Some jokers are real

Joker McGregor

“Daddy, why is that Army man wearing lipstick?”

It’s the kind of question that every parent dreads from their children. It’s impossible to give any positive, truthful explanation for such a ridiculous situation. So it’s best to try and avoid circumstances that may lead to these awkward but innocent inquires in the first place.

Consequently, when the ABC decided to televise an interview with a cross-dressing Army officer wearing makeup like he was the Joker about three weeks ago, normal parents across the country would have switched the box off.

A good thing too. Kids should not be exposed to that kind of utter rubbish.

I mean, even I found it a little scary. And I kind of liked the Joker. And I’ve been off to war too.

Apparently the purpose of this interview was to get to know the man behind the Chief of Army’s famous speech regarding sexism in the Army: M. McGregor. And boy, did it all come out.

Firstly, before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, M does not stand for Malcolm, as Lieutenant Colonel McGregor was previously called. I’m just being politically correct. M is non-gender specific and means either Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs or maybe even Madame, depending on how you feel at any given point in time or space.

Furthermore, for all those feel-good types who have experienced some kind of painful shock at the fact that I referred to Malc, I mean M. McGregor, as a man, please take a deep breath and calm down.

Yes, he has long hair, wears make-up and answers to a girls name, but he also stated in this interview that he didn’t consider himself to be a woman. Jolly good for him, I say. And, as he surely has some idea about these things, it’s fair to bet that he’s right.

Moreover, unless this world is now something that resembles the nonsense of Alice’s psychedelic adventure in the land beyond the mirror, if you are not a girl then you are a boy.

At least, I’d imagine that little fact is taught somewhere in Sex Education 101, unless there’s serious problems in the curriculum.

Plus, in another ABC interview in April this year, McGregor confirmed that he still has all his bits and pieces and will keep them for a while to come.

Luckily for McGregor, who has also told the ABC in yet another interview that he has a history of mental instability and is still attracted to women, new-age Army policies mean he can’t be stopped from showering in the ladies bathroom, even though dangly bits are not normally granted entry. Hey, it’s a good life for some.

By the way, isn’t it weird that the ABC keeps asking about genitalia and sexual preferences?

Anyway, I digress – back to Malcolm (oops, I’ve gone and used the ‘M’ word). He claims he’s the man behind the Chief of Army’s famous speech regarding sexism.

In fact, Malcolm was so proud of his interview about this speech that he logged on to my website and emailed me a link. At the same time, he also called me a girls name and had a go at my physical appearance. Now, I’m prepared to admit that I’m no Adonis, but really Malcolm? C’mon – have you looked in the mirror lately?

Yet, when I thanked Malcolm for his message, he told me that he wanted no contact from me. It’s a little strange, but I guess it’s not that odd considering everything else about him.

So I watched his interview and was struck by a few things.

Firstly, after I finished choking on my weeties when I heard him start talking, I choked on them again when he said that he had refrained from contacting me. It was in the part where he was going on and on and on and on about how he is a role model, needs to behave with decorum and won’t allow himself to become obsessed by his critics. As they say, words and actions are two different things.

And considering that Malcolm actually went out of his way to contact me about his little interview in which he said that he wouldn’t contact me, I can only assume he has serious problems with self-control or that he is a self-delusional liar.

It gets weirder too. Malcolm claimed this site is scatological. Now, I’m not very smart and while this word rolled off his tongue, I had to go and look it up. Apparently it means obsessed with, well, human waste.

Such a claim is really an unfair slight on Malcolm’s character. And as no one else is riding to rescue the fair damsel’s honour, I’ll do it for him. He might be a cross-dressing Army officer that no soldier would want to serve under, but he’s not human waste. And he doesn’t feature prominently in a site devoted to it, but in a site that aims to promote decency, morality and goodness.

True, he’s kind of the poster boy for what not to do, but at least he’s made the cut. So he should breathe a little easier.

Then he had the guts to call me a coward. On national television and in program where he knew I would get no right of reply. And he wasn’t actually brave enough to use my name. He just referred to my ‘tenuous link with the Army’. By that, I suppose he means my 15 plus years of service, three operational tours and United States Meritorious Service Medal.

He also indicated that two websites had been making his life miserable by refusing to accept that he was a lady. Then, as mentioned above, he duly admitted that he’s not a woman.

Now, it’s obvious Malcolm is referring to this site and the Bundarrah Days blog, where he seems to like posting expletive-laden comments.

As I wrote in my reply to Malcolm, I respect that he has courage. It takes guts to dress up like a woman when you are actually a man. It’s just completely perverted and wasted. So I hope he would respect the courage I have shown by having the proverbials to speak my mind when the cards are so stacked against me.

It’s usually called a career-ending move when a major takes on the Defence hierarchy. But I’ve done it because it is the right thing to do.

Finally, in this interview about the Chief of Army’s speechwriter, prompted by the Chief of Army’s response to the latest sex-scandal, it is interesting to note that Malcolm didn’t really talk about the sex-scandal at all. In fact, he spent far more time whinging about me and how our little battle has affected him.

Given Malcolm’s role, I guess it’s not really surprising that the Chief of Army has had some pretty offensive things to say. Like blaming the Anzacs for today’s sexual problems.

Or that he completely ignored the root cause of the problem of sexual offences in the ADF.

So, instead of telling soldiers and officers in the Army that they should not be sleeping around with all and sundry, the Chief of Army just got hot under the collar about the post-consensual sexual boasting that circulated on his computer systems.

I understand his frustration at this second, minor issue, but it’s like putting a golden bandaid on an arterial bleed. It won’t do much at all, but it will look good for a bit.

Unfortunately for the Chief, nothing will change while he hypocritically allows standards to remain at all time lows in the ADF.

Like calling for respect and a non-discriminatory Army while allowing uniformed personnel to join in events that mock and ridicule Christianity.

Like expecting respect for the fairer sex while allowing males to hang around in women’s bathrooms.

Like declaring that the standard walked-past is the standard accepted while allowing uniformed personnel to march past children brought along to watch almost completely naked, self-confessed sexual-perverts grope each other at this year’s Mardi Gras.

Like stating opposition to discrimination while permitting certain commanding officers to call Catholic beliefs offensive and deny parade opportunities to those who hold them.

Or even like pretending to act against sexual misconduct when the personnel involved in the latest scandal are still in the Army after three years, while it has taken all of three months for me to be charged, investigated umpteen times and issued a notice to show cause personally signed by the Chief of Army himself. My crime: criticising the sexual depravity of the Mardi Gras, the prudence of front-line combat roles for women, the wisdom of using taxpayer funds to pay for sex-change operations and for daring to suggest that Islam might be a tad violent at times.

You know, I accept that not everyone agrees with my views. But surely I am not more of an embarrassment to the Army than the members of the Jedi Council.

