Wednesday, March 3, 2010

The Case Against Cross-dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana

Dear Editor,

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.

“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 10-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” ( ) 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” ( ) to show the consistent application of principle against transgenderism and gay-militancy.


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

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 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 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?

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” ( ):

“… 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!

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

Firstly, Craigwell’s letter is memorable for the number of factual misrepresentations it makes, and also for confirming that, from a religious standpoint, it will be Hinduism that drives the local effort for the GBLT community, and 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, and maintains an expected silence.

That this current initiative will 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 the now dated 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.

Readers should assess the article “Arguments 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)

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” ( ) 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 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…”

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 ). 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. …”

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!” ( ). 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”; ).

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” ( ). 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! …“

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.

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

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 21st 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 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 condemnedand thereby urge Guyana’s Supreme Court tobase 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. …”

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 Disorder (BIID), be the next protected class? (See Newsweek story: )

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 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….” ( )

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 ( ); 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 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,( ) 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’ )

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


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” ( ).

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 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 1st 2010