Transgender Child Molestation via Mutilation

[Dr. Zaus]

Morality is a function of what disgusts you, so I don't judge anyone else unless I can't figure out how not to be disgusted (ie serial killers). I'm all for anyone that wants to change gender, or race, or be their 'fursona': as an adult. BUT it IS child molestation to surgically alter a human to conform to gendered-norms (including the common practice of 'choosing' a sex for the rare hermaphroditic person); it is Molestation via Mutilation.

Here's an important clip:


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/21/55123/


"For all their talk of gender-bending, their goal is cosmetics, costumes, and surgery to match their bodies to gender caricatures. They are permanently altering their bodies—removing healthy organs and in some cases the ability to ever experience sexual pleasure again—to better fit a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power. This is now being done to children and some of the children already regret it. Please read that sentence again. Please.

The children should be an alarm call but no one is listening. There are historical precedents from which left-leaning people should have learned. Much of the Progressive movement embraced eugenics, until the optimistic, shiny promise of science produced punctual trains to crematoriums. Similarly, in the 1950s many liberals believed that chemical castration was the compassionate approach to homosexuality. We look back in bewildered horror but refuse to see that it’s happening now. The unfit are being chemically sterilized once again. People are being surgically mutilated in the service of social conformity. Children as young as eighteen months are being “diagnosed” as transgender. What does that even mean in someone who has yet to speak her first word? She preferred the blue pacifier to the pink? The real question: so what if she did? Girls can’t like blue, play rough and tumble, take up space, run for President? Apparently not. Free to Be, You and Me, through Surgery. The prison of gender is locking down ever tighter."


There's a big difference between being open-minded about what adults do with their own bodies, and allowing the power-and-control mechanisms in society to disfigure our children.

 

[smackababy]

Do you mean mutilation and not molestation?

I have no problem with transgenders, however, I do feel children should not be allowed to make the choice to alter their bodies without due care. Even taking hormones can cause damage that cannot be repaired. Claiming and 18 month year old is transgender is a bit extreme.

Gender assignment surgery at birth is deplorable and should be done away with completely.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you mean mutilation and not molestation?

Edited to indicate that I see the mutilation of these children as a kind of sexual molestation.

I have no problem with transgenders, however, I do feel children should not be allowed to make the choice to alter their bodies without due care.

What is 'due care' ? It seems to me that waiting until someone is old enough to vote or join the military is a reasonable cutoff for legalizing other life-altering decisions.

 

[smackababy]

Edited to indicate that I see the mutilation of these children as a kind of sexual molestation.
What is 'due care' ? It seems to me that waiting until someone is old enough to vote or join the military is a reasonable cutoff for legalizing other life-altering decisions.

Well, I think 18 is a bit long, especially if they are going to be taking hormones and such. Currently, in the US at least, you have to have a councilor and live as the opposite sex for a period of I believe 2 years, before you can get sexual reassignment surgery. A psychologist should have to sign off if a minor meets the requirements. Possibly not surgery, but hormonal treatment could start. I also believe it works better before puberty.

 

[colonelciller]

Gender assignment surgery at birth is deplorable and should be done away with completely.

yes. studied this in college... many (most) maternity type doctors are not trained in how to deal with ambiguous genetalia.

the way to deal with it is to do absolutely nothing. let the child decide/indicate what gender he/she is and at an appropriate age (16-18-22????) they can get an operation to bring their external body in-line with their natural mental gender identity... if a surgery is what they want.

so few people discussing this issue have even heard of ambiguous genetalia.
with regards to non-ambiguous genetalia... it's nobodies goddamn business other than the individual who feels mismatched to their body. I feel sorry for these individuals and give them a high-five for having the courage to make changes to their bodies to reconcile the mental/external sexual mismatch.

 

[colonelciller]

People are being surgically mutilated in the service of social conformity. Children as young as eighteen months are being “diagnosed” as transgender. What does that even mean in someone who has yet to speak her first word?

if this is still going on i am horrified.

those parents and ALL medical personell involved should be imprisoned for life.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Well, I think 18 is a bit long, especially if they are going to be taking hormones and such. Currently, in the US at least, you have to have a councilor and live as the opposite sex for a period of I believe 2 years, before you can get sexual reassignment surgery. A psychologist should have to sign off if a minor meets the requirements. Possibly not surgery, but hormonal treatment could start. I also believe it works better before puberty.