That is why the Chief of Army needs to ask himself a serious question about this whole situation, that appears more and more like some surreal joke, in which the bad guys with the bad make-up get to run the show.

Why is an Army man wearing lipstick?

And if the Chief can’t answer it to a three year old, and if he can’t answer it to a soldier heading overseas or his wife hoping for his safe return, and if he can’t answer it to the taxpayer, then he should man up and admit that Malcolm McGregor may be a good friend of his, but that his continued service is not in the interest of the Australian Army.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

123 Comments

  1. So, the High Court, the highest court in the land, has now unanimously agreed with a simple and obvious fact: some people are neither male nor female. Bernard, are you going to reject the High Court’s judgment and substitute your own?

    Post a Reply
    • Troy,
      Please remember that the High Court of Australia is not infallible. There is a much higher Court which trumps the Australian High Court each and every time – the only Court where perfect Justice is assured. Do you accept the Catholic Truth that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and that even the inclination of the homosexual person, since it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, must be seen as an objective disorder.?

      Post a Reply
      • Rory, no, I completely reject Catholic dogma that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered. I think a gay person’s sexuality, as with a heterosexual’s sexuality, is a gift. The objective truth is God created more than just male and female. All the High Court has done to is recognise that objective truth. If you believe gender is binary, then you ignore objective scientific reality and, now, the law of the land.

      • There is no Catholic dogma that transsexuals or intersexuals are intrinsically disordered. There isn’t even any Christian Doctrine to that effect. (Thomas Aquinas? Robert Bellarmine? Come on.)

        If you’re born with a club foot you’re not the Son (or Daughter) of Satan, you just have a club foot. Grow up. Get the damn thing fixed.

      • So, you really do think you’re above the law..

  2. Seems like none of the critics wants to remember Kristin Beck – gender identity has nothing to do with a soldiers’ performance. I get the impression from all this that the critic is based on emotions.

    Post a Reply
  3. I agree completely i know a full time soldier who has done the same. No one wants it in the Army , so why do they let it
    good Mr Gaynor keep up the good work

    Post a Reply
    • Very interesting that slander is allowed on this page. Naming names, Anna. Frankly soldiers like you are nothing but shrapnel fodder. After being exposed to the military the last six years I barely had a shred of respect left for the institution, and rants like yours Bernard Gaynor just prove to me why you aren’t worthy of my respect. The army is full of sexist, racist, homophobic, pathetic individuals who disgrace women and demean what it means to be Australian. Have the guts to put my post up Bernard – or can you give it but not take it?. Why do you think you are so much better than the people you attempt to marginalise and attack?. You make me laugh, I only wish a stray bullet had found you on your last tour. I don’t have a shred of respect for you and I’d spit on your boots if I could, you obnoxious scared little boy.

      Post a Reply
  4. Usually, when men cross-dress in lingerie, police or army uniforms, they do it in the privacy of their own home. They don’t normally go to work wearing the same gear. What the hell is this idiot doing?

    Post a Reply
  5. Well said, Gordon. The only I’ll say is that McGregor, if he offered to resign his commission, was well aware it would not be accepted. My opinion, based on my experience with McGregor is that it would have been for the sake of appearances.

    Post a Reply
  6. I’m going to argue this from a different perspective, and that is – aiming at the core of the “problem”.

    Not surprised that we are seeing the “feminist-ising” of the Army. Destroy what it represents from within.

    I watched the ‘One Plus One’ interview, and what struck me was that Malcolm/Cate had the decency to recognise that his/her position was untenable in the Army, and had the courage to resign:

    From news.com.au: “One of her strongest supporters is Lt General Morrison, who refused to accept her resignation when she went public and told him that she was causing embarrassment to his office.” […]
    “More often than not I’ve quit and resigned and said ‘I’m causing embarrassment to your office’ and he has unfailingly supported me and insisted I continue to serve on,” she tells ABC TV’s “One Plus One” program today.”

    You bet that the Malcolm/Cate saga is causing “embarrassment to the Lt General’s office”! And it is the army chief’s doing. Can’t help but think that it is a display of arrogance – because to willing allow one’s office to be “embarrassed” in this manner is a clear and present danger to the integrity of that office.

    The Army appears to now run on “feelings” rather than logic. The commander’s feelings for his “mate” are obviously more important than the job he has to do, and that is to lead, and maintain “respect” of all those in his ranks. We are talking “army” here, we are not talking a lovey/dovey organisation that is “all inclusive” as long as you are a part of a “persecuted minority”.

    What is the “purpose” of the army, or any of the armed services for that matter? I must have been under the false impression that it was to defend and protect the Country it served, and any army worth its salt is run on high moral grounds based on discipline, and instilling within the troops a virtue of “self-discipline”.

    If you can’t have upper hierarchy displaying “self-discipline”, how on earth can they be leaders? Your organisation trains young men and women to defend our country, who willingly risking their lives for a higher ideal, and that should be the defense of the country. The display of hypocrisy in the leadership will destroy the moral fabric of the army.

    Again, I was under the impression that the armed services “weeded out” those with Psychological problems, and the reason for this is for the overall good of the organisation, so that it can achieve its goals. Malcolm/Cate – YOU are in a position where YOU have a powerful INFLUENCE on policy. I guess you are happy about that, since you boast how you write the commanders speeches – and how good those speeches are and how proud you are of them.

    Those in “leadership” positions – their ranks and positions ought to be respected. However, anyone who compromises the respect that that position holds, should not be in that position, and should resign for the long-time good of that organisation rather than hold on to those positions for their own selfish desires.

    It must be an old Navy saying “A tight, clean ship is a well run, happy ship”. There is obviously dissent amongst the ranks. Morale can’t be good with the hypocritical stance of the hierarchy.

    The lapse of ethics, moral code and discipline will provoke a crisis of public confidence in the services and WILL heighten concerns both within and outside the Services. The high professional standards that were once expected, are no longer there.

    To quote “you”, LtGen Morrison: “Show moral courage and take a stand against it.” You have compromised the position of Army Chief. Do the right thing – RESIGN!

    Post a Reply
    • ” I was under the impression that the armed services “weeded out” those with Psychological problems”

      When some one gets as far down the transition pathway as LTCOL Cate McGregor they have at least two letters from Consultant Psychiatrists following extensive testing and assessment by professionals who can differentiate between a garden variety cross dresser and someone who is transgender / transexual. Cate is not a confused man or a pervert she is just trying to come to terms with the fact that her brain and body do not match. Much like people who have a nose job, breast enhancement, grow a beard or shave it off, women who wear heavy make up or wear none at all. Cate is trying to be comfortable in her own skin. Transitioning for her is the only way to relieve the abject discomfort in her own body she is experiencing.

