My two pennies worth.

The main conjecture put forward in this article is that the Soul, or inner essence, is the primary determinant for the identity of the individual. You are who you feel you are on the level of your essential beingness. For a matter of principle, whether ultimately my conjecture can stand up to in the face of public scrutiny or not. The guiding principle remains that it is up to the individual to arrange her/his life, as he/she feels most suited. The principle of freedom to be in harmony with one self is in my opinion a basic human right, which is universally valid.

Why writing this article in the first place? With the event of Dana's victory at the Eurovision song festival, a rather wide spread discussion erupted over on the subject of trans-sexuality. Unfortunately, a discussion, which all too often seems to be fueled by misconceptions and, as I will show, hidden fears. Right from the onset, I make the following assertions:

Somebody born with a male body and a female essence, who underwent an operation aimed at a gender change, is a woman. In this context, I will argue that in essence this person always has been a woman who merely had the bad fortune to be born with the "wrong" body.

Contrary to what has been claimed by some, the desire to undergo such surgical procedures has nothing to do with a fancy or a self-induced misconception in respect to true beingness.

Adverse reactions in both male and female subjects are essentially fear driven and originate from personal insecurities.

There are no valid religious objections which can be made against surgical procedures geared at a gender change and subsequent sexual activities. What I will show is that in most if not all cases the application of religious argumentation in an attempt to demonize trans-sexuality, consist of an abuse of God's name in order to mask the same fears as outlined before.

The first question to consider, relates to the nature of that what constitutes essential beingness. Approaching it from the perspective of religion in a general sense I would equate essential beingness to that what is generally referred to as the Soul. This in turn can be approximated by defining it as the immortal essence governing the mortal physical vehicle by which it manifests itself in the three-dimensional material world. If indeed there is an immortal Soul, it seems a fair assertion that it is of a higher order than the mortal body, which merely would be a vehicle, designed to operate on a lower level of implementation. This view dictates that there are two basic levels/layers of existence on two levels of implementation. Even the most orthodox person will have to agree with me that when one speaks of a Divine spark that this applies to the higher order Soul, created in the image of God. This in turn justifies me to define the Soul as being in a state of infinite potentiality from which the mortal vehicle is a projection allowing for manifestation in the three-dimensional world. Actually, one could exemplify the relationship between the Soul and the body in terms of the relationship between a driver and his/her car. The sole purpose for the car's (bodies) existence is to serve the driver (Soul) as tool for the limited purpose of transportation. The implication is that the Soul is the being of which the body is a projection solely for the purpose of a temporary manifestation in the three-dimensional world. If in a given situation the being is female in it's essence while the projected body has male attributes, a state of discrepancy exists which hampers the Soul/Body complex on both a functional and an emotional level.

Without wanting to be presumptuous in regard to what or what is not God's will, as a human being I fully realize that I'm not in a position to make definite statements in that respect. However, on an empirical level however it seems obvious to me that progress towards functionality in its optima forma is the guiding principle of nature. Based on that I feel save in the assumption that exactly this is in accordance with God's will. The implication following from my argumentation is that in a situation, in which there is such discrepancy causing reduced functionality, it would be in line with God's will to take steps to alleviate the problem. In order to do so there are two possible basic approaches: 1) conditioning of the Soul such that it ceases to visualize itself as female 2) adjusting the body to the female Soul by means of a surgical alteration.

