Are transgendered people allowed to get married or be in relationships?

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then why are you referring to her as she?

CAIS women are indistinguishable from any other women, short of an expensive chromosome test. You could have met one in your life, and you would never know unless she told you.

Because I was humoring you.

Why are CAIS individuals important to a discussion about people whose genes and body match in terms in gender identity, but the mind does not?

 

[CopticChristian]

Therapy (in Greek: θεραπεία), or treatment, is the attempted remediation of a health problem, usually following a diagnosis. In the medical field, it is synonymous with the word “treatment”. Among psychologists, the term may refer specifically to psychotherapy or “talk therapy”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapy

therapeia: attention, medical service Definition: care, attention, especially medical attention (treatment); hence almost: healing; meton: those who render service.
concordances.org/greek/2322.htm

If you want to play semantics games, please do your homework first so that I don’t need to do it for you. The definition of therapy is not anywhere near as strict as you’d like to imagine it is.

Your authoritarian definition of therapy would rule out chemotherapy for cancer, as well as some surgeries for cancer, including hysterectomy for uterine cancers and orchiectomy for testicular cancer. The difference here is that you believe in cancer because you can put it on a microscope slide, but you don’t believe trans women’s claims because you’ve never experienced what it’s like to be transgender. If you want to understand better, take up my challenge to Coptic and dress and act like a woman for a week. You won’t be able to do it, but just try it with a genuine effort.

Please do not limit the definition of therapeutic to serve your beliefs. If a placebo does bring mental relief, then it should be considered therapeutic. Wouldn’t you agree that praying is therapeutic?

And no, gender transition therapy is not a placebo or the beneficial results would not occur in almost all transsexuals. For all you know, trans women could be suffering from estrogen deficiency and providing the estrogen resolves the deficiency. Given the high rates of suicidality before hormone therapy and greatly reduced rates afterwards, there is clearly something going on which is not well understood.

No, that isn’t obviously flawed. If a person had a third arm growing out of her chest, and the third arm was fully functional, the person might still want it removed. The functionality of the individual apparatus cannot logically override the functionality of the whole individual. Body parts exist for the sake of the person, the person doesn’t exist to serve his body parts.

Sex correction surgery does satsify the patient in over 90% of cases. Your standard for a “working body” implies that reproduction is the only purpose for a Human.

I do not assume that transsexuality is a product of the mind. Given the case of CAIS individuals, it should be obvious that the body can be just as deceiving as the mind can be.

Cis women with functional uteri have received a neovagina and reproduced afterwards. So yes, a neovagina is suitable for reproductive purposes. The problem with trans women is we lack a uterus. However, it is possible, and desirable, that scientists will invent such a procedure that would allow for full reproductive capability in trans women.

The creation of a neovagina is not an amputation. Rather, it is the best attempt so far at correcting what is perceived by the patient to be a developmental error.

As for the case of BID, I have heard of at least one patient who successfully cut off his own legs with a circular saw. The damage was repaired in the emergency room at great cost. Given that his condition could have killed him, and that it was hugely expensive for the emergency repair, then wouldn’t it make sense according to the principle of harm reduction for a surgeon to do such a strange procedure in a sterile setting, rather than allow the person to die on his own? With that logic, it doesn’t matter if you agree with what appears to be insanity, it’s merely a matter of compassion and harm reduction. If you can find another cure for that patient, sure, that’s great. Until then, it makes sense on many levels, including in a moral level, to respect the patient’s desires.

Before you go on about how crazy it is for a person to remove a functional organ, please consider the following:

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

And:

Eusebius reported that Origen, following Matthew 19:12 literally, castrated himself.[11] This story was accepted during the Middle Ages and was cited by Abelard in his 12th century letters to Heloise.[12] Scholars within the past century have questioned this, surmising that this may have been a rumor circulated by his detractors.[13] The 1903 Catholic Encyclopedia does not report this.[14] However, renowned historian of late antiquity Peter Brown finds no reason to deny the truth of Eusebius’ claims. They are also accepted by Edward Gibbon in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon asserts that, at least initially, rather than generating censure, Origen’s self-castration was the focus of admiration, and dryly observes that ‘As it was his general practice to allegorise scripture, it seems unfortunate that, in this instance only, he should have adopted the literal sense.’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

Viv,

Your problem is the same as everyone that has a little information causing them to be a danger to themselves. You don’t define what is medically therapeutic, a physician defines what is medically therapeutic.

This entire dialogue is oriented towards an attempt to have gender dysphoria recognized as a medical disease to have it covered by Insurance. Medicare and Medicaid do not cover these procedures and in case you don’t know if they don’t cover it then no one else will.

Aging face syndrome is a syndrome. It is treated with a face lift. It is not covered by insurance yet it is still a syndrome. If getting the surgery done and there was no issue of cost involved then this discussion would be dead. If you had the money then go get it done however my experience with the transgendered is what you are trying to impose, ie have someone else pay for your surgery.

 

[CopticChristian]

As I’ve said before, an individual with CAIS would be assigned female at birth. Her birth certificate would say female, her baptismal record, female, her license, female. She was born with a vagina and developed breasts during puberty. She has all the external sexual characteristics of a female. Very often such women are married to men and no one has any idea that according to your irrational reductionist approach, she is an “anomaly” who is no more than her 46,XY chromosomes. According to that misanthropic logic, she is a man and the Church would be justified in rewriting her birth certificate and baptismal records, and possibly even annul her marriage, even though she has lived her entire life as a woman and never had any desire to be a man. According to your logic, she is a “man who wants to be a woman.” To anyone who views Humans as complex creatures who possess inherent dignity and worth, she is a woman and she is far more than her 46th chromosomes.

