One of the things I lately have come to accept is that I don’t have a private life. If any of my personal experiences might help you, and even if it embarrasses me, I no longer have the right to keep it from you. So, okay, here is a big one. I was born transgendered.

Conventional wisdom tells us that infants cannot form memories, but one of my most traumatic memories arose when I was less than a year old. I was toddling naked down a hallway. I still recall the leaves-and-vines wallpaper and the sense of vast space above. My mother and I were heading toward the bathroom to accomplish bath-time when I realized with horror that something major was missing from this body. I stopped walking. It was my oddly mature thoughts at the moment that have stuck in my mind forever.

I thought, “Oh. I must be the other kind this time.” I tried to make that be okay. But I recall as if it were yesterday the devastating sense of loss, and the thought that I couldn’t bear to go through a whole long lifetime as “the other kind.” I was only maybe eleven months old. Already I wanted to give up and start over.

Instead, I grew up as a tomboy. I competed with boys incessantly, proud to outdo them all in school and to climb trees better and physically beat up any boy who challenged me. I realize now that into my teens I was vaguely attracted to girls, and to this day I understand most men better than I understand most women. I still find things that are supposed to interest females to be so boring that I never have had a facial, a manicure, a pedicure, a massage, a makeover, or a day in a spa. I still hate to shop. I cook so poorly that for decades my husband has done most of our cooking.

It was seeing a picture of an eight-year-old girl dressed as a boy, with her hair in a boy-cut, her name changed, and everyone she knew now instructed to treat her as a boy that made me feel that I must speak out. If someone had told me at the age of eight or ten or twelve that I could be a boy, I would have done whatever that would take in a heartbeat! And I would have destroyed my own life.

This notion that transgendered children are mistakes to be fixed is yet one more piece of well-meant folly that comes from our culture’s utter cluelessness about what really is going on. Here are three facts gleaned from the afterlife evidence that will help you put this issue into better perspective:

• We plan the details of each lifetime. In particular, we choose our gender.
• We tend to live a series of lives as the same gender, and to incarnate repeatedly in the same culture, probably because doing that requires less adjustment to new circumstances and lets us better focus on the specific spiritual lessons we build into each lifetime.

• When we make a gender or a cultural switch, we can have trouble with our adjustment. If the switch is of culture, we might find it difficult to fit in at first. We might rebel; the effect can be highly variable. If the switch is of gender, then we might have early feelings that we were born the wrong sex, but I am no longer as sure as I once was that these possible effects include homosexuality. I’ll say more about this in a moment.

What fixed the problem for me was puberty. When the boys’ hormones started to flow, I no longer could beat them physically; and when my own hormones really got going, I started to find my male friends attractive. By the time I was in my latter teens, I fit comfortably into the serious-minded end of the female spectrum. And here I have remained.

Now that I know more about myself, I realize that my being female was essential to the purpose of my life! Here is what I have learned:

• I have nearly always been male. It turns out that my primary guide, Thomas, and I have been comrades down the centuries in trying to right Christianity’s wrongs. I am assuming that when I graduate, I will return to being male, and I have lately been told that I will be back before long to teach again for the Master. Fair enough. But I want no more babyhood surprises!

• I chose to be female in this lifetime so I could better teach what I was coming in to teach. For an old woman to be calling on all of Christendom to begin to follow Jesus is perhaps less offensive than it would be if a man of any age were to say the same thing. At least, that seems to have been my pre-birth theory.

So transgendered children are children who have lived a series of lives as one gender and have chosen the opposite gender for this lifetime. Based upon

my own experience, it seems likely that in each case (a) the new gender was consciously chosen, and (b) it will fully kick in at puberty. So for our culture to begin in childhood to reinforce our children’s gender confusion is not only unhelpful, but it might well be literally destroying some of those children’s lives.

I don’t know how this relates to homosexuality. I used to believe that people who were attracted to members of their own sex also were people who had switched genders for this lifetime, and that still might be right. But now I am beginning to suspect that, like all the other challenges of our lives, being gay may simply be another thing that we choose as part of our plan for spiritual growth in this lifetime. Why should it not be?

There is evidence that many of those who were owners of slaves or Jim Crow racists chose to come back soon thereafter as oppressed black people. Their purpose was to experience and learn from the same hardships they had inflicted on others. Wouldn’t it be delightful if the bigots who oppress homosexuals today will be so remorseful after their deaths that they will choose to be gay themselves the next time around?

