrimination”?

“… Legal protection against discrimination based on mental illness is not provided for any
other disorder. Those who wish to assume a “gender identity” contrary to their biological
sex are in need of mental health treatment to overcome such disturbed thinking, not
legislation to affirm it.

“Gender identity” legislation endangers the physical and mental health of the very people it
is trying to protect. Physically mutilating the mentally ill is not the answer. For example, will
healthy limb amputation, another mental disorder known as Body Integrity Identity
12
 Disorder (BIID), be the next protected class? (See Newsweek story:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138932 )

Nor should we encourage men and women to consume life-long hormones in a daily battle
to overcome their natural biology. Hormones cannot change the chromosomes that
determine one’s sex.

Abolishing gender and making believe it doesn’t really matter for the rest of the population
is also not the answer.

One goal sought by gay groups is to ensure that transgenders of all types have legal access
to the public bathroom of their choice, regardless of their actual birth sex. See
http://www.transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/PIP%20Resource%20Guide.pdf This can make
public bathrooms and dressing rooms unsafe for women and children. It is a huge step
backwards for women’s rights.

After disrupting their bodies with radical surgery and hormone pills, transgenders approach
PFOX for help in leaving the transgender lifestyle. They need funds for gender affirming
therapy, reversal surgery, and breast explants.

If legislators want to protect transgenders, they can start by giving them the therapy they
need….” ( http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

K. Do parents know that sasod is targeting teenagers for homosexual/transgender relationships?

Seventhly, we should consider that Ras Ashkar has already been brave enough to point out to Guyanese
parents that sasod has over the past two years been actively targeting their teenage sons and daughters at its
website with the euphemistically labeled URL “The Experimenting Teenager”. This would be considered
“expected” behaviour but for the galling farce of innocence that the group presents to what has up to now been
a very tolerant public. Sasod’s entire website is dedicated to promoting gay rights!

How can they any longer be as tolerant? Sasod is playing them with one hand and stabbing them … and their
children … in the back with another!

Guyanese parents would be similarly distressed to find that of the only two male appointees to the nation’s
Rights Of the Child Commission, one (Vidyratha Kissoon) owns the sasod website and the other (Kwame
Mckoy) has been implicated in a sex-tape scandal soliciting sex from a male minor.

How does one place this rather disturbing state of affairs in perspective? Perhaps the following will help!

Dr. Steve Baldwin’s law review “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” (
http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Baldwin.doc ); 14 REGENT U.L. REV. 267
2002) illustrates the imperative that should guide entire national policies:

“… Unfortunately, the truth is stranger than fiction. Research confirms that

homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals, and the
mainstream homosexual culture commonly promotes sex with children. (See W.D. Erickson et
al, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, 17 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. I, 83 [1988] and numerous
other references on page 2 of 16 in Dr. Baldwin’s review). Homosexual leaders repeatedly argue
for the freedom to engage in consensual sex with children, and blind surveys reveal a
shockingly high number of homosexuals admit to sexual contact with minors. Indeed, the
homosexual community is driving the worldwide campaign to lower the age of consent… ”

And it is in this context that sasod’s misadventure into politicizing our courts with the relatively easier “target”
of cross-dressing needs to be understood.

It gets worse … as Judith Reisman outlines below … and Guyana’s courts will have to thereby note the
implications of giving anything away to the GBLT community!

If promiscuity and pedophilia defines the psychosexual disorder known as homosexuality (being “Gay” in the
GBLT community) then the implications for its decriminalization, like that for transgenderism, has taken on new
13
and staggering proportions when assessed against the increasing cases of abused children being affected with
HIV in the USA and other developed nations.

The other law review “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth”, by Judith Reisman,(

http://www.regent.edu/news/lawreview/articles/14_2Reisman.doc ) will illustrate the grave
obstacles Guyana’s courts will later have to contend with deriving from sasod’s innocent motion:

"… Perhaps the most worrisome of these anti-science activities has been the limited amount of
governmental research examining the connection between early child sexual abuse and pediatric AIDS.
Dr. Laura Gutman, a respected child sexual abuse researcher, and her colleagues found in their
preliminary government funded studies that 14.6% of children in the study with AIDS had "been
sexually abused . . . . Transmission by child sexual abuse was the most frequent of the proven modes
of acquisition of HIV in this population."

Twelve males were identified (n=8) or suspected (n=4) of being perpetrators. The lack of funding for
such studies may deserve a congressional inquiry. To hide the fact that most AIDS children
appear to be infected by bi/homosexuals, the "World AIDS Day" artfully reports that "16%
of adolescents with AIDS, aged 13 through 19 . . . have been infected through heterosexual
contact,” rather than that 84% of AIDS children are infected by male bi/homosexual sex
abuse…."

Consider thereafter the following commentary on transgenders and Gender-Identity-Disorder (GID):

“… There is a strong correlation between sexual abuse and GID. According to one counselor,
“80% of the transgenders he’s treated were molested as children. Transgenders also suffer
from feelings of rejection and enter into a fantasy life…” “The diagnosis of GID is itself a
changing diagnosis since some children diagnosed with GID may later in life display few, if
any, symptoms….” ( Source: “Q&A on Gender Identity Confusion -- Sexual Behavior
Disorders”; page 4 of 7’ http://www.pfox.org/Q&A-gender-identity-confusion.pdf )

These persons so afflicted need treatment, not legislation to protect or affirm a civil wrong.

L. Conclusion:

Armed with the evidence above, Section 153(1) (xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter
8:02, takes on a new character.

It does NOT appear irrational, discriminatory, undemocratic, contrary to the rule of law and unconstitutional. In
effect, it serves a good and useful purpose in maintaining the national ethos.

Mandatory treatment of psychosexual and gender-identity disorders would seem a better option than
“affirming” the condition via legislation.

We should peruse the 2001-article by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi: “The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual” ( http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/Archival/2001/Nicolosi_71-78.pdf ).

An excerpt follows:

“….To some, this approach may sound reactionary and anti-gay, antisexual, anti-freedom.
Rather, for those men who seek an alternative to the gay lifestyle, this is progressive
treatment. Indeed, many men have found these ideas to reflect a truth they sense within
themselves. This approach acknowledges the value of gender difference, the worth of family
and traditional social values, and the importance of the prevention of gender confusion in
children….”

The words of Robert Regier and Daniel Garcia need to be repeated here:

“… When protecting one’s inalienable and civil rights, the government must discern between
liberty and license. This requires that rights attach to persons because of their humanity,
not because of their behaviors, and certainly not those behaviors that Western legal and
moral tradition has regarded as inimical to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," as
14
 stated in the Declaration. Yet, today some advocate granting "rights" to behaviors hostile to
the most fundamental forms of self-government—family, church, and community….”

Sasod and their supporters would, again, be found to be actively trying to deceive the Guyanese people.
They should be rejected yet again!

Yours faithfully
Roger Williams, Georgetown,
Guyana,
March 1, 2010
Updated May 12, 2010

15