      The comments on this thread about transexuals being perverts and being men wanting to use the women’s toilets is totally without foundation. When someone goes to a toilet it is in my understanding to relieve their bodies of waste metabolic products in a hygienic fashion. If the person identifies and presents as male use the men’s, if they identify and present as female use the ladies. We don’t see separate toilets for goths and punks. And by all means if the person betrays the trust in which ever facility they use then they should be dealt with appropriately. I as much as the next person want to be able to feel safe when I use the toilet.

      Post a Reply
  7. Phil, it’s always a good idea to read what people have written. If you’d done this, all of the questions you’ve raised would have been answered. And your blood pressure would be a lot lower. I’ll try to spell it out in simpler terms. I’m criticising Mr Gaynor because the rules the Army runs by are set by the government, not the Army. For him to have a go at General Morrison in this manner is immature, pointless and insubordinate.

    Post a Reply
    • Wrong Tony. The Army can make its case to the Defence department if it disagrees with the guidelines set by the government of the day and it frequently has.

      Post a Reply
      • Thanks for clarifying all that Phil. Perhaps you could post those disagreements on the website?

  8. It’s not just Christians or Catholics who are critical of so-called “transsexual women.” Many women not only have reservations about them – they are outright hostile and have every right to be. Here are a few samples of what real women think:-“Yes, they’ve got Phds coming out of their earholes haven’t they, all in the field of “gender” theory QUITE FORGETTING that it was women who first articulated the concept of gender and defined it as the basis of female oppression. But that’s all been brushed under the carpet in the academy while they’ve re-hashed what our foremothers fought for. They have co-opted women’s studies and replaced it with “gender” studies. Re-writing history… they’re male to the core. Our grandmothers are turning in their graves.” Other women say it is an insult to claim that surgically altered men are “women” and by referring to them with the pronoun “she.” Some go even further:- Now that we have MALES flouncing around, attacking and threatening people with death in a fire if we don’t agree that their penis, testicles, XY chromosomes, etc. are all features of their “womanliness” and “lesbianism”, how in the hell are we supposed to communicate? If you say “born woman” they insist that THEY were born women — penis, testicles, XY chromosomes and all — because of an (imaginary) “lady spot” in their (male) brain. As such, they believe that their penis is a female penis, their testicles are female testicles, their XY chromosomes are female chromosomes, etc. ad nauseum. I will sometimes go overboard to make my point: “natal, biological, real, female women”. But these crazy dudes will claim it all as their own. We should just be able to say “woman” — but what with the inmates running the asylum these days, we do our best.” There’s no shortage of material which shows beyond doubt that women, by and large, do not accept transsexuals as women. That being so how can Lt. Gen Morrison impose McGregor and those like him on women serving in the forces? It has a lot to do with the power of a GLBT aligned group called the Defence Force Gay and Lesbian Information Service or DEFGLIS. This organisation is not an information service it is a mix of introduction agency and gay nepotistic masonic like group working to promote a homosexual majority in the officer corps. I say again that Lt Gen Morrison has no moral or legal right or responsibility to impose this transgenderism on serving members and order them to acknowledge it on pain of dishonorable discharge. It’s obscene.

    Post a Reply
    • Phil, what’s your opinion on women transitioning to men? Does it offend you as a male?

      Post a Reply
      • *Why* does it offend you, Phil?

      • It offends me Troy because it is a lie. It’s not a picture of a man. A man can’t get pregnant. A pregnant male is an oxymoron. A pregnant individual is always female. If that’s too much for your brain to process, I’m sorry to overload it but at the end of the day it’s your problem, not mine. For your own edification I’ll explain the why the woman in the picture is a woman. She is bearing a child.

      • Phil, intersex people exist. What do you think of them?

  9. You guys picking on Bernard Gaynor and Phil Maguire haven’t a clue. What they have said about Malcolm McGregor is mild. Compare it to what women have written about transsexuals. Take Julie Burchill, a newspaper columnist. She described transgender men as “dicks in chicks’ clothing” and “a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs.” Last January Ms Burchill used a column in The Observer to launch an attack on critics of her friend Suzanne Moore, who had written a magazine article which claimed women were expected to have the body shape of a “Brazilian transsexual”. The comment provoked an angry response from TG’s which prompted Miss Moore to leave Twitter, citing the extent of the abuse she had received. Ms Burchill said the “very vociferous transsexual lobby and their grim groupies” had “picked on the messenger” rather than addressing Ms Moore’s claims. I sympathise with women. I’m just a regular guy but I admit that men always think they have the right to be whatever they want or to do whatever they want. I don’t think brazilian trannies are women either.

    Post a Reply
  10. Oh, and Tony please don’t try and pull the vanishing rabbit trick on me. You know you were commenting on McGregor’s situation. That’s what this thread is all about. I’m honestly looking forward to your response to my previous post.

    Post a Reply
    • Louise please don’t try to tell me what I was or wasn’t commenting on. If you read my initial post properly you’ll see I make no reference to the Colonel. I’m commenting on the behaviour of Mr Gaynor.

      You ask if I’m serious in my opinions. But what you’re referring to is all about Colonel McGregor. As I just said, I’m not making any comments about the Colonel. So, exactly which of my opinions are you doubting?

      Post a Reply
      • Tony, why are you commenting on a thread dedicated to Malcolm McGregor if he and his situation have no relationship to your commentary? You were lecturing Bernard Gaynor because of what he wrote in this post so please don’t bother denying it. What other reason could you possibly have for writing such a critique of Bernard on this particular page?

      • Louise I’ve had an interesting time conversing with you, but I’m afraid I’ve lost interest talking to you. Your mind is fixated on Colonel McGregor and you’re like a dog with a bone on the idea. So let’s stop this charade. I’m here to discuss the behaviour of Mr Gaynor and nothing else. He can get involved in the discussion or not.

      • Tony, if you’re here to discuss the behaviour of Bernard Gaynor tell us what it’s in relation to. Louise nabbed you well and truly on Morrison and you refused outright to discuss any of the points she raised. Now you’re doing a runner. You’ve criticized Bernard Gaynor but presumably you’re okay with the fact that Morrison is allowing a potty mouthed transsexual in his late fifties to parade around pretending to be a woman and ordering men and women under his command to acknowledge that fellow as a woman, in many cases overriding their own consciences. No wonder she laughed at you. Hypocrisy exposed can be funny.

  11. Tony, you weren’t intending to be funny, I know, but what you said was laughable. Malcolm McGregor has no right to redefine womanhood. No transsexual, army officer or every day male like you has the right to redefine womanhood. Are you serious in your opinions? Like all women I have met some arrogant men but the worst of them has never been so arrogant as to take it upon themselves to redefine what a woman is. Please describe to me the attributes that equip Malcolm McGregor to be properly defined as and considered a woman? His personal desires don’t apply.

    Post a Reply
  12. Louise I wasn’t being funny. That you got a laugh says plenty.

    I wasn’t commenting on Colonel McGregor’s situation. I was commenting on who runs the Armed Forces – the people, or the people within it.

