Sex Change: Physically Impossible, Psychosocially Unhelpful, and Philosophically Misguided

CC™ ViewPoint

By Ryan T. Anderson

Modern medicine can’t reassign sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially. Here is the evidence.

Contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth—and that’s why it can’t be “reassigned.” As I explain in my book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. The sex of an organism is defined and identified by the way in which it (he or she) is organized for sexual reproduction.

This is just one manifestation of the fact that natural organization is “the defining feature of an organism,” as neuroscientist Maureen Condic and her philosopher brother Samuel Condic explain. In organisms, “the various parts … are organized to cooperatively interact for the welfare of the entity as a whole. Organisms can exist at various levels, from microscopic single cells to sperm whales weighing many tons, yet they are all characterized by the integrated function of parts for the sake of the whole.”

Male and female organisms have different parts that are functionally integrated for the sake of their whole, and for the sake of a larger whole—their sexual union and reproduction. So an organism’s sex—as male or female—is identified by its organization for sexually reproductive acts. Sex as a status—male or female—is a recognition of the organization of a body that can engage in sex as an act.

That organization isn’t just the best way to figure out which sex you are; it’s the only way to make sense of the concepts of male and female at all. What else could “maleness” or “femaleness” even refer to, if not your basic physical capacity for one of two functions in sexual reproduction?

The conceptual distinction between male and female based on reproductive organization provides the only coherent way to classify the two sexes. Apart from that, all we have are stereotypes.

This shouldn’t be controversial. Sex is understood this way across sexually reproducing species. No one finds it particularly difficult—let alone controversial—to identify male and female members of the bovine species or the canine species. Farmers and breeders rely on this easy distinction for their livelihoods. It’s only recently, and only with respect to the human species, that the very concept of sex has become controversial.

And yet, in an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2 (a state law governing access to sex-specific restrooms), Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015).

Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

In her sworn declaration to the federal court, Dr. Deanna Adkins called the standard account of sex—an organism’s sexual organization—“an extremely outdated view of biological sex.” Dr. Lawrence Mayer responded in his rebuttal declaration: “This statement is stunning. I have searched dozens of references in biology, medicine and genetics—even Wiki!—and can find no alternative scientific definition. In fact the only references to a more fluid definition of biological sex are in the social policy literature.” Just so. Dr. Mayer is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level. In other words, our physical organization for one of two functions in reproduction shapes us organically, from the beginning of life, at every level of our being.

Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex. They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other.

“Scientifically speaking, transgender men are not biological men and transgender women are not biological women. The claims to the contrary are not supported by a scintilla of scientific evidence,” explains Dr. Mayer.

Or, as Princeton philosopher Robert P. George put it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”

Psychosocial Outcomes

Sadly, just as “sex reassignment” fails to reassign sex biologically, it also fails to bring wholeness socially and psychologically. As I demonstrate in When Harry Became Sally, the medical evidence suggests that it does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender.

Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.

Dr. Paul McHugh, the University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explains:

Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they “identify.” In that lies their problematic future.

When “the tumult and shouting dies,” it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

Dr. McHugh points to the reality that because sex change is physically impossible, it frequently does not provide the long-term wholeness and happiness that people seek.

Indeed, the best scientific research supports McHugh’s caution and concern.

Here’s how the Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (Arif):

Arif, which conducts reviews of healthcare treatments for the NHS, concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favour of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counselling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.

“There is huge uncertainty over whether changing someone’s sex is a good or a bad thing,” said Chris Hyde, the director of Arif. Even if doctors are careful to perform these procedures only on “appropriate patients,” Hyde continued, “there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized—often to the point of committing suicide.”

Of particular concern are the people these studies “lost track of.” As the Guardian noted, “the results of many gender reassignment studies are unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants.” Indeed, “Dr. Hyde said the high drop out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals.” Dr. Hyde concluded: “The bottom line is that although it’s clear that some people do well with gender reassignment surgery, the available research does little to reassure about how many patients do badly and, if so, how badly.”

Arif conducted its review back in 2004, so perhaps things have changed in the past decade? Not so. In 2014, a new review of the scientific literature was done by Hayes, Inc., a research and consulting firm that evaluates the safety and health outcomes of medical technologies. Hayes found that the evidence on long-term results of sex reassignment was too sparse to support meaningful conclusions and gave these studies its lowest rating for quality:

Statistically significant improvements have not been consistently demonstrated by multiple studies for most outcomes. … Evidence regarding quality of life and function in male-to-female (MtF) adults was very sparse. Evidence for less comprehensive measures of well-being in adult recipients of cross-sex hormone therapy was directly applicable to GD patients but was sparse and/or conflicting. The study designs do not permit conclusions of causality and studies generally had weaknesses associated with study execution as well. There are potentially long-term safety risks associated with hormone therapy but none have been proven or conclusively ruled out.

