Of kit cars and Bruce Jenner

OK, now...that wasn't a weird title or anything.

I've been going around and around with various people concerning the whole transgender thing.  Let me spell it out for you so you know where I stand.

Do I believe that a person can have more of the opposite gender in their brain/soul than their own gender?  Yes.

Do I believe that said person is a human being and a child of God, and should not be hassled, demonized or otherwise screwed with?  Yes.

Do I believe that a person can actually change from one gender to another?  No.

Since the entire country is now all about The Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner thing, we shall use him as an example.

First off, I don't really believe that Mr. Jenner is actually transsexual.  Ann Barnhardt, of all people, pointed out the obvious problem with this quote: 

"I am not gay. As far as I know, I am heterosexual. I've never been with a guy, I've always been married, raising kids."

(As far as you know?  You'd think after six decades, you'd have kind of figured out what you're attracted to.  It didn't take me a third as long to realize that I love plush women, and that's almost as stigmatized as being gay.)  Back to the subject, Ann's response was dead-on:

Um, if Jenner actually believed on even the shallowest level that he was a “woman trapped in a man’s body”, dontcha think he might say something like “I’m a lesbian”?

Yeah, pretty much.  A real MTF transsexual, if there be such, would have said exactly that.  So I tend to doubt the veracity of his claims.  However, even if I'm wrong, "sexual reassignment surgery" is not the panacea its proponents claim it to be*, and, in all honesty, it's an oxymoronic phrase.

Most of you probably aren't gearheads, although, given my mostly conservative readership, I may be wrong on that.  For those of you who haven't heard of kit cars, let me explain.

A kit car is a set of body panels, an interior and a host of other parts that you can graft to the chassis of a donor vehicle to make it look different.  Although there have been kits based around almost any widely-available platform, the most common donor was a VW Beetle, so we'll use that for our example.  You can make that old Beetle look like this(awesome), or this(made entirely of awesome with a side of awesome fries), or anything you can think of.  You can tweak and alter that body so that only the most hardcore, bleeds-motor-oil car freak would notice that things are not what they seem.

But it's still a VW Beetle.

No matter what it looks like, it's not a Porsche 917.  It's not an MG-TD.  It's a Volkswagen Beetle.  It's licensed and registered as a Volkswagen Beetle.  It's got the powertrain and performance of a Volkswagen Beetle.  It can't be anything else, no matter what you make it look like.

When "sexual reassignment surgery" can give a former woman a working penis and testes, or a former man a uterus and ovaries, and can either add or eliminate that Y chromosome, then I'll have no problem believing that one gender can 'transition' to another.  Until then, the whole concept is simply denying objective reality.  Until then, these people have not 'transitioned,' they have been castrated and/or mutilated.  These people are not being 'helped,' they are being reinforced in their delusions by people with, IMNSHO, a very sinister agenda.

So now you know my take on things.  HTH.

UPDATE:  So I wasn't mistaken--we really are bowing and scraping to the insane.

Example 7: A man who had his features surgically altered to (sort of) resemble a woman proclaims himself “the new normal.” No, it’s not normal. It is something than can be tolerated or accepted, but it is not normal. [Body Dysmorphic Disorder] But we are ordered not only to pretend it is normal, but to celebrate his “courage.” And anyone who refuses to buy into the delusion that a person with a penis is a woman is equated to a Klansman or a Nazi.

Good to know.

*  Remember, this study is in Sweden.  The most PC, tolerant, accepting environment for folks with sexual issues that you'll ever encounter.  "Social Oppression" fails as an argument here.