Returning to my driver/car metaphor, there is a temporary and goal-directed unity between driver and car, which is hampered by an incompatibility between driver and car. This unity is not unlike the temporary goal-directed relationship between body and Soul. By consequence, in order to optimize the interaction between driver and car, it is essential to choose and possibly adjust the car such that it most fits the driver. I place emphasis on adjustment of the car rather than on the driver, as it is hardly conceivable that anybody would seriously consider shortening his/her own legs in order to better fit in her/his car. The driver is of a higher order than the car; hence, if alteration is required it will have to be done on the car rather than the driver. As likewise, in the body/Soul relationship the objective would be to optimize the interaction between body and Soul the logical thing to do would be to adjust the body rather than attempting to modify the Soul. As with any modification to a car the only constraint placed on the modification of the body, is the technical/medical feasability of the modification. From a religious perspective, at least as understand it; the objective of optimizing the interaction between body and Soul is a perfectly legitimate one. Likewise, the constraint pertaining to the feasability would be in accordance with the basic principles of religion, as crossing the border of what is and what is not feasible would end in a total collapse of the system. Something which is counter to the initial objective and surely in violation with the religious teachings.

Nevertheless, there are many voices, which seem to favor conditioning of the Soul as an option over the alteration of the body. To my opinion, there are a number of ulterior motives, underlying the proposition apart from the misguided view that trans-sexuality as such would be something of a fancy. In all honesty, I do not have much time for people who think that way. In fact, I suggest that they pay a visit to a clinic and inquire about what a gender change exactly entails, I'm sure they will no longer think it as something easy done from a fancy. The whole idea that by conditioning the existing problem could be resolved is one which tends to appear in other cases as well, namely homosexuality. In spite all the evidence to the contrary flogs of people still seem to think that there is something like a cure which in itself seems rather insulting in respect to people who are perfectly happy with the lives they lead. In the case of trans-sexuality I feel that the option of conditioning is, by no means, a solution as it on an essential level does not improve the quality of live. It only constitutes of a suppression of the essential being of the person involved. As I mentioned before I do suspect that the proposal finds it's origin in a number of ulterior motives relating to fears about which I will expand somewhat later in this article. In a nutshell I think that those promoting conditioning as an option do not have the interests of the trans-sexual at heart but rather an own desire to reach a normalization solely for their own peace of mind.

Many of the orthodox/fundamentalists will attempt to counter my reasoning by pointing out that the Soul/body complex as it existed at birth was God given and by consequence in accordance with the will of God. Alteration therefor would be counter to His/Her will. Some may object to my use of His/Her while referring to God. I however feel that assigning God to one or the other part in a subdivision seems blasphemous, as it is counter to the qualifications attached to God in every Holy Book I have come across. This however is a moot point as this view would exclude any and all forms of alteration, including fitness training, diets, visiting the hair dresser, the use of hearing aids, classes, all surgical improvements of a persons quality of life, any medical action geared at curing even the slightest illness (as when somebody drops ill it was Gods will and by consequence any attempted cure would be counter to Her/His will) and you name it. Now in most if not all cases the orthodox/fundamentalist will nevertheless visit doctors, hairdressers, use glasses and hearing aids and what not in order to improve his/her quality of live. The implication however is that somehow a sub division is made regarding which alterations are counter to the will of God and which are not. The pretence knowing or being able to judge which implied violation is acceptable to God and which not. I Mr. Intolerance do not only know the will of God I can even make moral judgements in proxy for God. If this were not a gross self over estimation to the degree that it becomes blasphemous, I really would not know what self over estimation possibly could be.

By consequence the argumentation is reduced to a question as to the degree in which alteration is counter to the will of God or not. Following from this the conclusion will have to be that it is up to each individual to make his/her own decisions in accordance with her/his own responsibility to God.

Now for the sake of a last stand the orthodox/fundamentalist can point out that nowhere in the Torah/Bible/Koran sex changes are specifically allowed. However also this is a moot point as neither are hearing aids, glasses, pacemakers and most if not all surgical procedures. In fact, one should turn the question around by asking whether anywhere in the Torah/Bible/Koran sex changes are specifically forbidden and I can assure you that no such commandments can be found anywhere. So as far as that is concerned a transexualist can be fully at peace with God and religion as such.