The Obama administration came to similar conclusions. In 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid revisited the question whether sex reassignment surgery would have to be covered by Medicare plans. Despite receiving a request that its coverage be mandated, they refused, on the ground that we lack evidence that it benefits patients. Here’s how the June 2016 “Proposed Decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery” put it:

Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results—of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms. The quality and strength of evidence were low due to the mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, potential confounding and small sample sizes. Many studies that reported positive outcomes were exploratory type studies (case-series and case-control) with no confirmatory follow-up.

The final August 2016 “Decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery” was even more blunt. It pointed out that “Overall, the quality and strength of evidence were low due to mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, subjective endpoints, potential confounding (a situation where the association between the intervention and outcome is influenced by another factor such as a co-intervention), small sample sizes, lack of validated assessment tools, and considerable lost to follow-up.” That “lost to follow-up,” remember, could be pointing to people who committed suicide.

And when it comes to the best studies, there is no evidence of “clinically significant changes” after sex reassignment:

The majority of studies were non-longitudinal, exploratory type studies (i.e., in a preliminary state of investigation or hypothesis generating), or did not include concurrent controls or testing prior to and after surgery. Several reported positive results but the potential issues noted above reduced strength and confidence. After careful assessment, we identified six studies that could provide useful information. Of these, the four best designed and conducted studies that assessed quality of life before and after surgery using validated (albeit non-specific) psychometric studies did not demonstrate clinically significant changes or differences in psychometric test results after GRS [gender reassignment surgery].

In a discussion of the largest and most robust study—the study from Sweden that Dr. McHugh mentioned in the quote above—the Obama Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out the nineteen-times-greater likelihood for death by suicide, and a host of other poor outcomes:

The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes), but death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease was increased 2 to 2.5 times as well. We note, mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years. The risk for psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times greater than in controls even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease (18%). The risk for attempted suicide was greater in male-to-female patients regardless of the gender of the control. Further, we cannot exclude therapeutic interventions as a cause of the observed excess morbidity and mortality. The study, however, was not constructed to assess the impact of gender reassignment surgery per se.

These results are tragic. And they directly contradict the most popular media narratives, as well as many of the snapshot studies that do not track people over time. As the Obama Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out, “mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years.” So when the media tout studies that only track outcomes for a few years, and claim that reassignment is a stunning success, there are good grounds for skepticism.

As I explain in my book, these outcomes should be enough to stop the headlong rush into sex-reassignment procedures. They should prompt us to develop better therapies for helping people who struggle with their gender identity. And none of this even begins to address the radical, entirely experimental therapies that are being directed at the bodies of children to transition them.

The Purpose of Medicine, Emotions, and the Mind

Behind the debates over therapies for people with gender dysphoria are two related questions: How do we define mental health and human flourishing? And what is the purpose of medicine, particularly psychiatry?

Those general questions encompass more specific ones: If a man has an internal sense that he is a woman, is that just a variety of normal human functioning, or is it a psychopathology? Should we be concerned about the disconnection between feeling and reality, or only about the emotional distress or functional difficulties it may cause? What is the best way to help people with gender dysphoria manage their symptoms: by accepting their insistence that they are the opposite sex and supporting a surgical transition, or by encouraging them to recognize that their feelings are out of line with reality and learn how to identify with their bodies? All of these questions require philosophical analysis and worldview judgments about what “normal human functioning” looks like and what the purpose of medicine is.

Settling the debates over the proper response to gender dysphoria requires more than scientific and medical evidence. Medical science alone cannot tell us what the purpose of medicine is. Science cannot answer questions about meaning or purpose in a moral sense. It can tell us about the function of this or that bodily system, but it can’t tell us what to do with that knowledge. It cannot tell us how human beings ought to act. Those are philosophical questions, as I explain in When Harry Became Sally.