    Mr Gaynor might be better qualified to answer that.

    Post a Reply
  13. Mr Gaynor, you might like to recall something from your cadet training. A quote from Enobesra, in particular, from the Charter of RMC:

    “The course of instruction is designed to:

    Promote a sense of honour and loyalty, duty and responsibility; inculcate habits of discipline and soldierly conduct; and to give a correct understanding of the place of the Armed Services in the Australian Nation.”

    Your understanding of the place of the Armed Services in the Australian Nation is, sadly, incorrect. The Army doesn’t run itself as it sees fit, much as you seem to think it ought. The Army runs itself as the Government, and the Australian people, see fit. If you can’t come to terms with that very simple idea, you ought to get out of the Military.

    And another thing, I served under General Morrison’s father. He was an outstanding leader, and a truer gentleman I’ve never known. Watching a recent interview with General Morrison, I was delighted to see so many of his father’s qualities are still with us.

    Post a Reply
    • Tony, thanks for the laugh. You saw David Morrison on TV holding forth with Malcolm McGregor’s counterfeit morality and you were delighted. And you thought that Morrison was living up to a high standard by supporting a man who is so far from the principles espoused in the quote you provided that it is utterly tragic. Bernard Gaynor is a gentleman. Malcolm McGregor is no gentleman and is certainly no lady. Good heavens, how could the highest ranking officer in the Australian Army dare to insult women by including that nasty and aggressive alpha male in our ranks? David Morrison has done so and he expects all those under his command to do the same. How dare he demean women in such a way. Where did he get the right to do that? is he going to force women under his command to accept McGregor as a woman? Will it be a case of “you’re in the army now girls and if I say you’re a man and he’s a woman then that’s how it is”. It’s illuminating to me that all those here who have supported McGregor are men. Obviously they are not the least concerned with the status of women. If the emails McGregor sent to my family’s email address were written sober then he has no excuse whatsoever. If he was drunk at the time then he is the “cheap garden variety alcoholic” he calls other people.

      Post a Reply
      • Louise I wasn’t being funny. That you got a laugh says plenty. I wasn’t commenting on Colonel McGregor’s situation. I was commenting on who runs the Armed Forces – the people, or the people within it.

        Mr Gaynor might be better qualified to answer that.

      • If one cannot follow orders of a superior officer, I suggest the army might not be their best career choice.

      • Following orders in the military comes down to ‘lawful, general’ orders…. Acknowledging this thing as a woman is neither ‘lawful’ or ‘general…. it is merely an assault to common sense. If this ‘thing’ thinks its a woman, go for gold… If someone cannot recognise this ‘gender’ ‘sex’ change; they are entitled to their view. Gen Morrison has initiated ‘respect’ to be included into the courage, initiative and teamwork ethos of the army… suffice to say ‘respect’ is a two way street. I find the effigy in the photo above is not that of a woman…. it belongs in a freak show. Suffice to say the ‘respect’ which the army ‘preaches’ does not include respect for INDIVIDUAL reasoning. ‘If you find it offensive, or others might find it offensive; it has no place in the ADF’. think about it.

      • Following orders in the military comes down to ‘lawful, general’ orders…. Acknowledging this thing as a woman is neither ‘lawful’ or ‘general…. it is merely an assault to common sense. If this ‘thing’ thinks its a woman, go for gold… If someone cannot recognise this ‘gender’ ‘sex’ change; they are entitled to their view. Gen Morrison has initiated ‘respect’ to be included into the courage, initiative and teamwork ethos of the army… suffice to say ‘respect’ is a two way street. I find the effigy in the photo above is not that of a woman…. it belongs in a freak show. Suffice to say the ‘respect’ which the army ‘preaches’ does not include respect for INDIVIDUAL reasoning. ‘If you find it offensive, or others might find it offensive; it has no place in the ADF’. think about it.

  14. Perversion … inversion … funny old-fashioned words used by ultra-conservatives. What about just – version. You guys can relax. I’m pretty sure I know more than any of you about this topic … in my time I’ve met quite a few cross-dressing men (and no I’m not one myself). Guess what? It’s not contagious – so “exposing” children or anyone else for that matter to the extremely rare, rather challenging but extremely benign act of cross-dressing will NOT influence them to do the same. Let’s face it, cross-dressing is a pretty timid act compared to going to war, asset-stripping otherwise profitable companies, writing nasty blogs or any of the infinite number of legally acceptable, but morally reprehensible, acts that men can do. Some of these cross-dressing blokes – and 90% of them are not “shirtlifters”, Alan mate – have the wherewithal to admit that even they don’t know why they do it. But I’ve seen how this releases something deep within, allowing them some degree of sanity, although it might not look it to the rest of us. So does it really justify the indignation that’s bristling from everyone on here? If you are a “moral conservative” the likelihood is that you know next to nothing about this issue but you won’t be tempted to learn much about the people affected by it either. And you’ll also be overlaying whole strata of your own psychosexual assumptions which, due to your ignorance, will more likely be irrelevant. I’ll say it again: I’ve seen it all first-hand … it’s strange but not important … get over it. It’s 2013.

    Post a Reply
    • The likelihood is that you know next to nothing about it. A transsexual is different to a plain old cross dresser who just gets his kicks by dressing up, usually in private. The man under discussion here claims he is a woman. Big difference.

      Post a Reply
  15. When I was in the CMF, we never had these types of people in the Army, we would run them out of town quicksmart.
    We had real men, not cross dressers or shirt lifters.
    Shame what the LGBT are doing to the armed forces and other institutions.
    So at the end times, good will be called evil and evil called good.
    God help us all,come judgment day.

    Post a Reply
    • Can we agree that Lt-Col McGregor has made significant contributions to the ADF and, therefore, to our country?

      Post a Reply
    • Good on ya Al…you and your mates would gang up to assault homosexual men. Your view of “real men” and what God wants.

      Post a Reply
      • Since when did the term “run out of town” equate to poofter bashing, Bob? Alan mentioned nothing about assault. In fact his comment should be interpreted as meaning that those people were told very quickly that their services were not required. A shame that’s still not the case.

      • Woops, I mean ” a shame that is not still the case.” :))

  16. to answer the original question “Daddy, why is that Army man wearing lipstick?”

    your reply should be “Some men are more comfortable as dressing women and some women are more comfortable dressing as men ”

    It is really so simple even children can understand it.

    If you are a believer in God then you can add “it is just how God made them and it is part of his plan”

    Post a Reply
    • Doug, you are delusional, confusing kds leads to gender identity disorder.

      Post a Reply
    • I might only add to Doug’s response: “part of His *wonderfully diverse* plan”. Nature is diverse; and that’s an “objective truth”.

      Post a Reply
      • Troy, genetics, psychiatry, nature, evolution and The Bible all conspire to reveal your objective truth as a subjective lie.

      • Steve, do you believe in both evolution and The Bible?