Gender (not genetic sex) is a social construct, like race, class, ethnicity, nationality etc.

So how could someone that's not even experienced what it is to live through the tendencies associated with their genetic predilections know that this isn't who they "truly are"?

If we are mutilating children so that they can fit particular sexual social-norms then it's a tragedy. Just as it would be a tragedy to use drugs to 'make' someone hetero.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I hear in this is a reluctance, a moral position that it is better not to interfere in some imagined natural order, as if what a child is born with genetically, is some how sacred. But I ask myself, if I had been born gay, for example, but fixed with some unknown process, as an infant, what would I care? I an quite happy to be what I am and could care less how I got that way. My life is also probably a lot less bigot infested, being straight.

I have heard that the deaf don't care too much, some of them anyway, about being able to hear, but if I had a deaf child I that could be fixed with surgery, I would do it.

I think we may be born with a gag reflex to save us from eating shit and fleeing the diseased, but what disgusts us can be trained.

Personally, I don't know enough about this issue to have a deep opinion but I find wishes like that parents who alter their kids in such circumstances should be executed rather strange.

 

[Whiskey16]

Here's a snippet of DixyCrat's proclaimed fulcrum to argue against gender reassignment. An inflammatory and demeaning bit of amateurish blogging to harshly condemn all those who desire surgical gender reassignment as a 'self-hating' debaucher for an elaborate 'costume:'

And it’s the genderists who conform. For all their talk of gender-bending, their goal is cosmetics, costumes, and surgery to match their bodies to gender caricatures. They are permanently altering their bodies—removing healthy organs and in some cases the ability to ever experience sexual pleasure again—to better fit a corrupt and brutal arrangement of power. This is now being done to children and some of the children already regret it.

..
The most heartbreaking element of the transgender narrative is their hatred of their bodies. In the war between culture and nature, gender and body, the body loses. And that defeat is turned into an identity. The only parallel claim is made by the anorexics’ Pro-Anas, who insist their wrenching disjuncture of self and body is a legitimate identity.

This hit piece defiles transgendered people as not being honest to what the author outwardly declares 'nature' intended their bodies to be. An insulting diminishment of the rights to a gender identity and absolute dismissal of any medical benefit.

Gender (not genetic sex) is a social construct, like race, class, ethnicity, nationality etc.

To be more specific, here is the definition according to the World Health Organization:

Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman&#8221 in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.

In addition to social implications, sex and gender categorization has important political and legal implications as well. The identification of an individual as either biologically male or female can have legal ramifications for marriage licenses, spousal support and eligibility for parenthood. The issue of sexual classification, however, is complicated by factors such as chromosomal complement, external genitalia, gender identification and surgical alteration.

So how could someone that's not even experienced what it is to live through the tendencies associated with their genetic predilections know that this isn't who they "truly are"?

Yet, the piece you sourced condemns all gender reassignments. For your argument, you must support with evidence of prevalent surgical gender reassignments upon 'children.' Or do you make an error and only intend critique for surgical assignment upon infants?

DixyCrat, your thread is terribly muddled with positions.

Looking at your poll's disconnect from only a 'child' (infant?) issue, upon what basis may one judge on the non-interacting side-lines? As an outsider, how may one attempt to denounce what another defines themselves to be? How morally prejudicial is that position? How may an external and non-interaction individual apply their personal morals against a medical procedure sought by another, with validated medical and legal support?

The morality and reflecting laws of society trump the purity of what nature must have made one (on the outside), concerns/ickyness/repulsion/etc.. that some random person may hold. Thankfully, some societies are progressive enough to apply a basis for the respect for gender, equity, and freedom of an individual to be into medical standards and law. Though, such societies are in the minority.

Here is an example of a regressive society:

In the United States, as in most countries, there is an absence of controlling legislation that defines exactly how a person’s gender is determined. (44) The following example demonstrates some of the complexities this may raise. In 1999, the Texas Court of Appeals considered the validity of a marriage between a man and a person born genetically as a man, but surgically altered to have the physical characteristics of a woman. (45) As in most American states, Texas family law prohibits same-sex marriages, and the United States Congress has passed the Defense of Marriage Act that, for federal purposes, defines marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman”. (46)

Despite the fact that medical experts gave testimony to the effect that the individual in question was psychologically and psychiatrically female before and after the sex reassignment surgery, the court held that chromosome complement, and not sex reassignment surgery, outward gender characteristics, nor psychosocial self-identification, determine a person’s gender. The court invalidated the marriage on the grounds that the transsexual woman was legally a man. (47)

That was from a relatively regressive jurisdiction where the court ruled of gender being relevant only rigidly upon how the person's gender was defined at birth.