If Dana during an interview states: "It's clear proof that God is with me and God loves me like I love Him. God makes those who should pay and He credits the ones He should credit. I love God and I feel He is with me." Than I strongly feel that she is right and that from a religious perspective, there is no reason to think otherwise. Contrary to the orthodox she contributes to the spread of love and understanding between people, which in my humble opinion is all religion should be about. I feel that in doing so she is far more in accordance with God than those whose mission in life it seems to be to condemn others.

Having for all intends and purposes solved the religious dispute regarding sex changes and having reached the conclusion that there are no valid grounds for condemnation, in fact religion as such does not provide an answer hence by consequence it is neutral to the subject, I think that we can move to another question and that is engaging a sexual act. After the separation of the sexes as described in the creation stories God ordered humankind to go and multiply, hence having sex with the objective to procreate. Although nowhere it is said that all sexual acts other than those geared at, procreation would be forbidden. The orthodox/fundamentalist definitely will make use of that line in order to condemn the very act of having sex between homosexuals or with transsexualists, by pointing out that in neither case procreation will be the result. Although I have not been able to find any explicit commandment forbidding sexual acts other than for the purpose of procreation, I would like to point out that if this were the case it equally would apply to women and man who for one or the other reason are not fertile. Hence if procreation were the sole acceptable objective for engaging in a sexual act also in this case of infertility the orthodox/fundamentalist should condemn it and personally refrain from sexual acts under those conditions.

In an outstanding article by Lisa Kahn, written in respond to an in my opinion less outstanding article by Jonathan Rosenblum, it was said and I quote "I am an Orthodox Jew. Not an ultra-liberal Orthodox Jew, mind you, but a serious, frum Jew. And I cannot for the life of me understand why gay and lesbian Jews are treated the way they are by so many Orthodox Jews. The Torah does not condemn homosexuality. It does not even condemn all homosexual acts." From my side, I would add that Lisa's assertion is equally valid for the Bible. I did check it out. (Using God's Word for Windows :-))

In an article titled False liberalism published in � Yedi'ot Aharonot it was said "Trans-sexuality threatens a conservative society much less than homosexuality because is contains an element of illusion and false pretense, and the acceptance of Dana International by the establishment, accordingly, only strengthens it and does not subvert it. "We're all liberals" said Geula Even [Channel 1's Anchorwoman -- GM], in what I hope was irony concerning the news item that over half the public is proud of International's victory. This false liberalism shows just how conservative we really are." To a certain degree I tend to agree with the author in as far as that it is very well possible that trans-sexuality is less overt than homosexuality and in that sense can be easier overlooked. However, on the other hand I believe that the fear factor in regards to trans-sexuality is considerably larger than it is in regards to overt homosexuality. Writing this article from the Netherlands, a country which prides it self to be one of the most liberal in the world, it is noticeable that to the large majority homosexuality is at last to a large degree accepted, whereas trans-sexuality seems somehow threatening to some people.

What are the underlying reasons for adverse reactions to transsexualists among many of those who generally pride themselves in being liberated? It was rather shocking to me to find a rather high degree of intolerance within those segments of the population. Contrary to the overt condemnation voiced by the orthodox the "liberal" will be more hypocritical about the issue and mask his/her adverse feelings by resorting to plain moronic jokes and frantic searches for clues from which differences become identifiable. The later clearly is the resultant from a fear not to be able to make the distinction. Whereas the "liberal" tends to be tolerant in respect to homosexuality, which is easily identifiable, adverse reactions to transsexualists within this group seem to stem from an irrational fear, which applies, to both man and women.