        Nature is incredibly diverse; for example, we see homosexuality in thousands of species. All those things you mentioned, except perhaps The Bible, point to diversity to me. Sameness would be a real risk to our survival.

      • Lets look at what the bible says. In biblical times transgender people were called Eunuchs whether or not they were Castrati and there were many traditional places for them in many of Israels neighbours, some were even considered sacred as was the case amongst the Cybelline priestesses and of course amongst the Scythians. So then what does the bible have to say about them? Well there are several key passages in Isaiah and from Phillip but lets go straight to what Jesus said as the most important authority within the bible.

        Mathew 19:12 “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

        Actually Jesus then is on the side of Transgender people. And Jesus backs up the scientists whose studies of Transgender peoples brains (and genes too!) say they are born that way.

      • @Bayne
        “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this let him receive it” (Mt 19:12).

        A eunuch is someone incapable of sexual relations. Thus, when Christ speaks of eunuchs from birth, he’s referring to people who are incapable of sexual union because of some birth-defect. When he speaks of those who have been made eunuchs by men, he’s probably referring to those sorry souls who have fallen under the blade of castration.

      • Translations of ancient texts, “eunuch” may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate.
        “He that is able to recieve it, let him receive it.”
        Those who live a celibate life for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are indeed holy people.

      • Um Troy nature is ordered, not disordered.

      • Nature is random, diverse, and sometimes chaotic.

      • There is an old saying.
        ” when man turns against God, nature turns against man.”

      • ‘There is an old saying. ”when man turns against God, nature turns against man.”’ Exactly right, it’s old. Too old to be useful now we’ve learnt what actually happens.

      • So Glenn youve dated a drag queen then?

      • Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    • That would be a lie, Doug. A believer in God would say it’s because this is a fallen world and not everything works the way it should. I would say it’s fine for a man to wear lipstick in certain situations – if he’s a clown or wearing a costume, for example. But it is not fine to wear it if he is pretending to be a woman and demanding that other people believe he is a woman. It is clear that he is not a woman. I would point out that I am a woman and that Malcolm McGregor does not resemble me physically, mentally or emotionally regardless of his wardrobe and make-up bag.

      Post a Reply
      • Why is it so hard for people here to distinguish biological sex from gender identity? Sometimes the way the brain is wired doesn’t match the genitalia.

  17. How did Malcolm ” cate” pass the Psych test to serve in the ADF?
    Last time I looked gender identity disorder, now renamed as Gender Dysphoria, is still listed in the DSM as a mental condition on the higher end.

    Post a Reply
    • look again it is not classed a disorder under DSM5

      Post a Reply
      • Gender Dysphoria comes under its own category, and is still considered a disorder requiring treatment. GLBT lobby groups pressed for gender identity disorder to be removed from a category that classed these people as sexually disturbed. People who live disordered lifestyles seek to normalize their situation by forcing the majority to accept them as ” normal”.
        It is pathetic that the ADF will dissmiss someone who has diabetes or slight vision impairment, and allow someone who has a gender identity problem to parade around in a skirt and tote a gun. Common sense has gone out the window, ” political correctness” has clouded the minds of those who are in the top brass, and now people are too afraid to speak up. Bernard is a man of courage regarding common sense, and there are alot who agree with him even if the do not post on this blog.

  18. Mr Bernardi, I have discovered that there is a point you and I agree on, though I suspect for different reasons… “Some jokers are real”… the existence of your blog, followers, not to mention the truly terrifying aspect of this, your intent to run for Parliament, are proof positive of such a statement.

    May your children learn that there is more to life that your incredibly sheltered version of existence.

    Post a Reply
    • With Kevin Rudd, Anthony Albanese, Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, Julia Gillard, Penny Wong, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Sarah Hanson-Young, Christine Milne, Nicola Roxon, Bill Shorten, Craig Emerson, Tony Burke, Tanya Plibersek and other sundry sociopaths and crazies all members of this Parliament I suggest that the addition of Bernard Gaynor and the re-election of Cory Bernardi would raise the standard of representation significantly.

      Post a Reply
  19. Bernard, I’m not usually a fan of your work but I was surprised to find myself nodding in enthusiastic agreement while reading your post.

    But only, I hasten to add, at the phrase: “Now, I’m not very smart …: ”

    It’s just five short words but how brilliantly they summarise the rest of this piece and succinctly set the context for your animosity towards Cate McGregor.

    Credit where credit is due for this uncustomary bit of personal insight.

    Post a Reply
    • Did you change the spelling of your name, Chrys, because an i would have made it too close to Christ?

      Here’s a seven word phrase that describes your level of intellect. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

      Post a Reply
      • “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.” Yet Gaynor’s article is packed full of sarcasm — and scorn, and insult, and ridicule, and maliciousness.

  20. I have watched the interview and read this article. My comments are addressed to Cate, hoping she might read this.

    Cate, you are brave, candid, honest, intelligent, and articulate. And you have shown tremendous grace.

    You are no embarrassment to the Army. You are an adornment to it.

    Post a Reply
    • “Cate, you are brave, candid, honest, intelligent, and articulate. And you have shown tremendous grace. You are no embarrassment to the Army. You are an adornment to it.” Troy, you forgot to add “but you are not a woman!”

      Post a Reply
      • “Gender” and “sex” are different. Gender isn’t binary; it exists along a spectrum. Cate lives her life as a woman. What’s the big deal?

      • Don’t be ridiculous. Gender is a consequence of sex. Gender and sex are supposed to be congruent. Malcolm McGregor is not a she, he is a he.

      • You are confusing biological sex with gender identity.

      • Malcolm “living” as a woman is a big deal. it insults my gender as a woman and demeans it to nothing but a fad.
        no amount of lipstick, purfume or surgery will ever change the fact that he is a Man.
        People with sich deep mental health issues should not be serving in the ADF.

      • Again, you are confusing sex with gender.

      • would it be better if I said it insults my sex and gender as a woman?
        female sex and feminin gender.

      • Kat, I don’t understand. Can you explain in more detail how Lieutenant Colonel McGregor’s wanting to live as a woman offends you?

      • I am offended because Malcolm parades around like a woman, to which he is not, making me as a woman feel as though my sex is nothing more than a skirt and makeup, and is fully supported by the chief of Army to do so. Malcolm can never be a mother, he can never carry a child, he can never breasfeed a baby nor menstruate, he can never experience emotionally what women feel in regard to their femininity, I value my sex and gender, and do not appreciate clowns pretending to be a woman when they are clearly not. I do not fear him, however I do know that I would feel intimidated and uncomfortable as a woman if someone like him walked into the womens toilets, because he clearly looks like a man even with the face paint on. This man is not a survivour of Gender identity disorder, he still has the condition, and the mental disorder has been encouraged to get worse, he needs help, it is not normal behavior, he and others like him serving in the ADF have made it a laughing stock.