For a legal contrast, here is British Colombia:

Sex on a birth certificate issued in BC can be altered if 1) the sex was recorded in error at the time of birth, or 2) the person has undergone surgery.

You must provide a certificate from the physician who performed your surgery; evidence that the physician is licensed in the jurisdiction where the surgery was performed; and a certificate from a physician licensed to practise in the jurisdiction where you resides, stating that you have had surgery. (The government does not require a specific type of surgery to be performed, but that the physicians certify that the sex has been reassigned according to accepted medical standards.)

Formerly, the applicant had to be unmarried; now that same-sex marriage is legal in British Columbia, this requirement is no longer enforced.

From the Intersex Society of North America, here is an itemised list concerning the Ethics of Gender Assignment:

New Precepts

1. Sex assignment is never emergent or urgent.
2. We cannot manufacture unambiguous data to replace real ambiguity.
3. We are not medical experts if we do not know the outcome and the good of our proposed medical procedures.
4. The children know their gender identity.
5. The children’s intuition is the data.
6. Thus, we must espouse what the child tells us is his gender—medical procedures must come from those data, not to those data.
7. Gender will be assigned at or near birth—legally and socially.
8. We cannot know if our assignment will be correct, at the time of the child’s birth.
9. Therefore, we must choose what appears to be the likeliest gender identity.
10. If the children later tell us we are wrong, we shall then adjust accordingly.
11. We must be flexible and patient, and teach the parents flexibility and patience.

Practicalities

1. The children cannot tell us until old enough to weild and manipulate vocabulary within syntax—about ages 6 to 8 years.
2. Yet gender will be assigned at or near birth—and we cannot know if our assignment will be correct.

The Ethics of Gender Assignment

1. We must be flexible.
2. We must be observant.
3. We must listen.

Surgical Realities

1. The children will want surgical (re)construction.
2. Surgery is never emergent or urgent.
3. We must not remove what a child may later want.
4. Puberty can be delayed if necessary (eg, 46,XX CAH Prader 5 children).

Surgical Principles

1. Delay surgery until the child asks for it—based on gender identity.
2. Do not push surgery—for example:
   • Clitoral hypertrophy may not be undesired.
   • A 46,XX CAH Prader 5 child may not want the ovaries—but wait until she tells you.
   • …and so on

Reading such cautious, respecting and reasonable pragmatism, certainly should make all of you first think of people "being chemically sterilized once again", 'eugenics' and 'crematoriums' as per DixieCrat's opening argument....:sneaky:

If we are mutilating children so that they can fit particular sexual social-norms then it's a tragedy. Just as it would be a tragedy to use drugs to 'make' someone hetero.

Who's "making?" As in forcing in an autocratic manner? You put such position forward, therefore the onus is upon you to demonstrate the circumstances and number of surgical gender reassignments as an enforced policy akin to your above comparison to past 'eugenics' programs, even as comparably reprehensible to a failed, Third Reich of a state that prejudicially loaded targeted groups, from across a continent into cattle cars for 'cremation.' DixyCrat, do you wish to support and own your line of argument, or concede it?

I'm all for anyone that wants to change gender, or race, or be their 'fursona': as an adult. BUT it IS child molestation to surgically alter a human to conform to gendered-norms (including the common practice of 'choosing' a sex for the rare hermaphroditic person); it is Molestation via Mutilation.

Bring forth the evidence of such 'child molestation.'

Such a tangent could only marginally have had a semblance of an argument if you proposed this thread as only concerning the poor ethics of arbitrary surgical gender reassignment as chosen by a doctor at or soon after birth. This poll of yours, condemnation of any reassignment upon anyone who is not an adult, and your horrendously written article condemning any gender reassignment all fail in any reasonable argument against the freedom for maturing and self-aware children to adults to first to seek medical (GP, psychologist, etc) support, hormonal treatment and then, at suitable age, possibly receiving physical alterations to match their supported and defined gender disposition.