In man, this fear seems to relate to insecurity in respect to his own manhood and sexual orientation. The main reason for this being that in each man there is a woman; this in itself is nothing new. Relevant however is that in many cases the female aspect is strongly suppressed. Even today's society expects a man to be macho and he will do whatever needed to answer to that expectation. By consequence, the female aspect becomes a threat; she should not exist as the slightest manifestation of her presence inherently endangers the desired image. In most man the female aspect is confined to the deepest dungeons of the psyche were she is considered harmless and ineffective. In spite of her confinement her voice still reaches the surface, which leads to a feeling of insecurity, she is the enemy who potentially could break free and take over. This also explains the level of aggression towards homosexuals, their mere presence heightens the awareness of the hidden aspect which by having it confined is an unknown factor, uncontrollable and therefor threatening. In simple terms this fear can be illustrated by the thought; affiliating myself with a homosexual may well wake her up and than she could take control and I would become a homosexual myself and loose the respect of my peers. What this however signifies is insecurity about once own being. Aggression arises out of the illusion that as long one does not affiliate with a homosexual the female aspect remains safely in the dungeon and nothing bad can happen. A further reassurance is that in general a homosexual is easily identified, so that no accidents can happen. In the case of a transexualist identification becomes very difficult which in turn leads to the fear of becoming involved with someone who once was a man and maybe actually still is a man faking to be a woman. Something, which in my opinion is utterly wrong and misconceived but unfortunately, seems to be the mainstream perception. It is this which explains the frantic searches for identifiable clues in which whole flogs of men seem to engage themselves for no other purpose than regaining the assurance of being able to identify.

Very amusing in this context was an article, pertaining to a rumor circulating among French men, to the effect that Dana never had a sex change but that this is a publicity stunt. The fact that this rumor appeared has some very interesting implications, which relate to a conflict between the sensation of attraction to her as a beautiful woman and the need for reassurance of being able to identify. Whereas in many cases the solution for the conflict is rejection, in this case denial became the convenient way out. Because let's face it if the sex change is a publicity stunt than she always been a woman and being attracted to her does not pose a problem. Vivre La France des bonnevivants :-)

At any rate, I think we have the problem identified as far as it pertains to insecurity in man and the fact that this insecurity stems from the confinement and rejection of the female aspect. The two mechanisms which seem to be at work here are driven by 1) the fear of not being able to identify resulting in frantic searches 2) fear resulting from an attraction which than is masked by negative remarks and stupid jokes. A third mechanism, which proofs useful especially in regards to peers, is being able to project the fear complex on another open about his attraction to her. A simple little test will confirm my assertion, just put a picture of Dana on your desk and thou shall become suspect, and yes of course I tried out myself.

The question following from the argumentation is how am I to get rid of my insecurities and finally become a real man who does not need to resort to fearful irrationalities in order to be confident of himself. The answer is simple, get the woman out the dungeon, get to know and appreciate her and allow her to take on her role within yourself. She is not your enemy she is a part of you and once you become aware of this you really know yourself. If the outcome would be that she is stronger with in you then accept that, and you will feel confident in that, if on the other hand your male aspect is stronger then the same applies. Either way you gained peace with yourself and no longer will there be a need to be frantic and aggressive towards anybody who happens to have another sexual orientation than your own. For myself this allowed me to have homosexual friends without having to be worried about it, while being sexually attracted to women and not to men. As far as trans-sexuality is concerned, I feel that a man who underwent a sex change is a woman to which I can be attracted. Therefor while Yaron very well could have been a friend of, mine there is no attraction to him while in the case of Dana there most certainly is.

As much as, fear is an important motivator for adverse reactions in man it is for women. The primary motivator probably is jealousy in conjunction with a feeling of injustice pertaining to perceived unfair competition. Whereas a homosexual man to a degree is perceived as competing, it is not perceived as threatening because they stay within the male homosexual community and therefor are not likely to snatch away possible prospects. Whereas for a man the sight of a beautiful lesbian will lead to thoughts along the lines of "what a waste", the same will apply to women, basically it's considered a pity but no threat.

