Transsexual Witnesses of Jehovah

Author's Thoughts

page2

1. Blood transfusion

2. How do Jehovah’s Witnesses view voting?

3. Voting, religion and politics

4. Real Man or Real Woman?
 

Blood transfusion:


I don't understand why rejecting a blood transfusion is an issue in today's 21st Century. The question today should be why are they still being given. Many individuals, regardless of culture or religion, make an informed decision to refuse blood transfusions; Jehovah's Witness do not have a monopoly on this.

Most doctors go out of their way not to have a transfusion themselves as they admit blood is the most dangerous product used in medicine. Considerable panic arises whenever a doctor or a nurse finds him or her self in direct contact with blood through blood splatter or being stuck with a syringe. Many also make sure they prevent their family members from being exposed to blood-in the event of an emergency or any planned medical treatment, and search out alternatives. Ironically, these same people are quick to pump blood into their patients that will infiltrate every part of the body of a stranger. There is no 100% safe screening for diseases and there are new strains of diseases being discovered long after contaminated
blood has been administered. Than there is the body's immune response to having this foreign
tissue pumped into it. The risks are just too great, and they know it, so why would they
foolishly and carelessly risk the lives of their patients?

The growing number of bloodless hospitals reflects how many doctors today are choosing superior medical help for their patients. And many within the general public are searching out these doctors once they know these hospitals exist. The reasons that blood is still advocated is not for people's health, it is because there is big money to be made in blood. It is donated by well meaning people and then sold. Many people have a vested interest in the blood trade and don't want to see this end.

Many people die yearly due to blood transfusions whether by a short term consequence or dying from disease years later. Far more people die from complication of blood transfusions than those refusing. Most people who have transfusions would have done far better without transfusion and many people would still be alive today or living disease free lives. Very few people die from refusing blood. Generally there is no concrete evidence for blaming a death on blood refusal. It is common for a surgeon or a treating practitioner to admit later that the person would have died with or without a transfusion as their injuries or condition was beyond any help.

Admittedly, some may have died due to blood volume reaching critically low levels and the circulatory system collapsing as no alternative such as a blood expander was available or made known to the victim or the victim's family.

With all of the continuing medical advances regarding blood alternatives, it is the responsibility of each person desiring the best care to find out what is available or can be made available at their local hospital, and not settle for second best; preferably before any issues regarding a possible blood transfusion comes up. It could very well save a life short and/or long term.

For more information on the best alternatives, medical treatments and advice visit http://www.noblood.org and http://www.watchtower.org/e/medical_care_and_blood.htm
 

How do Jehovah’s Witnesses view voting?

(Questions from readers: published in a 1999 Watchtower)
 

There are clear principles set out in the Bible that enable servants of God to take a proper view of this matter. However, there appears to be no principle against the practice of voting itself. For example, there is no reason why a board of directors should not take a vote in order to arrive at decisions affecting their corporation. Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses often make decisions about meeting times and the use of congregation funds by voting with a show of hands.

 What, though, of voting in political elections? Of course, in some democratic lands, as many as 50 percent of the population do not turn out to vote on election day. As for Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not interfere with the right of others to vote; neither do they in any way campaign against political elections. They respect and cooperate with the authorities who are duly elected in such elections. (Romans 13:1-7) As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State. (Matthew 22:21; 1 Peter 3:16) In making this personal decision, the Witnesses consider a number of factors.

Romans 13:1-7. “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves. For those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you, then, want to have no fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear: for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad.

There is therefore compelling reason for YOU people to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of [YOUR] conscience. For that is why YOU are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. Render to all their dues, to him who [calls for] the tax, the tax; to him who [calls for] the tribute, the tribute; to him who [calls for] fear, such fear; to him who [calls for] honor, such honor.”

Matthew 22:21. “'They said: “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them: “Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”'

1 Peter 3:16. “Hold a good conscience, so that in the particular in which YOU are spoken against they may get ashamed who are speaking slightingly of YOUR good conduct in connection with Christ.”

First, Jesus Christ said of his followers: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” (John 17:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses take this principle seriously. Being “no part of the world,” they are neutral in the political affairs of the world.

John 18:36. Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”

Second, the apostle Paul referred to himself as an “ambassador” representing Christ to the people of his day. (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ Jesus is now the enthroned King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, and they, like ambassadors, must announce this to the nations. (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 11:15) Ambassadors are expected to be neutral and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries to which they are sent. As representatives of God’s heavenly Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses feel a similar obligation not to interfere in the politics of the countries where they reside.

Ephesians 6:20. “for which I am acting as an ambassador in chains; that I may speak in connection with it with boldness as I ought to speak.”

2 Corinthians 5:20. ^“We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: Become reconciled to God.”

Matthew 24:14. “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”

Revelation 11:15. ^'“And the seventh angel blew his trumpet. And loud voices occurred in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.”'