While medical science does not answer philosophical questions, every medical practitioner has a philosophical worldview, explicit or not. Some doctors may regard feelings and beliefs that are disconnected from reality as a part of normal human functioning and not a source of concern unless they cause distress. Other doctors will regard those feelings and beliefs as dysfunctional in themselves, even if the patient does not find them distressing, because they indicate a defect in mental processes. But the assumptions made by this or that psychiatrist for purposes of diagnosis and treatment cannot settle the philosophical questions: Is it good or bad or neutral to harbor feelings and beliefs that are at odds with reality? Should we accept them as the last word, or try to understand their causes and correct them, or at least mitigate their effects?

While the current findings of medical science, as shown above, reveal poor psychosocial outcomes for people who have had sex-reassignment therapies, that conclusion should not be where we stop. We must also look deeper for philosophical wisdom, starting with some basic truths about human well-being and healthy functioning. We should begin by recognizing that sex reassignment is physically impossible. Our minds and senses function properly when they reveal reality to us and lead us to knowledge of truth. And we flourish as human beings when we embrace the truth and live in accordance with it. A person might find some emotional relief in embracing a falsehood, but doing so would not make him or her objectively better off. Living by a falsehood keeps us from flourishing fully, whether or not it also causes distress.

This philosophical view of human well-being is the foundation of a sound medical practice. Dr. Michelle Cretella, the president of the American College of Pediatricians—a group of doctors who formed their own professional guild in response to the politicization of the American Academy of Pediatrics—emphasizes that mental health care should be guided by norms grounded in reality, including the reality of the bodily self. “The norm for human development is for one’s thoughts to align with physical reality, and for one’s gender identity to align with one’s biologic sex,” she says. For human beings to flourish, they need to feel comfortable in their own bodies, readily identify with their sex, and believe that they are who they actually are. For children especially, normal development and functioning require accepting their physical being and understanding their embodied selves as male or female.

Unfortunately, many professionals now view health care—including mental health care—primarily as a means of fulfilling patients’ desires, whatever those are. In the words of Leon Kass, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, today a doctor is often seen as nothing more than “a highly competent hired syringe”:

The implicit (and sometimes explicit) model of the doctor-patient relationship is one of contract: the physician—a highly competent hired syringe, as it were—sells his services on demand, restrained only by the law (though he is free to refuse his services if the patient is unwilling or unable to meet his fee). Here’s the deal: for the patient, autonomy and service; for the doctor, money, graced by the pleasure of giving the patient what he wants. If a patient wants to fix her nose or change his gender, determine the sex of unborn children, or take euphoriant drugs just for kicks, the physician can and will go to work—provided that the price is right and that the contract is explicit about what happens if the customer isn’t satisfied.

This modern vision of medicine and medical professionals gets it wrong, says Dr. Kass. Professionals ought to profess their devotion to the purposes and ideals they serve. Teachers should be devoted to learning, lawyers to justice, clergy to things divine, and physicians to “healing the sick, looking up to health and wholeness.” Healing is “the central core of medicine,” Kass writes; “to heal, to make whole, is the doctor’s primary business.”

To provide the best possible care, serving the patient’s medical interests, requires an understanding of human wholeness and well-being. Mental health care must be guided by a sound concept of human flourishing. The minimal standard of care should begin with a standard of normality. Dr. Cretella explains how this standard applies to mental health:

One of the chief functions of the brain is to perceive physical reality. Thoughts that are in accordance with physical reality are normal. Thoughts that deviate from physical reality are abnormal—as well as potentially harmful to the individual or to others. This is true whether or not the individual who possesses the abnormal thoughts feels distress.

Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us with the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts that disguise or distort reality are misguided—and can cause harm. In When Harry Became Sally, I argue that we need to do a better job of helping people who face these struggles.

SOURCE: THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE 

                 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ryan T. Anderson is Founding Editor of Public Discourse. He is also President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment and Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.

'It eats him alive inside': Trump's latest attack shows endless obsession with Obama

CC™ News - David Smith 

President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump once sat together in the Oval Office. “I was immediately struck by Trump’s body language,” wrote journalist Jon Karl in his memoir Front Row at The Trump Show. “I was seeing a side of him I had never seen. He seemed, believe it or not, humbled.”

It was November 2016 and, just for once, Trump was not in charge of the room, Karl recalls. Obama was still president, directing the action and setting the tone. His successor “seemed a little dazed” and “a little freaked out”. What the two men discussed in their meeting that day, only they know.

But what became clear in the next three and a half years is that Obama remains something of an obsession for Trump; the subject of a political and personal inferiority complex.