 

[Murloc]

There are historical precedents from which left-leaning people should have learned. Much of the Progressive movement embraced eugenics, until the optimistic, shiny promise of science produced punctual trains to crematoriums. Similarly, in the 1950s many liberals believed that chemical castration was the compassionate approach to homosexuality. We look back in bewildered horror but refuse to see that it’s happening now. The unfit are being chemically sterilized once again.

so what about pedos? This argument is a bit dangerous imho.

Anywy I don't think children get classified as transgender, just as hermaphrodites with DNA that doesn't make the sex clear (I don't really know how it happens, dna or other stuff).
Now you could argue whether it's better to wait on it and see what they become, or look at which sex the express more through hormones and stuff and do the surgery (which is the vision OP doesn't like).
As I don't have any personal or medical experience, I don't even take a position because I just don't know.
I don't know the % of surgeries that end up picking the wrong sex out of the 2 possibilities. If that happens too often even with all precautions, the science is not mature and should hold back until the individual expresses his gender naturally, or doesn't at all, in which case you do nothing.

This is not an easy thing though because these cases are so rare that not even the naturally evolved languages provide for a way to be non-cis about a person, let alone schools and other people.

 

[Whiskey16]

To further counter Dixycrats portrayal of the enforced 'eugenics' and 'sterilization' here is some defining background for gender reassignment surgery and a global stand proclaimed against its implementation upon infants:

Sex reassignment surgery (initialized as SRS; also known as gender reassignment surgery (GRS), genital reconstruction surgery, sex affirmation surgery, sex realignment surgery or sex-change operation) is a term for the surgical procedures by which a person's physical appearance and function of their existing sexual characteristics are altered to resemble that of the other sex. It is part of a treatment for gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria in transsexual and transgender people. It may also be performed on intersex people, often in infancy and without their consent. In a recent statement by the UN, it condemns the nonconsensual treatment of "normalization" surgery to treat intersexuality.[1]

Some background upon an intervention on infants:

One of the reasons why these irreversible surgical interventions continue is because the “diagnosis” is presented as a medical “emergency” to the parents of babies and young children with intersex traits. By constructing intersex traits as medical emergencies, medical providers create an urgent problem that only they can solve. The process begins with a wild goose chase for medical markers of one’s “true” sex, despite the difficulties of such a task given that there are few, if any, clear markers of sex. After the medical providers have crafted their best guess of one’s “true” sex, irreversible treatments are recommended to parents. In response, parents usually offer their consent to the suggested medical interventions because, like most of us, they defer to medical expertise.

Another reason these medically unnecessary surgeries continue is that parents rarely, if ever, are told that these irreversible interventions are almost always cosmetic and can result in loss of sexual pleasure, feelings of abnormality and even emotional harm. We doubt parents would consent to such elective procedures if they knew these dangerous outcomes. This is hardly informed consent.

This surgical application on infants has already been recognised as a human rights abuse:

UN Condemns “Normalization” Surgery for Intersexuality

February 7, 2013

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (SRT) just released a statement condemning the medical profession’s nonconsensual treatment of intersexuality. Although intersexuality—which surfaces as “ambiguous” external genitalia, sexual organs and/or as sex chromosomes that deviate from normative expectations—rarely poses a health threat, the medical profession continues to perform irreversible surgeries on babies and young children to “normalize” genitalia under the guise that these procedures will save one from enduring a life full of shame living in their “abnormal” body.

However, there is ample evidence from feminist scholars that these normalization surgeries harm more than they help individuals with intersex traits. Sociologist Sharon Preves made this explicitly clear a decade ago in her book Intersex and Identity: The Contested Self. More recently, anthropologist and bioethicist Katrina Karkazis has offered even more proof in her book Fixing Sex: Intersex, Medical Authority, and Lived Experience.

Given that the SRT is responsible for investigating and reporting to the UN on questions of human torture, it is telling that these medical practices are being recognized under such purview. The SRT’s powerful position throughout the world leaves us optimistic that these surgeries will get the public criticism they desperately need.