The answers to most of our questions will come only when mainstream scientists turn from studying less than five percent of what even they have determined exists, and begin instead an intensive investigation of what actually is going on. Meanwhile, the parents of that eight-year-old girl who is being told now that she can grow to be a man are acting out of deepest love. I don’t blame them! But I only ask that if your own child has any level of gender confusion, you think first before you do anything that could damage or destroy that child’s life-plan. Contact me through this website. Please let me help! If I can help even one confused modern child to grow up to be everything that she or he planned to be, then my whole life will have been worthwhile.

photo credit: <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/55938505@N03/19979257638″>Girls</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/”>(license)</a>

People tell me that my approach to scientific cluelessness has been too harsh. I’ve got to cut these people more slack! Fair enough. The fact that almost a century has passed as we waited for scientists to realize that the study of matter is a dead-end game may not be reason enough for me to be calling modern science a failed belief-system that has wasted what could have been a productive century.

My problem with science has been less the fact that it ran off the rails in about 1910 when scientific gatekeepers adopted materialism as a “fundamental dogma.” No, it’s more the fact that even today, scientists continue to hold to materialism, despite the fact that we long ago learned that in reality nothing whatsoever is solid! Reality turns out to be energy-based. And materialism implies solidity, right? Or else, what does “matter” even mean?

The base of all of reality is an energy-like potentiality that we might think of as consciousness, since human consciousness turns out to be a part of it. The great quantum physicist, Max Planck, told us all of this decades ago! In 1931 he said, ”I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

He said in 1944, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Planck’s insight that consciousness must pre-exist matter is the greatest scientific discovery in history. But since it refutes the fundamental scientific dogma of materialism, to this day it must be ignored by anyone who hopes for a scientific career. Even in the twenty-first century, if you want to study consciousness as a scientist you must find a way to reduce it to mathematics and study it as a “state of matter.”

So scientists are beginning to do just that. According to the subtitle of a recent post in a prominent physics blog,  “A new way of thinking about consciousness is sweeping through science like wildfire. Now physicists are using it to formulate the problem of consciousness in concrete mathematical terms for the first time.”

Of course, as Max Planck knew, consciousness invents math. It’s not the other way around! In the greater reality that we enter at death – which is to say, in most of reality – mathematics turns out to be irrelevant to a physics that seems to be entirely consciousness-based. So, am I wrong to say that the use of numbers to try to study consciousness might be called the very definition of insanity? Dear friends, if anyone still doubts that science’s problem is that it has become a belief-system, please indulge me and read this post! Or in case you worry that reading it might make you as sad as it has made me, I will quote a bit of it for you here.

“Max Tegmark, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, sets out the fundamental problems that this new way of thinking raises. He shows how these problems can be formulated in terms of quantum mechanics and information theory. And he explains how thinking about consciousness in this way leads to precise questions about the nature of reality that the scientific process of experiment might help to tease apart.

“Tegmark’s approach is to think of consciousness as a state of matter, like a solid, a liquid or a gas. ‘I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness,’ he says.”

So his theory is that first we must come up with numbers that can define the shape of a living energy inherently without size or form, and then we can subject it to the “scientific process of experiment.” Good luck with that! The article goes on:

“Take for example, the idea that the information in a conscious system must be unified. That means the system must contain error-correcting codes that allow any subset of up to half the information to be reconstructed from the rest.

“Tegmark points out that any information stored in a special network known as a Hopfield neural net automatically has this error-correcting facility. However, he calculates that a Hopfield net about the size of the human brain with 10^11 neurons, can only store 37 bits of integrated information.

“‘This leaves us with an integration paradox: why does the information content of our conscious experience appear to be vastly larger than 37 bits?’ asks Tegmark.

“That’s a question that many scientists might end up pondering in detail. For Tegmark, this paradox suggests that his mathematical formulation of consciousness is missing a vital ingredient. ‘This strongly implies that the integration principle must be supplemented by at least one additional principle,’ he says. Suggestions please in the comments section!”

Oops! This new way of studying consciousness has come up against the dogma-based problem that it must of course include the certainty that human consciousness is generated by our brains. Max Planck’s discovery that consciousness pre-exists matter seems to make that impossible, but scientists still soldier on:

“At the beginning of the 20th century, a group of young physicists embarked on a quest to explain a few strange but seemingly small anomalies in our understanding of the universe. In deriving the new theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, they ended up changing the way we comprehend the cosmos. These physicists, at least some of them, are now household names.

“Could it be that a similar revolution is currently underway at the beginning of the 21st century?”

Oh, yes indeed. There is a revolution now underway that within the next couple of decades will sweep away the scientific dogma of materialism and will at last unify all of physics in a theory of everything that is consciousness-based. It likely would have happened by the middle of the previous century, but science’s fundamental dogma of materialism entirely shut off such areas of inquiry. Thanks in part to some of the same “household names” alluded to in the cited blog post, many of whom have continued to do their work in etheric laboratories, the ill-fated detour of science into materialism is about to end. Now things really are going to change!