Observers point to a mix of anti-intellectualism, racism, vengeance and primitive envy over everything from Obama’s Nobel peace prize to the scale of his inauguration crowd and social media following.

Ben Rhodes, a former Obama national security aide, tweeted this week: “Trump’s fact-free fixation on Obama dating back to birtherism is so absurd and stupid that it would be comic if it wasn’t so tragic.”

“Birtherism” was a conspiracy theory that Trump started pushing in 2011 (“He doesn’t have a birth certificate. He may have one but there is something on that birth certificate – maybe religion, maybe it says he’s a Muslim, I don’t know.”) . Nine years later, he has come full circle with “Obamagate”, which accuses his predecessor of working in league with the “deep state” to frame Trump for colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election.

There is zero evidence for this claim. Indeed, a case could be made that the supposed “deep state” did more to help Trump than hurt him when the FBI reopened an investigation into his opponent, Hillary Clinton, just before election day. When questioned by reporters, Trump himself has struggled to articulate what “Obamagate” means. Ned Price, a former CIA analyst, dubbed it “a hashtag in search of a scandal”.

But his allies in the Republican party and conservative media are stepping up to build a parallel universe where this is the big story and Obama is at the center of it. Sean Hannity, a host on Fox News, demanded: “What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?” Over the past week, the channel’s primetime shows have devoted more coverage to the bogus crimes of “Barack Hussein Obama” than to the coronavirus pandemic – and Trump’s mishandling of it.

Trump has a problem where I think he’s just jealous of the fact that Obama is still so admired

Tara Setmayer

Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, said: “Donald Trump always needs a foil. This riles up his base because they cling to anything that diverges responsibility for anything from Donald Trump over to someone else. And in this case Barack Obama is the boogeyman of the month.”

Beyond political expediency, there is a more profound antipathy at work. From the Iran nuclear deal to the Trans Pacific Partnership, from environmental regulations to the Affordable Care Act, Trump has always seemed to be on a mission to erase his predecessor’s legacy. With few deep convictions of his own, Trump found a negative reference point in Obama. Between 22 November 2010 and 14 May 2020, he tweeted about Obama 2,933 times, according to the Trump Twitter Archive.

There are a few reasons, argues Setmayer, host of the Honestly Speaking podcast. “First off, Donald Trump has a problem where I think he’s just jealous of the fact that President Obama is still so admired. Number two, I think he has a problem with people of color who are in authority that don’t do the kind of song and dance that he wants them to do.

“Barack Obama is not a ‘shuck and jive’ person of color, and those are the kinds of people that Donald Trump seems to be attracted to if you look at who he surrounds himself with as far as minorities are concerned.”

Third, Setmayer points to the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, where Trump sat stony-faced and humiliated as Obama lampooned the Celebrity Apprentice host’s nascent political ambitions. Obama even pointed to a photoshopped image of a Trump White House with hotel, casino, golf course and gold columns.

“A lot of people think that this is where this all started,” Setmayer continued. “President Trump does not have a sense of humor, he’s not self-deprecating, and the White House correspondents’ dinner is a fun event where people make fun of each other, especially in politics.”

“This obsession, of course, is absolutely rooted in racism.

Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change, a civil rights advocacy group, said: “This obsession, of course, is absolutely rooted in racism. Some of the accusations have been deeply racialized, from the questioning of Obama’s intelligence to talking about how much basketball he plays to questioning his birthplace and citizenship.”

Trump has shredded many norms, including that of presidents maintaining a respectful contact with their predecessors. He has dismissed the idea of seeking Obama’s input during the coronavirus pandemic. For his part, Obama has carefully chosen his moments to condemn certain decisions or policies without mentioning Trump by name.

But tensions flared last week when a tape leaked of Obama on a private conference call with about 3,000 alumni of his administration, describing Trump’s leadership in the pandemic as “an absolute chaotic disaster”. He also warned a justice department move to drop charges against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who admitted lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition, indicates that “the rule of law is at risk”.

Trump has described Flynn as a wronged “hero” and argued that Obama and his vice-president, Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for November’s election, should “pay a big price” for supposedly derailing the retired general’s career. Critics suggest that the president is seeking to weaponise the justice department for electoral gain.

Matthew Miller, a former director of the office of public affairs at the department, said: “In terms of any real action against Barack Obama, he obviously doesn’t have anything to worry about. But when you look at what’s happened at the justice department with the complete politicisation of that department, I think it’s quite possible that they’re going to be coming after people from the Obama administration, using the criminal justice process any way they can.”