Committed to human rights, the SRT invited Advocates for Informed Choice (AIC), a leader in the fight for intersex rights, to testify on the medical treatment of intersex. The hearings resulted in the SRT’s formal stance against irreversible, involuntary and nonconsensual medical interventions. To quote the SRT’s report, “These [genital-normalizing surgeries] are rarely medically necessary, can cause scarring, loss of sexual sensation, pain, incontinence and lifelong depression and have also been criticized as being unscientific, potentially harmful and contributing to stigma.” AIC’s Executive Director, Anne Tamar-Mattis, described this recognition as “a very significant development.”

Wrongly so, in the OP's poll and choice of supporting text, the imposition for non-consensual treatment of surgical gender reassignment has been incorrectly conflated in an argument against any gender reassignment.

Here is what an advocate group, Genital Autonomy ('it's a personal choice...'), only conquers with the imposition of non-consensual treatment but disagrees with the remainder of the OP's very confusing presentation:

Intersex

There is no evidence that intersex variations alone will negatively impact the quality of life of the individuals who have them, nor that “normalizing” medical treatments are a solution. What evidence there is suggests the opposite; intersex adults who have not received unnecessary medical intervention have said they feel lucky to have “escaped” such treatments. They lack the psychological trauma from treatments imposed on others, and report satisfaction with their sexual response and their unique physical attributes.

Such treatment is often justified from the assumption that intersex children and/or adults will be subjected to discriminatory behaviour because of their bodily differences; however, this is not necessarily correct, because their differences are sometimes only evident when naked, or not evident visually at all. Where differences are visible, this is no different than the situation of people from other minority groups. The solution to such challenges is not to alter the characteristics themselves, but to combat the prejudicial attitudes that stigmatise.

Cosmetic surgery on intersex genitals appears to harm intersex infants, children, and even adults, yet it still persists. As with male circumcision, it is often driven by parental desire to provide their children with bodies that conform to certain beliefs about how genitals should be. Also, the presumption that atypical sex anatomy will result in atypical sexual orientation and/or gender identity, homophobia and a fear of atypical gender presentation are seen by some intersex people as the motivation driving these surgeries. In many societies today, gender expression and sexual orientation are seen as a human right, and this is recognised by the UN. Performing unnecessary surgeries on infants and children in order to influence adult sexual orientation and/or gender identity outcomes should be seen as a human rights abuse.

Here is a portion of a Wikipedia entry to provide some defining background upon gender reassignment surgery:

People who pursue sex reassignment surgery are usually referred to as transsexual; "trans" - across, through, change; "sexual" - pertaining to the sexual characteristics (not sexual actions) of a person. More recently, people pursuing SRS often identify as transgender instead of transsexual.

Scope and procedures

The best known of these surgeries are those that reshape the genitals, which are also known as genital reassignment surgery or genital reconstruction surgery (GRS). However, the meaning of "sex reassignment surgery" has been clarified by the medical subspecialty organization, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), to include any of a larger number of surgical procedures performed as part of a medical treatment for "gender dysphoria", "transsexualism" or "gender identity disorder". According to WPATH, medically necessary sex reassignment surgeries include "complete hysterectomy, bilateral mastectomy, chest reconstruction or augmentation [...] including breast prostheses if necessary, genital reconstruction (by various techniques which must be appropriate to each patient[...])[...] and certain facial plastic reconstruction."[2] In addition, other non-surgical procedures are also considered medically necessary treatments by WPATH, including facial electrolysis.

A growing number of public and commercial health insurance plans in the United States now contain defined benefits covering sex reassignment-related procedures, usually including genital reconstruction surgery (MTF and FTM), chest reconstruction (FTM), breast augmentation (MTF), and hysterectomy (FTM).[3] In June 2008, the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates stated that the denial to patients with gender identity disorder of otherwise covered benefits represents discrimination, and that the AMA supports "public and private health insurance coverage for treatment for gender identity disorder as recommended by the patient's physician."[4] Other organizations have issued similar statements, including WPATH,[5] the American Psychological Association,[6] and the National Association of Social Workers.[7]

 

[Moonbeam]

I try to ask myself what is at issue behind issues and what I see here is a problem created by judgment. Millions of people, especially conservatives, do not deal well with ambiguity or people out of the norm. Children can be brutal this way. They pick on odd people because they have learned to associate abnormal with evil. We live in a society that competes and judges. In this way, I believe that it is our whole culture that is mentally ill.