      • Kat, I still don’t understand. If a woman transitioned to my gender (male), I couldn’t care less, other than to see them happy.

      • Troy if you do not understand then you are a simpleton indeed.
        Who gives anyone the right to redefine what or who a woman is?
        Who gives anyone the right to redifine what or who a man is?
        Certainly not you, nor anyone else for that matter.
        you say you could no care less? well thanks for that, you obviously do not care for me as a woman feeling demeaned by this situation.

      • But, Kat, *you* are defining what it means to be of the male or female gender and imposing that definition on McGregor :/

    • @Troy Simpson. Gender identity is supposed to exist in congruence with biological sex. If that wasn’t so Malcolm McGregor wouldn’t have a problem, would he? Isn’t his problem that he wants his physical sex to be congruent with his alleged gender identity? Gender and sex are inextricably entwined. You call McGregor a she and add that “she lives her life as a woman? BS…LOL. Are you telling us that wearing dresses and make-up is living life as a woman? You have a very low opinion of a woman’s life. Most women lives their lives in line with their biology. They become wives and mothers. You are the very kind of individual Janice Raymond was referring to when she wrote: :”The relevant patriarchal belief at play in transsexual theory, is that females are deficient males.” There you go – emasculate a male and you have a female. Simplistic, stupid and absurd. But that’s your argument in a nutshell.

      Post a Reply
    • Troy you question who defined male and female, God did.
      God also defined Charity, but nobody questions that do they?
      anyways I am done with this conversation, because clearly you have no regard for women who may be demeaned by this situation.
      I bear no ill will against Malcolm Mcgregor, only hope he finds help for his condition, as clearly by his rants he has not found peace with himself.

      Post a Reply
      • Kat, I am genuinely trying to understand your position. I don’t understand how you can feel demeaned. I might be slow and obtuse, but I genuinely would like you to keep trying to explain your reactions and feelings on how and why a male transitioning to a female would offend you so much.

      • Troy, it may still come as news to you but males cannot transition to female.

      • Phil, I will rephrase the question. Would you be offended, as a man, if a woman starting living their life as a man?

  21. During my years in the forces I always detested the cowards the bullies and the pompous self-righteous little gits who could did not have the mental ability to cope with anything or anyone that was different.

    Firstly if you are ex service then any person commanding the rank Lieutenant Colonel deserves a degree of respect for their rank alone, I have not noticed that respect in your rather rude little blog.

    Secondly if the Australian Defence Service allows an officer in their ranks to wear a uniform ( any uniform ) then that person also deserves respect.

    I served with many incompetent and dysfunctional officers I still gave them the respect their uniform and rank afforded them. be they male female or indifferent it should make no difference at all to their ability to serve and defend our country.

    So my advice to you would be “Suck it up Princess” the world is not just the way you want it to be and I for one am very glad of that

    I would be more than happy to have served under a decent cross dressing officer so long as they were skilled at their job I would not care.

    They could not have been worse than some of the god bothering sky pilots who we had to work for.

    PS what was your rank and what corps did you serve with ?

    Post a Reply
    • …”as they were skilled at their job I would not care.”

      That so, Doug? If it is I look forward to you joining Bernie’s case for the defence. As a democratically minded moral relativist I am sure you agree that Bernie has a right to speak up for his own beliefs. But you won’t and there’s where the hypocrisy of you and your mates is highlighted. That grub McGregor can insult and abuse with impunity my teenage son, who did nothing to him, but he’s still a princess to your handsome prince. He’s in love with his reflection and quite possibly you are too. I believe they call blokes like you “tranny chasers.”

      Post a Reply
      • Bernie has a right to speak up for his own beliefs, which is what he’s doing. And so do we. But such a right isn’t unlimited – eg, defamation laws prove that.

        I note you call Cate a “grub” and Doug a “tranny chaser”. If that is what you wish to do with your freedom of speech, then I suggest you might be wasting it.

      • @Troy Simpson. McGregor is a grub and his emails rants are proof of it. They’re freely available and until you read them don’t whinge about me calling him for what he is.

      • Phil, not one, but two blogs have dedicated themselves to attacking Lt MacGregor – what gives either blog the right to single out and degrade another person – and then whine and complain when they fight back! Mealy-mouthed cowardice.

      • “That grub McGregor can insult and abuse with impunity my teenage son, ”

        Sorry but you have lost me on this one, can you explain exactly how Lieutenant Colonel McGregor insulted and abused your teenage son please ?

        Is you “Teenage son” over 18 and an adult or a minor ?

        Were these abuses and insults totally random and without provocation or had your son made comments about Lieutenant Colonel McGregor that could have elicited such a response ?

        If so could you post the comments that may have caused a unseemly response so I can better understand the situation.

        also

        If you are a christian and also for Bernie who says he is a believer in that religion

        Remember what the bible says
        ==============================================
        Romans 13

        Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
        2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
        3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
        4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
        5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
        6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
        7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

        =================================================

        If Lieutenant Colonel McGregor is a senior rank to Bernie then obviously Lieutenant Colonel McGregor has been put there at the desire of the Christian God who has commanded that christians respect and honour that authority

        Lieutenant Colonel McGregor has the backing of the Chief of the army and the government of the land so if Bernie is a true believer and christian he will apologize and accept god’s will as his beliefs demand.

        Is Bernie you son Phil?

        yours Doug Steley

      • Why don’t you blame God for Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Robespierre and John Paul Marat and every evil fool to ever obtain a high position? I suggest you to go to the Bundarrah Days site Bernard has linked to above and read the vile and absurd rants of Lt Col Malcolm AKA Cate McGregor. It may provide you with an insight into the real person behind the lipstick and eyeliner.

      • I do not blame God for anything because there is no god nor can there be a god

        He is an imaginary friend for those who need imaginary friends

        However if people make claims about being christians and defending their religion and there beliefs then they should be very clear about what their book tells them to do.

        As simple as that.

      • How about you post my “foul rants” Troy and we’ll compare them post by post with McGregor’s? That a good idea? I’m happy to go down that path if you wish. Having said that this is not about me because I am not a high ranking officer in the Australian Army nor a Member of the Order of Australia. People in those positions are expected to adhere to a standard higher than the rest of us. You must be really sad that my personal code of conduct is higher than Mal McGregor’s. I don’t call people f***wits while signing off as an AM. That’s low. It’s disgraceful and it’s an insult to all Australians.

      • No comment about McGregor’s foul rants, Doug? Thought not. A bit hard to defend them isn’t it?

      • How about defending your own foul rants, Phil?

      • Phil, what makes you think I believe your personal code of conduct is higher than McGregor’s?

      • “Gaynor, you and another blog have singled out and attacked Lt MacGregor.” You’re a liar Bob because that’s not how it happened. It’s explained on my blog and you’ve had every chance to go there and look. The entire history is documented. It started out as a criticism of Tony Abbott and McGregor was just a bit player. I’ve suffered worse on numerous occasions without responding as he did.

