You are on page 1of 3

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 is a shortened
version of the original reply sent on 28/2/10 for submission to the local press.

The full text of “The Case Against Cross-dressing and Transgenderism in Guyana” is found online
Guyana ) with a cover page and table of contents. It illustrates that Guyana’s laws exist for good social,
legal, medical and personal reasons.

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. It is a
known fact (McHugh 2005) that homosexuality, transgenderism and sex-change operations go hand in

However, the evidence will show that Guyana ’s Supreme Court would be wise in not generating inter-
religious acrimony among Guyanese citizens (Craigwell makes a number of pointed assertions about a
certain religion that “supports” homosexuality in Guyana) and take the safe path of referring the issue to
referendum later … or ignore the motion altogether.

Readers should assess the article “Arguments Against Pancap and the Decriminalization of
Homosexuality” (
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. The dissent by Justice
Antonin Scalia in Lawrence v Texas on pages 25-35, in particular, 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” (
would-court.html ) Valerie Leung in Canada (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 cannot 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

“… 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. …”

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.


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

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,