A third factor to consider is that those who have a part in voting a person into office may become responsible for what he does. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:22, The New English Bible.) Christians have to consider carefully whether they want to shoulder that responsibility.

1 Timothy 5:22. “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself chaste.”

Fourth, Jehovah’s Witnesses greatly value their Christian unity. (Colossians 3:14) When religions get involved in politics, the result is often division among their members. In imitation of Jesus Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid becoming involved in politics and thus maintain their Christian unity.

Colossians 3:14. “Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave YOU, so do YOU also.”

Matthew 12:25. “'Knowing their thoughts, he said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”'

John 6:15 “Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.”

John 18:36, 37. Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.” Therefore Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.”

Fifth and finally, their keeping out of politics gives Jehovah’s Witnesses freeness of speech to approach people of all political persuasions with the important message of the Kingdom.

Hebrews 10:35. “Do not, therefore, throw away YOUR freeness of speech, which has a great reward to be paid it.”

In view of the Scriptural principles outlined above, in many lands Jehovah’s Witnesses make a personal decision not to vote in political elections, and their freedom to make that decision is supported by the law of the land. What, though, if the law requires citizens to vote? In such a case, each Witness is responsible to make a conscientious, Bible-based decision about how to handle the situation. If someone decides to go to the polling booth, that is his decision. What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator.

The November 15, 1950, issue of The Watchtower, on pages 445 and 446, said: “Where Caesar makes it compulsory for citizens to vote . . . [Witnesses] can go to the polls and enter the voting booths. It is here that they are called upon to mark the ballot or write in what they stand for. The voters do what they will with their ballots. So here in the presence of God is where his witnesses must act in harmony with his commandments and in accordance with their faith. It is not our responsibility to instruct them what to do with the ballot.”

What if a Christian woman’s unbelieving husband insists that she present herself to vote? Well, she is subject to her husband, just as Christians are subject to the superior authorities. (Ephesians 5:22; 1 Peter 2:13-17) If she obeys her husband and goes to the polling booth, that is her personal decision. No one should criticize her.
Ephesians 5:22

1 Peter 2:13-17. “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good. For so the will of God is, that by doing good YOU may muzzle the ignorant talk of the unreasonable men. Be as free people, and yet holding YOUR freedom, not as a blind for badness, but as slaves of God. Honor [men] of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, have honor for the king.”

Romans 14:4. ^“Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.”

What of a country where voting is not mandated by law but feelings run high against those who do not go to the voting booth—perhaps they are exposed to physical danger? Or what if individuals, while not legally obliged to vote, are severely penalized in some way if they do not go to the polling booth? In these and similar situations, a Christian has to make his own decision. “Each one will carry his own load.”—Galatians 6:5.

There may be people who are stumbled when they observe that during an election in their country, some Witnesses of Jehovah go to the polling booth and others do not. They may say, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are not consistent.’ People should recognize, though, that in matters of individual conscience such as this, each Christian has to make his own decision before Jehovah God.

Romans 14:12. “So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.”

Whatever personal decisions Jehovah’s Witnesses make in the face of different situations, they take care to preserve their Christian neutrality and freeness of speech. In all things, they rely on Jehovah God to strengthen them, give them wisdom, and help them avoid compromising their faith in any way. Thus they show confidence in the words of the psalmist: “You are my crag and my stronghold; and for the sake of your name you will lead me and conduct me.”—Psalm 31:3.

END OF ARTICLE.

*******

 I personally do not consider it no ones business if a Jehovah’s Witness goes into a polling booth. We are advised not to stumble brothers and sisters and those not related to us in the Faith. Until this article was published I was under the impression that Witnesses did not go near a polling booth so as not to confuse the general public about our neutral stand on politics, but instead found out that apparently this had been going on for several years in other countries outside Australia.

 This revelation came when I was speaking with a brother, an elder, about the article and he asked my opinion. When I told him I would prefer to be shot than have anyone think I was voting and was a hypocrite or inconsistent with my faith, he responded by quickly looking around, as I wasn’t whispering my disgust, and putting his finger to his lips advised me to be careful what I said.

 He know before hand what my response to the article would be and he obviously felt the same way but knew he could safely discuss it with me without fear of accusations of him being disloyal to the Organization and thus questioning Jehovah’s directives.

 If there had been public voting during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land during Christ’s time, would we have seen Christ lining up to cast his vote and respond to critics that he wasn’t really going to vote, but if he gave this impression he would avoid a flogging or criticism? That would have confused his followers no end; followers who had been told to put faith in God’s Kingdom and not to serve two masters.