      • Maguire, I did look at your blog – and your comments here. At least have the decency to own your actions. You – and Gaynor – continue to target individuals – then hide behind religion. Bullying, followed by cowardice.

      • I have owned to my actions. I have placed everything I’ve written to him and about him on my blog so that others can judge for themselves. And I haven’t hidden behind religion. I tell you now I want McGregor and Morrison out of the Australian Army, not for religious reasons but for the sake of my country. No bullying on my part. Those two are the ones with all the power. If you want to drag religion into it, it’s more a case of David and Goliath with those two representing the Philistines. And, by the way Bob, when it comes to cowardice, why do you hide behind a pseudonym and fail to publish your full name?

    • Doug Seeley you didn’t serve in the Australian Armed Forces, did you? Tell the truth. Bernard Gaynor is a Major, a former Intelligence Officer and a returned veteran.

      Post a Reply
  22. I do not easily understand Lt Col McGregor’s condition or experience. But I do understand bullying, and you, Bernard Gaynor, are a bully – and nothing more than a bully, picking on the outsider, harassing the vulnerable and conducting yourself in a fashion that shames, you, not those you single out.

    Post a Reply
    • Bernard has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to pay a price for them. How is McGregor vulnerable, Bob? Go and read his threatening and vulgar emails on the other blog and then come back and defend him again. Tell us why he should remain in his job? When you’ve done that the rest of us will be better able to judge the merits of your comment.

      Post a Reply
    • I also understand bullying and can see the double standards evident when those shouting the loudest for tolerance are the same ones wholly intolerant of any opinion that differs with their own. It is the ADF which is the bully here, enforcing acceptance of deviant sexual behaviour even to the extent of denying religious freedom to Christian military personnel who refuse to condone such practice.

      Post a Reply
    • Right, now consider your bullying of anyone like Bernard who dares to call a spade a spade. And the silent bullying of anyone who dares to live by Christian standards, let alone speak of them.

      If Malcolm mcGregor is, in your own words, vulnerable and an outsider, then why is he still in a crucial position of authority?

      Sorry son, but “see no evil, speak no evil” doesn’t apply when it concerns this nation’s security.

      Post a Reply
    • Thanks Bob. I am being kicked out of the ADF for for my beliefs and you call me a bully.

      You obviously don’t understand what the word means.

      Post a Reply
      • Mr Gaynor, you say you are “being kicked out of the ADF for for [sic] my beliefs”. But what are the precise charges against you, and how many counts?

      • I would be fascinated to know why you are being forced to resign too

        The Army does not do things like that lightly or without good reason

      • Gaynor, you and another blog have singled out and attacked Lt MacGregor.

        You claim religious beliefs but your article relies on demeaning terms, snide wisecracks and cruel taunts, not the bible.

        You wonder about how to respond to your three year old – would you have him follow Dad’s lead, name calling, the nasty reference to the Joker, the constant belittling and demeaning of another person. It’s not how Pell or any other priest would conduct themselves publicly, but you, Gaynor, think that’s just fine.

        Bully. Coward. Nothing more.

      • I do so love your little jokes Bernie !

        Bullies believe they have every right to bully others.

        When people refuse to be bullied anymore and finally fight back the bullies themselves are the first to break into tears and cry “Oh they are picking on me for no reason, I just told them what they can and cannot do I just wanted to control their lives I just demanded they live their life the way I want them to” and now they are telling me I am unfair.

        Bernie wake up to yourself, you are a bully a coward and a sook

  23. This was an incredibly well written piece by Bernard Gaynor – it’s bad enough the government endorses this sort of activity, let alone televises it and normalises it for all to see. I would hope that “Cate” finds solace in God, and returns to his rightful gender. Those two sentences were just to get past the comment censor. This piece is absolutely disgusting. Cate should be allowed access to women’s bathrooms by the very same notion that lesbians should – gender identity is the crucial factor, not sexuality. You have fundamentally divested her of her identity by refusing to recognise what gender she identifies as, and you have conflated transsexuals with sexual offences. Gender disassociation is a medical issue – hence why tax subsidises it, but you really have no scraps of human empathy, do you. Why is an army woman wearing lipstick, Bernard? Because she wants to.

    Post a Reply
    • I let most things past unless they are filled with expletives.

      You make absolutely no sense.

      The Army is there to fight wars and defend this nation. Not help people with their selfish and weird sexual desires.

      Post a Reply
    • What sort of a fool are you, Robbie? “Gender identity is the crucial factor” you say.
      Use your brains. Anyone can claim they are anything but how are these claims audited before they are accepted? I bet I could find a psychiatrist willing to testify that a man man who wants to be a dog has a legitimate canine identity and therefore has the right to a loving owner. How long before a zoophiliac, and there’s no shortage of them, claims he identifies as a dog and should therefore be able to practice his zoophilia? Those are the kind of weird and absurd consequences of arguments like yours. McGregor is not a woman, he does not have a female gender identity but he does have a paraphilia. Treatment should not include indulging a terrible delusion.

      Post a Reply
    • It’s a no-brainer that any man, even one in a dress, should not be allowed to access women’s bathrooms. In a sane world it would not be necessary to explain why that is. That anyone could think otherwise just illustrates the moral confusion now rampant in our society.

      For Robbie’s benefit, a lesbian is a woman so can access women’s bathrooms. Biology is the “crucial factor” here not what sex a person pretends to be or imagines themself to be.

      Post a Reply
      • Why? Don’t just dismiss the question because it seems obvious. Anything that actually is sane can be explained logically. So lets look at the ‘why’.

        Safety? It’s been over 30 years since the worlds first transgender laws allowed transgender people to legally use the bathroom they feel appropriate to them and did sexual assault or assault skyrocket in any part of the world that brought such laws in? Nope. And are bathrooms without transgender people in them safe? No because same-sex sexual assault perpetrated by non-transgender people does happen including cases in bathrooms. So the only safe bathroom is a single-person-at-a-time bathroom then.

        So what other reason? Tradition? Tradition can be good and it can be bad. Slavery was a tradition, racial segregation was a tradition, husbands legally being able to beat their wives was a tradition. Tradition does not equal a good argument alone. It must be shown to be a good tradition and better than any new alternative to be kept.

        Morality? Well which kind of morality? Religious morality? Well what does the bible say about Transgender people? In biblical times they were classified as Eunuchs even if not castrated and this was the case in many of Israels neighbours including Rome, there were even religions with crossdressing priests and priestesses with and without castration in biblical times amongst Israels neighbours. And so does Jesus particularly say anything about these Eunuchs then? Actually yes! In Mathew 19:12 “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

        Uh-oh! Jesus was pro-Transgender! There goes the religious morality argument! What about secular morality? Well the Utilitarian argument is that everyone needs public bathrooms and there isn’t measurable physical harm from allowing Transgender people to use bathrooms (as shown by 30 years of no loss of safety) so that finds in favour of the Transgender people. What about Human Rights.. oh yeah, the Yogyakarta Principles worked that out and that sides with the Transgender people.