When a child with ambiguous sexuality is born into such a society everybody knows what will happen. Such a child is in for hell. So we mutilate our children to save them from mutilation. We judge what is best for them on the basis that the norm is sick. Then some of us judge those who do such things as monsters instead of folk trying to protect these kids from a miserable future, they may actually create if they make a mistake and assign the wrong gender. And then some judge the judgmental as monsters and around and around we go. So we judge and we judge and we judge and we judge even though we have been instructed by God not to do so.

Or we could just throw God out if we could just love like he does.

And we judge, of course, because we have a profound but unconscious need to feel we are better than somebody else because the real feeling is that we are worthless. We have all experienced such judgment and the ego arose to avenge us. The sickness will no do the judging.

 

[dank69]

I try to ask myself what is at issue behind issues and what I see here is a problem created by judgment. Millions of people, especially conservatives, do not deal well with ambiguity or people out of the norm. Children can be brutal this way. They pick on odd people because they have learned to associate abnormal with evil. We live in a society that competes and judges. In this way, I believe that it is our whole culture that is mentally ill.

When a child with ambiguous sexuality is born into such a society everybody knows what will happen. Such a child is in for hell. So we mutilate our children to save them from mutilation. We judge what is best for them on the basis that the norm is sick. Then some of us judge those who do such things as monsters instead of folk trying to protect these kids from a miserable future, they may actually create if they make a mistake and assign the wrong gender. And then some judge the judgmental as monsters and around and around we go. So we judge and we judge and we judge and we judge even though we have been instructed by God not to do so.

Or we could just throw God out if we could just love like he does.

And we judge, of course, because we have a profound but unconscious need to feel we are better than somebody else because the real feeling is that we are worthless. We have all experienced such judgment and the ego arose to avenge us. The sickness will no do the judging.

There is research that shows that the behavior described in the bolded sentence in not learned, but innate to our species, as unfortunate as that may be. This is probably one of the root causes of so much evil in the world, if you view such behavior as evil as I do. Maybe evil is a strong word in most cases, but definitely applicable in many. Anyway, if we accept this research and believe that this behavior is not a trait we wish to propagate any longer, I believe the major steps are to inform the masses that this is indeed a trait present from birth, that it is a trait that is detrimental to society and that children should be taught why this behavior is unacceptable starting at a very, very young age. A change like this would take decades to permeate society assuming we could ever even agree that the change should happen in the first place.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is research that shows that the behavior described in the bolded sentence in not learned, but innate to our species, as unfortunate as that may be. This is probably one of the root causes of so much evil in the world, if you view such behavior as evil as I do. Maybe evil is a strong word in most cases, but definitely applicable in many. Anyway, if we accept this research and believe that this behavior is not a trait we wish to propagate any longer, I believe the major steps are to inform the masses that this is indeed a trait present from birth, that it is a trait that is detrimental to society and that children should be taught why this behavior is unacceptable starting at a very, very young age. A change like this would take decades to permeate society assuming we could ever even agree that the change should happen in the first place.

I understand your point. Our intelligence and ability to reason evolved on top of adaptive mechanisms whose survival value didn't depend on analysis just as we jerk our hands away from a hot object before we actually feel the burn consciously. We are adapted to be able to taste sugar probably to be able to detect when fruit is ready to eat, is most nutritionally valuable. We vomit when we have eaten something rotten and may have a life long aversion to some such food that made us get sick, or even a food we ate at a time when we got sick for other reasons. And we fancy we have free will.

But the point I am trying to make, that these autonomic reactions and features we have as survival mechanisms that function unconsciously, pleasure, pain, the need for love and security, the desire for social acceptance, etc, can be manipulated in the dualistic world that was created when we started to use language to think, divide, separate, and compare things as right and wrong, good and evil.

What was an autonomic reaction that was simply triggered by certain events, like the reaction of a beaten dog at the sight of a stick, became ideas and thoughts and memories we could mull over and use to manipulate others.

We became able to transfer the experience of pain to threats and imply that the fault of the presence of evil in the world is personal, that you yourself are evil. We ate of the tree of knowledge creating the self and the other instead of the experience of being in the now. We learned to turn disgust and revulsion inward and be repelled by ideas that do not exist. We created an ego to defend us against what our imaginations did with pain. It is this belief that we are evil at an now unconscious feeling level that creates the reality of evil. We create what we fear.