 Has the faith and endurance of many of our faithful brothers and sisters of past and present who have suffered beatings, criticism and even death for refusing to vote or refusing to be seen as voting or having anything to do with politics, been devalued? How can we stand firm and be ‘no part of the world’ and not loose our balance if we are seen to have one foot in the world and one foot in the hope of God’s Kingdom?

 Sam Davies.

Voting, religion and politics:

(My personal feelings on the issue)

When I was about eight, I asked my Mum about voting and what politicians did. She explained the prime minister’s role and that he had a party of men and women who were delegated certain responsibilities toward the community, and they were the politicians. Politicians were less powerful than their leaders but represented the people’s will. I was not impressed as I thought the politicians were doing a pretty lousy job of telling the leaders what was necessary for the happiness of the people they lead. Either that or the leaders just weren’t listening. I was less impressed being told that, one day, I would have to vote. Have to?? Mum said in Australia if someone didn’t vote they got fined. I settled on being fined.

In my opinion, the world was run by people who dictated to the masses, and only professed to represent the majority; a majority that was only a few more than the loosing minority-so nearly half the cake eaters were more or less dissatisfied with its ingredients. I was equally unimpressed with any monarchies who I considered had a rule or ruin mentality.

Looking around me I knew the way I wanted to live wasn’t going to happen if I asked my local friendly politician to take my concerns to the people’s leader. All I wanted was to go bush and live off the land amongst the Aboriginals, but since they were severely restricted in their movements, there wouldn’t be much point crying into the same deaf eared leaders. My one little insignificant vote definitely wasn’t going to change a thing for me or anyone. Voting in a group of people who I knew full well would scorn my desired mode of living really seemed a fruitless exercise and rather nonsensical.

As I became older, nothing changed my opinion of voting, leaders or politicians. I pondered over Martin Luther King and Gandhi and concluded the good leaders seemed to get shot. I stood firm over my independent and educated decision to shun politics and wars. I could not see how God could back any side in war or have anything to do with manipulating voting results that placed as head an obvious a fool or worse. Nor could I see how any religious person could ever go to war and be willing to blow someone away. If all those claiming to be Christian or Muslim or of any religion that professed to love its fellow man, refused to go to war-then there would be no more wars.

Religions were mostly political, and I saw that situation as a permanent disgraceful one, which left me out in the cold, trying to find a religion compatible to my definition of what God represented. If any war did break out, being shot by the so called enemy, or locked in a prison as a conscientious objector was preferable to my spilling another’s blood, as I felt sure my three role models of Christ, King and Gandhi would have given me an approving nod.

When I came in contact with the Witnesses it suited most of what I already believed and, therefore, felt comfortable amongst a group of people I knew wouldn’t have blood on their hands for voting for an incompetent leader or taking up arms.

I was only a drop in a bucket. One drop that didn’t vote amongst a world of millions that did, so I or anyone like me wasn’t going to cause people en mass to lay down their ballot papers and demand all the leaders of the world to forget the ego trip about their country being better than the next, and that their way of rulership wasn’t the only way.

Scripturally, and as a Christian, I have no business voting or even entering a polling booth. That would give others the impression I might be voting. There is no room in my life for any involvement in politics or war. Political neutrality was a distinguishing factor of the early Christians that most modern Christians do not reflect.

I am a servant of God and answerable only to him and his Christ, my King, and in no way advocate the rulership of any human being. The early Christians in no way gave their loyalty to the rulers around them either. They believed in a Kingdom ruled by Christ and their allegiance was exclusive to it only. To do so would mean serving two masters and this would have caused disunity amongst the members, a disunity that continues today in many churches and religious groups. Involvement in politics is the leading factor of church fragmentation when individuals break away from original teachings to go after their own desires and/or political agendas.

All governments are to be brought to nothing by the hand of God and those hoping in him can in no way rest their hopes in that which will be done away with; either in the short or long term. Surely, one’s actions must show loyalty to the Creator and his Kingdom Government as the only one true hope for humankind. Eph 6:12; 1 Cor 2:6; Rev 16:14. 

Sam Davies.
 

Real Man or Real Woman?

Access Denied, Permitted, Definition, Depending.

*Today Bob had his penis removed due to penal cancer. He is no longer a real man.

*Last week Julie had a mastectomy for breast cancer; she is no longer a real woman.

*Born intersexed and feeling neither male or female psychologically, Bruce opted for genital reconstruction to take the role of a man to be accepted in society. Unfortunately the surgery failed and Bruce will never be a real man.

*Charlie always knew he was a man despite being born with a females body so he started gender reassignment and was full of excitement over beginning T, unfortunately he showed no signs of developing hair or muscle like all the other transman. He didn’t have sufficient testosterone receptors like most people whether male or female. He will never be a real man.

*Gary transman was only sexually attracted to men. He will never be a real man.