Interesting is that especially women seem to have developed a keen sense for "noticeable" differences which they than eagerly bring forward. In many cases it became apparent that the observation was biased from the onset and that the identification points, when objectively viewed, were at best inconclusive. In most if not all cases they were the product of a strong urge to reach results and often were described as "I sense this or that." For me the question whether something is observable or not is utterly irrelevant but the effort invested is indicative. Wherever there is such an urge there are other motivators at work which are closely linked to a need to bring the other down which in most if not all instances points at insecurity and a perceived threat. Jalousy and similar sentiments always arise from a problem related to self-worth, the fear to become the loosing party. Suppose my husband/boyfriend/partner would fall for and I would loose against someone who at some stage was a man, what does that do to my self-esteem? Of course, other elements add to those feelings of discomfort, xenophobia being one of them, which are equally applicable to men and woman.

I even would carry the argument further by stating that once a woman made her own choice to be a woman she in fact would be more female than a woman who didn't have to make that choice. It may seem to be a futile exercise in philosophical argumentation, and mind you it may well be, nevertheless, it seems perfectly valid. Looking at Dana's performance on stage, movement and choice of dress all indicating a high degree of female orientation, which in most cases is much further, developed than in other woman one meets. Reasons for this are obvious and are resultant of a very conscious choice to be a woman, which on top of that demanded a high degree of sacrifice and hardship. Not that I would know from firsthand but it takes little imagination to realize that a gender change is not something one does for the fun of it and that it takes an enormous amount of determination to go ahead with it. Having then achieved it, going through all what it takes the joy of being a woman must be overwhelming.

In the very beginning of this article I said that much of the religious objections voiced against trans-sexuality in effect constitute an abuse of God's name in order to mask fears. These fears are the same I just spoke of and are equally applicable to the orthodox/fundamentalist. The only difference is that it the case of the religious objector she/he will attempt to use religion as a weapon.

Much of the talk about the subject, including my own, tends to rather theoretical and at times even philosophical but what is forgotten are the people. This is maybe also one of the main reasons for met to sit down and write this article. It angers me when people, just because they do not understand something, think they can make fun of it or even go as far as talking about fancies. It angers me to see the total disregard for the feelings, courage, and determination of those, who in order to be complete, took this road. Of course, I will not throw rocks at those who are uncertain about themselves and who from that uncertainty project their fears. Whether this is the man afraid to be regarded a lesser man or the woman who fears "unfair" competition or whether this is the ultra-Orthodox/Fundamentalist who lives in fear for God. It is sad to see how the beauty of religious awareness can become corrupted into fear and the need to lash out to that what is not understood. When Dana says God is with her then this true, God will always be with those who honor Him/Her and who have the courage to be true to themselves, I have no doubt about that. We are all placed on this Earth to make it work and it only will when we learn to respect each other, do what little we can to further peaceful coexistence rather than passing judgement over each other.

The more one delves into the basic mechanisms underlying the inability of many to cope with their own fears, preconceptions and inner makeup. The eternal conflict between the sexes within the individual is symptomatic of the imbalance inherent to contemporary "civilization." Something is good or it is evil it is black or it is white, however in biological systems there is not something like black and white. Opposites are by no means mutualy exclusive; rather they are aspects of a whole, of which the determination of its state depends on only very slight differences in proportionality. If the orientation is one in which self-confidence is only achievable by declaring absolutes, there can be no other outcome than fear and insecurity. Even worse is that large chunks of once own being are declared evil, the enemy, that what has to be kept confined to the dungeons of the subconscious's. My question is how can one be a complete man or woman when one has to live in constant conflict with the other. The answer is the acceptance and integration of both aspects into an inclusive whole.

This brings us right back where we started from, integration or the establishment of inner harmony. One is who one feels one is, this feeling is the expression of the true beingness of the Soul, whether one wants to take this in a religious sense or not, is of little importance to the argumentation. Given this and the fact that it is a total waste to live this short life in inner disagreement, my message is be who you really are and don't let anyone impose his/her narrow-minded and often fear-fueled (mis) conceptions upon you (whoever is reading this).

Let this suffice for now, on other pages included I will deal somewhat further with misconceptions I came across on the Net. If anybody feels an urge to shoot my argument down and does so by reasonable argumentation than be my guest.