        What about Traditional Morality? Well lets see, you have the Sistagirls of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the Fa’Afa’Fine of Samoa and similar throughout all Polynesia, there’s Australia’s near-forgotten history of crossdressing amongst early colonial Australia why you even have crossdressing saints like Joan of Arc. No many anti-crossdressing rules and laws are only around a hundred years old and there’s plenty of pro-transgender traditions through history that counter that argument.

        Ok so what about Science? Ah well while you can get some quack scientists saying anything the ones that are reputable say Transgender people are born that way.. which is what Jesus said! Scientists and the bible agreeing on something!

        Oh dear but what about the sanity thing then? Well one of the popular definitions of insanity is ignoring evidence. And there’s brain scans and dissected brains showing Transgender people are born that way, there’s the Bible saying they are born that way and there’s anthropology showing they have always existed as part of humanity, they are covered in Indigenous traditions too….

        It’s easy to get something wrong when you don’t know enough about it. And it’s sane to follow the evidence and change your mind based on learning new things. And insane to disregard new evidence.

      • Why do you take the words of Jesus and apply to them a meaning He never meant them to have. By eunuch he was referring to infertile, childless or unmarried men. Jesus was not pro-transgender. He supported celibacy.

        There’s no need to resort to religion to defeat your argument. Briefly, homosexuality, transsexuality and transvestism are all sexual/behavioural deviances. They exist and have existed in all cultures and societies. Our Christian culture has been the most successful in history in part because rather than incorporate such deviances it has sought to heal them or to limit their impact on society.

        It’s worked well over nearly 2000 years. But in the space of only 40 years we have seen the incredibly destructive effect the widespread acceptance of such behaviours has had.

        The fact that these conditions exist does not make them desirable. Is disease desirable?

        The GLBT is the number one enemy of families and children. Your cultural argument has no merit whatsoever. If you want to be laughed at try using it to support other cultural deviances such as cannibalism.

        Finally, what difference does it make if transgendered people are born that way? That might be true for a for a whole range of undesirable human conditions and it doesn’t make a single one of them them acceptable.

      • Are you saying there isn’t a woman on this planet who doesn’t want to share a female restroom with a perverted man? Women should have the right to feel comfortable when they go into a female restroom. Allowing perverts like Cate to enter these areas will make many women not want to use them.

    • Thank you Robbie for so clearly demonstrating the patent stupidity arising from the philosophy that underpins modern society: the philosophy of “relativism”. Relativism is the sworn enemy of Christian philosophy. Christianity teaches that there is universal right and universal wrong – that these concepts are self-evident and readily understandable – and that everyone is bound to observe that which is right and avoid that which is wrong. Hence the famous Ten Commandments. Relativism, on the other hand, dismisses that concept with sneering contempt. According to relativism, “right” and “wrong” are concepts which individuals must decide for themselves. Which, of course, leads to the ludicrous situation that what is right for me is wrong for you, and what is right for you is wrong for me. Hence Robbie’s reference to “gender identity” – classic relativistic garbage – “there is no objective gender, there is only subjective gender – what gender a person believes they are is the gender they really are”. What utter crap. Robbie is the truly modern man – he will look at black and white and say that black is only black if it wants to be black – but if black claims to be white, then white it is and how dare you say otherwise! Again, Robbie – thank you for so clearly demonstrating the completely ludicrous and foolish reality of the philosophy of Relativism – a cancerous poison that is taught either directly or indirectly to all of today’s children in schools right across Australia and the rest of the western world.

      Post a Reply
      • Jim, are there any statements made by Mr Gaynor that you would say are “objectively [morally] wrong”?

      • No.

      • Not even the scorn? Or the insults? Or the malice? Or the offence? Not even the dehumanising of a fellow human being?

        If you really believe “no”, then you have disproved your own case: there are no objective truths; because I (and, evidently, others here) am morally offended by these things.

  24. Watched the interview. This is incredible and horrific what is happening and being accepted here. We are literally watching poor souls like Malcolm “Cate” McGregor self destruct and even encouraging others like him to do likewise. As he said, he’s a model (thanks to the army as hailing him as one) for other trans genders. Whenever has changing ones sex an answer to deep psychological and emotional issues that have not been resolved? Clearly, Malcolm has faced a tidal wave of them in his life. But a sex change is not the answer to these hurts that go deep into ones soul. No amount of makeover and make-up will resolve these issues. Malcolm and others like him will find the nightmare continuing until they find Christ. I have seen this first hand. A male friend of mine, who changed to a female (as Malcolm has done) — that is, took the drugs, had his male genitals removed, had the counseling, etc, but it was not until he stopped running and confessed his sins to God did he find peace. He has since gradually stopped the drugs and is now returning back to being a male … This has been going on for over a year now, and he is beaming. Now this is not to say that he has had it easy. But he would not return to being a “female” for anything in the world. So, Malcolm McGregor if you are reading this blog (which I’d imagine you would sooner or later), please come to Street Church Adelaide (http://churchadelaide.com/) sometime and talk to David, whose trans gender name use to be “Dannii”, because he will tell you there is peace and life itself, but not the way you are going about it.

    Post a Reply
  25. Lt. Gen Morrison and his speechwriter are a disgrace to the traditions of the Australian Army. Lt. Col Malcolm McGregor, for all the ‘moralspeak’ in the speeches he writes for his boss, is quite happy to use expletives along the signature of “Catherine McGregor AM.” Fancy that individual being a Member Of The Order of Australia.

    We are living in a country where morality has been inverted. Where homosexual relations are becoming seen as something higher and of more worth than heterosexual marriage. Where normal women are referred by the heroic voices of the gay lobby as “breeders” giving them the same status as a mob of cows. Where men like Malcolm McGregor are gaining higher status as women than the genuine article because they can’t breed.

    Likening McGregor to The Joker is a brilliant touch. He is a joke, but it’s on us. And it’s a sick joke – a joke that will have an incredibly destructive impact on the lives of your children and grandchildren unless you join other concerned Australians who are determined to put a stop to it.

    Bernard Gaynor has been charged because the beliefs he holds, which are pretty well identical with those held by previous generations of ANZACS are deemed to be unacceptable by today’s low standards. Isn’t it an incredible inversion when one’s high standards and traditional morality is deemed unacceptable by the High command of the Australian Defence Force.

    It’s not only an inversion, it’s sick. It’s a sickness that is becoming endemic in our society and will end up killing us off if we don’t find a cure.

    Post a Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 2016 starts with a bang! - Bernard Gaynor - […] have written extensively about this farcical situation many times previously. And it is farcical from top to bottom, not…

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.