The 2016 rally chants of “Lock her up!” might be replaced by “Lock him up!”

It would be one of the gravest consequences of Trump’s Obama obsession. Miller added: “There’s some racism there but, most of all, it’s driven by the fact that Obama has the thing that Trump has always craved but never achieved, and that’s respect. I’ve always thought that the respect that Barack Obama gets from people in this country and around the world is something that just eats Trump alive inside.”

Obama issued a tweet on Thursday that contained one word: “Vote.” He is expected to campaign vigorously for Biden, wooing voters who crave a return to what they saw as the dignity and stability of his era. But his presence is also likely to be inverted by Trump to rally his base with dark warnings that, like Clinton before him, Biden would effectively represent a third term of Obama. The 2016 rally chants of “Lock her up!” might be replaced by “Lock him up!”

The 2020 election could yet turn into a final showdown between Obama and Trump, even if only one of their names is on the ballot.

It will be a clash of opposites: one a mixed-race cerebral lawyer who has been married to the same woman for nearly three decades and publishes annual lists of his favorite books; the other a white billionaire and reality TV star who wed three times and measures success in TV ratings. Where one is renowned for elegant turns of phrase and shedding tears after mass shootings, the other serves up jumbled word salads and schoolboy spelling errors and has struggled to show empathy for the coronavirus dead.

Michael D’Antonio, a political commentator and author of The Truth About Trump, said: “There’s so much that separates them, it’s hard to imagine two presidents more different. It’s very obvious Trump is continually comparing himself with Obama in his own mind. Obama’s over his head, over his shoulder, always looming as the guy who could speak in paragraphs and juggle more than one thing at once and deal with them effectively.”

Source: The Guardian

CC™ Flashback: Igbo leadership and their penchant for the absurd

Former Governor Raji Fashola of Lagos State

CC™ Conversation 

There has always been one constant with Igbo leadership. They have always had an obtuse penchant for the absurd while tinkering on the edge of provocation.

In a recent conversation with The Sun, a so-called chieftain of Igbo United Initiative (IUI) and Chairman of Win Peace Investment Ltd., Chief Amobi Nnadiekwe, stated unabashedly that the Ndigbo must produce the next deputy governor of Lagos State.

Chief Nnadiekwe stressed that his position was predicated on the 'fact' that the Igbo now constituted around 43% of the population of Lagos (I guess the Yoruba birthrate must be going down as well as that of the Hausa-Fulani in the state) and had contributed a lot to the growth and development of the state.

This is such obfuscated hubris and it is unfortunate that ethnic jingoists like Chief Nnadiekwe still continue to fight the civil war by preying on the guilty conscience of Yoruba liberals, in particular.

One wonders exactly why the fixation on Lagos State. I will delve into the politics of this in a follow-up piece and it will serve as a reminder to Yoruba leadership across the southwest, that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it.

As expected, it would seem that Chief Nnadiekwe's brethren across the bow does not share his notion of Nigerians "feeling at home" wherever they are, as an APGA (basically an Igbo party) leader declared that the APC (which most Ndigbo view as a Yoruba party) is a "stranger" in the same southeast Chief Nnadiekwe hails from.

Lagos State is a Yoruba state and will remain so. That the host ethnicity of that glorious state are welcoming and cordial, should not be misinterpreted for weakness. The Ndigbo remain by all accounts the most polarizing, parochial and unwelcoming of all ethnic nationalities in Nigeria.

It is time for there to be a realization that Nigeria does not owe the Ndigbo anything and the Yoruba in particular will not be blackmailed into sacrificing their birth-right on the altar of political correctness.

It is hypocritical that a man like Chief Nnadiekwe, whose political views have always been through ethno-tribal lenses should be the one clamoring for equity and egalitarianism, obviously when it suits him.

In this Sun interview, Chief Nnadiekwe speaks on various issues and claims that the Igbo constitute 43 per cent of the population in Lagos. 

Your group has been sensitizing the people of South-East to vote any political party that fields an Igbo as deputy governor of Lagos in 2015. So far, what has been the response?

The response was wonderful. We plan to visit town unions and markets in Lagos State especially, the ones dominated by Igbo. It is time to be part of the political process in the state where Igbo contribute over 52 per cent to the state's economy. Of course, you know that South-East constitutes 43 per cent of the state population. To that extent, we deserve the position of deputy governor. With the number of Ndigbo in Lagos, no doubt, if collectively we decide to vote for any party in Lagos, the party must win. Lagos State has continued to marginalize us politically, hence, Igbos have decided to demand for their right. We have written to all the political parties in the state, informing them of our resolve to vote any party that fields an Igbo as deputy governor.

