Dear Zoe,

Please do not blame 'religion' for the sins of organisations that misrepresent religion.

The origin of this controversy is that religion recommends celibacy. That's the best, so that one can direct all their energy and attention towards God - but it is also well-accepted that most people are not up to it.

Ideally, sexuality should be "no-big-deal", but for those who are not up to celibacy, the vast majority of us who do pay attention to their sexuality, there should be ample opportunity to experiment and play with it until one day, by the grace of God, we had enough, found it disappointing and reached our own conclusion that there are things bigger and better than sex.

Churches and schools that teach and enforce 'normal' sexual activities do so in collusion with society and its established institutions, for the secular goal of reproduction, not for religious reasons, thus betraying the faithful.

>> Please do not blame 'religion' for the sins of organisations that misrepresent religion.

Fair point. But when they quote their own propaganda pieces in support of the contention that there's no genetic cause involved, and those propaganda pieces in turn reference articles that say

"Thus in 7/17 cases there was concordance. Since this is neither 0/17 or 17/17, (statistically unlikely to be either) the conclusion is that genetic effects are probably involved" (Whitehead)

Then that's dishonest. 0 out of 17 would be the expectation if genetics weren't involved, rather than "statistically unlikely". Rate is about 1 in 3000.

When they pretend that opinion pieces published in religious and political journals - even newspapers - are "scientific evidence", that is a con-game to put it undiplomatically.

When they conflate gender identity - who you are - with sexual orientation - who you're attracted to - that can be written off as a natural mistake, except that it's only done when that supports their viewpoint, and abandoned when it doesn't. That's how demagoguery works, but not reality.

When they focus on the 2% failure rate of treatment, vs the 98% success rate, and conceal the 100% failure rate of their own snake-oil, that too is lying.

When they omit salient facts, such as McHugh being the Vatican's advisor on sexual matters (and who was largely responsible for the cover-up of pedophilia in both the Church and Johns Hopkins), when all of the "doctors" they quote are members of the discredited political faux-scientific group NARTH... that's lying by omission.

All this would be par for the course, just another way of getting suckers to part with their money and gain political power - but here (quite literally) children's lives are at stake.

Imagine the future confusion. Transgender boy who dresses as a girl, becomes attracted to a transgender girl who dresses as a boy, neither realising what the other really is until the relationship has developed somewhat. Or transgender boy who dresses as a girl and decides he is a lesbian, starts a relationship with a girl lesbian, and finds that he is attracted to the opposite sex (who he considers to be the same sex)not as a lesbian but as what he actually is, a male. Wouldnt it be better as the author suggests to treat the original condition rather than try and work out the confusion on confusions that may later result?

Dear Bob,

Your examples demonstrate how we overemphasise sexuality where it should not have been a big deal in the first place.

Zoe even wrote: "When they conflate gender identity - who you are...". I generally agree with what Zoe has to say, but it saddens me to notice this heavy identification with gender, taking it so seriously, to the extent of equating it with who we are.

Two people are attracted to each other - well that's wonderful, it means that they found a spark of the divine in each other, which they should then celebrate, so who cares what their gender is?

The tragic situation regarding Nathan Verheist in Belgium should make all of us pause and consider the issue carefully...
Nathan, who was born a girl and named Nancy, was rejected by the mother as she wanted a boy.
When Nancy had hormones and surgery to become a 'man' it is claimed that the surgery was 'botched' - but the reality is that one cannot physically make a functioning man out of a woman.
Nathan eventually requested - and was granted - legal euthanasia in Belgium. The reason given was "unbearable psychological suffering" as Nathan never really felt like a man and felt like a 'monster'.
The story is online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10346616/Belgian-killed-by-euthanasia-after-a-botched-sex-change-operation.html
This is not a condition to be dealt with by surgery - as Ros Phillips rightly points out by highlighting the story of Alan Finch.