*Transman Sam never could understand why his muscles never developed when he tried body building as a teenager but persisted fruitlessly without the help of steroids in an attempt to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Many years later having lived a life time of accusations from some in the medical arena of being a steroid abuser, hypochondriac or a victim of physical burn out, Sam was diagnosed with one of over forty forms of muscular dystrophy. Sam will always have a female voice, no muscle definition or an enlarged clitoris like other transman. Sam will never be the definition of the minority of what it is to be a real man.

*Zack lived in a country where the transsexed were put to death if the truth were know about who they really were inside. To make matters worse he was faced with an arranged marriage to someone he didn’t love and who was, naturally, a man. Zack yearned for a wife; for freedom; to be the man he really was. Zack will never be a real man.

*Victoria starred at the M marker on her birth certificate that was illegal to change unless she under went total genital reconstruction to form female genitals. She couldn’t even start hormones. Victoria suffered schizophrenia as well as being born a quadriplegic; she was unable to convince the doctors of her being a woman despite what was between her legs and the chaos that sometimes stormed between her ears but had nothing to do with her gender. Access to treatment denied she will never be a real woman.

*Biologically female Colin decided not to have a life but continue to just exist. Instead he would make what he thought was the greatest sacrifice – that of continuing to be a real woman in the eyes of family, friends and society - though he knew that he was only a fake woman and always had been. Continue to be the dotting fake mother and good fake wife and fake faithful daughter and fake female pillar of her church to the women who wore the dresses every Sunday and kept oh so silent; all the usual stuff that make up a real woman. Colin’s funeral will be on Tuesday. He will never be a real man.

*Helen wasn’t getting anywhere in this stereotyped sexist world. She decided to undergo a process she had read about, that of gender reassignment to look and sound like a man. Two years later, a successful real business man, Helen now Howard, has a yearning for the company of her old girlfriends and all that came with being the woman she is inside and was outside but…hey… she is now a real man for she complete all that was expected of her for successful gender reassignment to become a real man by some definition that changes as quickly and as dramatically as the seasons. ‘Howard’ now speaks with low vocalization, shaves daily, can lift any weight in harmony with the general male population and has a good two inch clitoris though it repulses her as does her now flat chest. But that is the price one has to pay to fit the definition of a real man and be accepted by the few and make it in this world.

*Transman Gordon ran before he could walk. He had to keep up with some other boys when he should have walked his own path in his own time. The bottom surgery was not as advance back then as it is now. In dept from the failed surgeries to fix the resulting rare risk of incontinence he at least doesn’t have to worry about standing to pee, just empties the urinal bag that in now his constant companion and a reminder that he will never be a real man.

*There is a little known island in Indonesia, Bogus, where the transsexed don’t undergo gender reassignment. They are accepted, there is no need. “Oh,” but some would say, “they mustn’t be real men or real woman when they turn down the opportunity to be real men or real woman in this modern enlightened world with all its technologies.” They are offered the pleasure of being cut up by the surgeons knife and rearranged though they must find money for these luxuries offered but not given, while barely have finances to feed their familys. “Thanks, but no thanks. We have our family, our friends, we are accepted and therefore have peace of mind, our proof being our word.”

A real man or real woman; is there such a phenomena? Isn’t one real he or she who’s walking their own path and who knows that they are a man or woman though it may only been known to him or her self and to that of the Creator of all of us? They just ARE and have not BECOME anything than what they have always been and are beyond.

 For more information, please see:

 http://www.transgendercare.com/guidance/what_is_gender.htm

More sites of interest about the nature of gender:

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/hermaphrodite/

and

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/castration/eunuch/

page2

PO BOX 794, SANDERSON 0813, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY, AUSTRALIA. ratwoodies@yahoo.com

DEAR READER, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE PROCEEDING.

Any information from this website that is the written work of the author may be printed, emailed or copied and distributed, as long as the content remains unchanged. Nothing may be deleted, added or changed and the full recognition of authorship must be given to my self, Sam Luke-Anthony Davies, along with the website details in order for the reader to check the validity and authenticity of any distributed written content from this site. Translation into other languages is appreciated and welcomed as long as the translator does his or her utmost to be as accurate to the original text as possible.

The opinions expressed in my writings on this website are solely my opinions based on the scriptures and are not necessarily the opinions of any persons associated with me who may have decided to contribute information this site, namely personal stories or experiences of others. Likewise, the opinions of anyone contributing are not necessarily my opinions.

I do not take responsibility over anyone taking similar actions to those acted out by my self as stated anywhere on this site, nor do I or those contributing to this site accept any responsibility over their/my actions expressed in writing on this site. We all make educated choices whether they are correct or incorrect and as mature individuals each one of us must shoulder any decisions regarding our self and only our self at the end of the day.
Agape,

Sam Davies.