We have given them early notice, so that they won't say we took them unawares as they are about to begin their primaries. Anything short of making an Igbo man deputy governor in 2015 will not be acceptable to Ndigbo. For the very first time, this vision has united Igbos in Lagos and in the Diaspora. This warning is extended to parties in the other states where Igbos are the second largest population. They should, as a matter of policy, field an Igbo man as deputy governor in 2015. The next stage is rally, which will be organized in the major centers in Lagos and in the affected states.

What other steps do you hope to take to make this happen?

Arrangements have been concluded to visit Igbo leaders and organizations including Ohaneze Ndigbo towards achieving this noble cause, because the population of Igbos in Lagos cannot be undermined in the forthcoming general elections in the state, even though we failed to realize this in the past. Our votes have always decided electoral victories in the state. Any party we vote for must win, hence, we refuse to be used to make up numbers in future elections in Lagos. Ndigbo will participate actively like never before in the 2015 general elections. We will continue to sensitize our people not to vote any party that fails to give the deputy governor slot to Igbos in Lagos. So, this is an assignment for parties jostling to win the gubernatorial race in the Center of Excellence state next year. We don't care about party, what matters most to Igbo is a party that has our interest at heart, whether APC, PDP, Labour or APGA. But if no party fields an Igbo man as deputy governor, we may be forced to boycott the governorship election in Lagos State.

Why the demand for deputy governor slot instead of the governorship seat considering the population of Ndgbo in Lagos?

It is possible for an Igbo to become governor of Lagos State. If you cast your mind back, you will remember that Zik won election as Premier of Western Region but was denied the opportunity and he ran back to become Premier of the Eastern Region. So, it is possible. If Ndigbo can come together, we will produce governor of Lagos State in the near future. We must start from somewhere, and that is the deputy governorship seat in 2015. Lagos is our second home. Majority of our investments are in Lagos and we have a good population. We are law-abiding citizens because there has never been any misunderstanding between Igbos and Lagosians. The relationship has been cordial, hence, even the indigenes wouldn't mind to elect Igbo as governor.

Don't you think that the issue of indigenization should be first enshrined in our constitution before making such demand?

Indigenization is one of the important issues addressed at the just concluded National conference. However, that won't stop us from making genuine demands such as the one at hand. Indigenization is welcomed by all Nigerians. What it means is that a Yoruba man can be governor of Anambra State; an Hausa can contest and win a senatorial seat in Ondo State.

And until we get to this stage, we are not yet a nation. Once again, I beg my brothers in Lagos State to allow Igbo participate fully in the 2015 political process in the state by zoning the position of deputy governor to Igbo.

We have paid our dues and have contributed in the development of the state which warrants this demand. Except they see us as slaves who don't deserve fair treatment. But if Lagosians are sincere, they would agree with me that Igbos are stakeholders in the Lagos project. 

We have developed virtually all parts of Lagos, a sign that we are not willing to leave the state or do anything to destroy or disrupt the relative peace in the state. If the truth must be told, Ndigbo have developed Lagos more than South East.

The $60 Billion Oil Company That Owns Nigeria

CC™ VideoSpective

The indispensable impact of Nigerians globally

CC™ VideoSpective

CREDITS - NaTivi

An Honest Explanation of The Nigerian Civil War (Biafran War)

 CC™ HistoryVille

Reorientation: A need for a new educational agenda for Africans

Professor Omoh T. Ojior, Ph.D.

The news that the former President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has enrolled at Nigeria's National Open University is pleasing because there is no end to learning. However, the report, on the other hand is disturbing because of one of the reasons the former Nigeria leader opted to go back to school to study for an MA and a Ph.D. degrees at this time in his life.

The report states that Chief Obasanjo has registered to study Christian Theology in the School of Arts and Social Sciences. Further, the report reveals that Chief Obasanjo at 77, states that his primary reason is "to acquire knowledge, particularly in Christian Theology, not because I want to be a pastor but rather, to know God more and to be able to serve Him better." In other words, Retired General Olusegun Obasanjo is going back to school to study Christian religious theology to allow him to know God more in order to serve "Him/Her" (God) better.

