Higway Eleven Plus 1 (revisited)

The Telegram is a buzz with the Night Janitor at Clara Barton School in Oxford, who will begin the School year in role of a woman. Did I forget to mention his name used to be Brian?

I admit, I could not help myself, and decided to write this little ditty, props to Mr. Dylan, sung to the tune of Highway 61...

Highway eleven plus 1 (revisited)

Oh dog said to oxford 'daughter me a son'
Ox said 'man you must be puttin me on'
dog said 'no', Ox said 'what'
dog say 'you can do what you want Ox but
the next time you see GLBTQ comin you better run'

Well Ox said 'where d'you want this daughtering done'
dog said 'out on Highway 11 plus 1,
in the nurse's school with all the little ones,
where Bri spends the evenings having fun
at the expense of everyone's Health Insurunce
and the confusion of all our little sons...'


Of course the fray is intense, and typical. The new homosexual apologetics, which must by definition include bi-sexual and transgendered apologetics (How do you know the gay man was born that way? The bisexuals and transgendered told me it was true!) was in full force, and the latest is that Jesus allegedly endorsed transgendered sexual re-assignment surgery - I'll spare you the details but you get the picture.

So I unloaded.

This novel and fanciful interpretation is wrong for at least two reasons -
Hebrew, and by implication Aramaic are Semitic languages that use literal terms figuratively and by implication, so it should not be surprising that the definition of the word eunuch includes 'from eunouchos to castrate (figuratively, live unmarried):--make...eunuch.' So Jesus was saying that those who are willing to live unmarried chaste lives for the sake of the Kingdom, if they can receive and bear it will accept it, but not everyone can live this standard of giving up all for God.
St. John Chrysostom, (347-407AD) a Doctor of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, says pointedly: 'But when He says, that they made themselves eunuchs, He means not the excision of the members, far from it, but the putting away of wicked thoughts. Since the man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse... For such a one is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God's creation, and opens the mouths of the Manichæans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demoniacal agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the work of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security, as being irresponsible; and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members, and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.'

Matt.19:12 says 'For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth', but as I have pointed out previously the Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth 75a says this is not a transgender male but a boy born with an un-descended testicle: 'Said R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka: I heard from the mouth of the Sages at the Vineyard at Jabneh that one having only one stone is a natural born eunuch and is, therefore, a fit person.'

Isaiah 56:3 uses the term eunuch in the sense of a man who could not beget Children, as in 'let not the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree'' and God promises those eunuchs who 'hold fast my covenant' not gender re-assignment but that He will 'give them an everlasting name'... 'better than sons and daughters'

The references to Tumtums and Hermaphrodites in the Talmud are references about the physical presence or absence of genitalia, not about a decision that one must change from one physical expression of genitals to the other, which is what the newspaper described Brian as going to do in order to become Brianna. They did not think in terms of correcting a mistake, only in describing physical abnormalities (not mental ones).

I think the most telling contradiction from the Culture Warriors promoting Brian's case is that they insist this person, born Brian, born with all the working secondary sexual characteristics of a man, working we know because he fathered children with a woman, this Brian was born 'wrong', yet at the same time these Culture Warriors insist that the typical male homosexual, born with all the same working secondary sexual characteristics of a man, just like Brian, but this homosexual man was born right.
The differences between the two, nothing really, same xy chromosomes, same working outward male characteristics, yet one was born wrong, the other born right. Why is this not a contradiction? Why is this not speaking out of both sides of their mouths?

I guess I do not feel the need to earn respect through my posts; I seek only to post truly and honestly and to counter the corruption coming from the Politically Correct motivations driving this Culture War. Kids should not have to go to school where bizarre Social experiments are taking place, so while Brian has his right to mutilate himself, he does not have the right to celebrate this self-obsessed act in a public school. I am glad that Kathryn stands up unabashedly for the protection of the innocence of children.