To begin with, most of the Christian Theology is taken from the Bible. One is aware that the Bible, to most Nigerians is the word of God hence our former President want to study Christian Theology to know God more to help him serve God better. From historical records, we are able to state that the Bible is "Apart from its being a book of great historical and biographical interest, the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, in its inner or spiritual meaning, a record of the experiences and the development of the human soul and of the whole being of humankind; also it is a treatise on humanity's relation to God, the Creator and Father." (Read Charles Fillmore's Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, 1931, and Joseph Wheless' Is It God's Word?). 

So, the historical experiences as contained in the Bible will assist our Chief to know God more. Fine.

The purpose of this article is to show Nigerians that there is a serious need for an educational agenda that focuses on a new orientation of the minds of our people about what was before now. This is with a view to assisting in the development of new African perspectives of life as it relates to the type of Christianity that was brought to our land, Nigeria. Our effort here is not a criticism of any religion, rather the effort should be seen as trying to allow our people to see why our African ideas and ideals including our products and endeavors as a people should be respected.

You see, there is nothing wrong about one's desire to know God more with a view to relating and appreciating Him more. The problem one is having with Chief Obasanjo's choice is where he is channeling his focus to know more about the Divine nature of the Diffused Energies; the I Am that I Am; the Olorun Olodumare, and the Oluwa of the Yorubas; the Osinegba, Oghena, and the Omholua no ma mha kpo, of the Etsako people; the Chineke of the Igbos; the Ghanaians call Him/Her, Mau; of course, the Egyptians call Him/Her, Ra; the Chinese have their own name, the Jews call Jehovah or Yahweh, and the Indians have theirs. 

I am sure the Russians have their own name for the Phenomenon which only the Europeans and Americans call, God. They popularized their name which now makes it look as if their own name for Him/Her is the only One true God. One is aware that anyone should be able decide on where to find and interact with the One God of humanity, but it is not the high caliber of Chief Obasanjo's personality who should be telling Nigerians, young and old that he was going back to school to understudy the Christian Theology to allow him know God more.

Chief Obasanjo's reason, as he explained is not helpful to the young ones who are at this point in time, trying very hard to escape the harsh hardship and unpleasant conditions of life in the country, partly inflicted on the population through the dogmas taught by the Christian Church. At the level Chief Obasanjo has served Nigeria as its former Head of State and President, and with his maturity and dynamism, he had exhibited, he should have said or done something else to motivate the youths and people generally in the country; at least give a sense of direction.

When our rulers run away from what they are (our culture), what do we expect from the ordinary citizens? It is the same Chief Obasanjo who should have allowed the world to know that it was never a sin to have more than one wife when he was President. But he did not. Nigerians knew that the Chief was a true "Odape" a wealthy family man known in Etsako as Odape. 

The Moslems are able to marry four wives because they say that their Holy Book, the Quran decrees it. The Quran and the Holy Book of the Christians, the Bible came from the same source; one is a replica of the other. France is Christendom. The French and their leaders marry one wife but have many mistresses or concubines known to everyone else; and it is not an offence or sin against God and humanity in France. 

If this be the case, why should Nigerian rulers, some of who are Christians like Obasanjo continue to shy away from the truth, an apparent deception to destroy the Holistic cultural system of our African sub-region of the World? One man and many wives, as one can maintain is not a crime or sin, and it shouldn't be in Nigeria and Africa.

The Christian Church today in Nigeria could be said to be a curse. How else do we explain away the deceits, frauds, colluding with wrong dowers at the helm of affairs in the country, including the reported adulterous life of many of them? Some of the Church pastors ride about in private jets made of Gold. 

The former President Olusegun Obasanjo has earned my praises and confidence over the years; he still earns my praise and confidence because in his time he attempted to bring Nigeria out of the doldrums it has been in; hence one is trying to advise him and those like him in the country through this medium. He is also, in our time, the first to recognize the need and worth of the Nigerians abroad, and the impact they could have on the Nigerian economy. 

Another behavior one admires about Obasanjo is the fact that he remains as one of the Nigerian heads of state that have never put on a foreign dress such as English suite apart from when he wears his Military uniforms, in my opinion. He is always on our admirable native dresses outside his home. He deserves our advise like many other Nigerians on this type matters.

However, most of the Christian theological studies at any of our institutions, low and high, will be nothing more than the dogmas with which Africans have been deceived and held down over the years. This is not to say that there is no divinity in the Christianity. The facts are that the elements constituting the Divine nature of our Almighty Father, the I Am that I Am of us all, are omitted in the teachings of most of our Christian Churches who's many members and adherents of the religion, constitute a greater part of the servants of instructions in all of the esoteric or mundane institutions of ours. 

Our institutions and Theology are not where to learn to know God more.

The Nigeria Christian Church dogmas are not near the quality and potency of the African cultures, spiritually speaking. If Chief Obasanjo had opted for the studies on African cultures in any of our universities, it would have created some inspirations that bring about some attention to the need to streamline our cultural elements in our lives. Awareness and the importance of our culture would have been assisted thereby. It would have become something to emulate by many Nigerians including many of the youths who are roaming about in the country unable to obtain employment.

Having not been equipped with the psychological tools of self value and confidence which is a case against our social institutions and the foreign religious dogmas fed to their psyche.

Authentic African history informs us that the original Christianity came out of Africa from the traditions, but came back refurbished into Africa, (read "The Destruction of Black Civilization, 1987" by Chancellor Williams). Christianity as was imported back into Africa by the colonial overlords which is largely practiced today is nothing like the original one. The Christianity of today in Africa is a European culture refurbished from Africa's cultural doctrines or traditions. 

To acquire a wider knowledge of the world educationally is different from going to study Europeanized Christian doctrines that do not help an African to understand the world around him or her. This is because Christian beliefs and doctrines are opium that tranquilizes the adherents. Nigerian rulers do not need to promote such teachings or evangelism.

A conscious person, who wants to know God more, should be in-tune with the precepts of his or her own culture and traditions. If there are any of the cultural precepts that are no longer in tuned with the time they should be revised within the culture to meet the dictates of the time. It is not to be replaced with foreign culture, traditions, and dogmas. Take for an example, The Christian religious dogmas instruct Africans that the Ten Commandments in Christianity was handed to Moses by God atop Mountain Sinai. 

This is definitely not correct as a fact and it is the kind of what exactly Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, our former President will be taught in Christian theological studies in our universities. According to Chancellor Williams, "The great Lawgiver, Moses, was not only born in Africa but he was also married to the daughter of an African priest,"…. and "The religious belief in sacrifice for the remission of sins was an African belief and practice at least 2,000 years before Abraham." 

Chancellor Williams concluded further that "Practically all of the Ten Commandments were embedded in the African Constitution ages before Moses went up Mt. Sinai in Africa in 1491 B.C., a rather late date in African history," page 135.

 In his own historical account, Gerald Massey states that "the Mosaic commandments were borrowed from the wisdom of Egypt," (see Egypt: The Light of the World, Vol. II) Also, Maulana Karenga asserts that of the Ten Commandments, (9) were strictly African. 

This is because in my own opinion, the tenth of the Commandments was the one which says that "Thou shall not have another God before me." Africans could not have authored the injunction of "Thou shall not have another God before me." This cannot be in doubt because early in ancient time, Egypt like in any other African Kingdom or Empire was known as the land of the Gods as it was the practice at the time that every household has their own Shrine, Deity or God which they adored and worshiped. 

This being the case, such an injunction could not be made part of the Egyptian Laws.

Also, the condemnation of ancient African many Gods, as devils by the then new Christian Church have been proved to be wrong. We read "Instead of the plurality of Gods of the "pagan" religions it adopted the One God Yahweh as finally evolved from old Hebrew mythology, into Three-One-Christian Godhead. 

The other Pagan Gods became, in effect, the 'saints' of the new cult; or as quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia: 'the saints are the successors to the Gods' (Vol. xv, 710)." (see Joseph Wheless' Is It God's Word? Or Jeremiah VIII, 8 Rev. Ver.) Is it impossible that these historical facts are not known to our educators, therefore will not be taught to Chief Olusegun Obasanjo? The answer will be YES.

Our leaders or rulers must become conscious enough to know that they need to be symbols for our emulation in our societies. They need to know that to know God and serve Him better is to serve man and woman better in our societies. When one serves man or woman, he or she is serving the One Supreme Being of the universe. Man know Thyself is a spiritual mandate. Man is the Microcosm of the Macrocosm. 

Our rulers should know this and if not, then they were not preparing to serve the people. The inadequate preparation and the dogmas imbibed by those who should have serve the people better, is the result of some of the inhumanity to man that pervade our environment. 

A reorientation to understand who we are as a distinct people is a greater prerequisite to solution sought by those Africans who have the need to expand their educational knowledge and human affairs. There is a need for a new educational agenda in Africa.