No, as I’ve said before, I am a woman with a developmental malfunction which resulted in male sexual characteristics. As for your concern about my sexuality, I never asked you for your advice. The smiley face you posted suggests you take some pleasure in your attempt to take authority over me. Is that pleasure you feel akin to sadism? Does it make you feel happy to deny a person what you assume they might want?

If I were looking for acceptance, why in the world would I be posting on a Catholic forum.

If you must know my intentions, I am interested in Catholic beliefs. If you’d like to continue making false assumptions about me, feel free, as they reveal your arrogance and discredit your opinion.

If your opinion were professional, then I would respect it. However, your opinion is very unprofessional since you’re ignoring the professional standards of care for transsexuals, the WPATH SoC, the Endocrine Society Clinical Guidelines, and the large body of research on transsexuals which refutes your uninformed opinion. Your total disregard for the DSM also seems unprofessional. The DSM is certainly worth of criticism. However, it is the pinnacle of psychological research done by thousands of other professionals, who you are disrespectfully and unprofessionally invalidating with your vastly overreaching and unproductive criticisms. If you expect professional respect, then perhaps you should start by giving it.

Given such lack of professionalism, I find it impossible to believe that you could be a licensed and practicing physician. You didn’t really think your appeal to authority fallacy would persuade any one, did you?

Viv,

I have had my fill of the transgendered dysfunctional thinking. If you have an endocrinone dysfunction and you are like the CAIS then you were born with a malady. If you have no endocrine dysfunction and you believe that you are a woman with a mans body then there is no relationship to the former. They are apples and oranges. You insist on linking the two that are unrelated.

The DSM is not universally accepted and the DSM V is meeting opposition. Too many do not even use DSM criteria for diagnosing. It is a standard by comittee with a cause to create more patient flow through a Psychiatrists office for more meds.

The WPATH and Endocrine attempts to provide standards is nothing more than that. It is a response to something that is going to be done anyway. It is a standard and that is all. There are standards for abortion but abortion is murder. There are standards for Euthanasia. The practice of medicine is done without reference to morality. It responds.

Your thinking would drive any physician whacko. You want to dictate. Surgeons cut. They in your view are nothing more than technicians responding to your need. It does not work that way.

What this all has to do with the OP who knows other than you attempt to avoid the obvious. You are a man. You can have a relationship with a woman. You can have a relationship with a man as long as you don’t have sex within the OHCAC view. What more is their to discuss.

 

[CopticChristian]

There are many strange mutations in biology. When someone is born with a vagina, we assume they are female. However, as CAIS and 5-alpha-reductase deficiency patients show, sometimes a person is born with a vagina, but they have the XY chromosomes of a man.

Thank you for your sympathy. As for your suggestion about not getting surgery, there are many trans women who are uncomfortable about presenting as female, passing as female and being thought of as female, but still possessing a penis. However, there are some trans women who do not mind retaining their penis. Some in the latter group consider themselves “gender warriors.” I find the latter position to be quite uncomfortable and I would prefer to attain the more conservative position of fitting soundly into the gender binary.

Viv,

The OP would need to know that the situation with the someone born with a vagina and is actually male then the OHCAC would address them as male. Their burden doesn’t start in adult hood. It is a lifelong journey made evident at birth and as they grow. A great deal of counseling and care would be involved. Sadly they are male living with a woman’s externals. This is a cross to bear.

The gender dyphoric or noncormist man that thinks he is woman like you has external male and is unlike the former.

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

Your problem is the same as everyone that has a little information causing them to be a danger to themselves. You don’t define what is medically therapeutic, a physician defines what is medically therapeutic.

Your problem is the same as everyone that has little to no information causing them to be a danger to others. You don’t define what is medically therapeutic. That job is up to researchers, not unprofessional individual physicians with narcissisitic personality disorder.

This entire dialogue is oriented towards an attempt to have gender dysphoria recognized as a medical disease to have it covered by Insurance. Medicare and Medicaid do not cover these procedures and in case you don’t know if they don’t cover it then no one else will.

Aging face syndrome is a syndrome. It is treated with a face lift. It is not covered by insurance yet it is still a syndrome. If getting the surgery done and there was no issue of cost involved then this discussion would be dead. If you had the money then go get it done however my experience with the transgendered is what you are trying to impose, ie have someone else pay for your surgery.

Actually, the thread is about public recognition of transsexual relationships, which includes validation of transsexuals as Human beings.

However, thanks for showing everyone here the kind of institutionalized hatred and prejudice that we have to face on a daily basis. Your mistakes keep adding up in my favor.

 

[CopticChristian]

You have not cited the Church’s definition. Please either cite what definition you’re using or stop trying to play semantics games.

Your polite ad hominem attacks on my objectivity are uncalled for. Please be charitable and give my motivations the benefit of the doubt.

Creating a functional neovagina is the intent of sex corrective surgery. You appear to be implying that the goal is to mutilate the body, which is clearly false.

What about a slightly different situation, where the person were already sterile, and all else were the same, then would it matter if they had the sex correction surgery, (assuming for the sake of the argument that it were medically therapeutic)?

I did not say or suggest that it would be impossible or that you are unable to develop a basic understanding of transsexuality. What I told you is the reason why you don’t understand it.

The way for you to gain a basic understanding would be to experience it objectively, just as you experience a cancerous cell under a microscope slide. You could metaphorically look through the microscope slide of being transgender. Try dressing and behaving like a woman for a week (assuming you are a cis-male). You won’t do that because you are unable. However, you might be able to gain a rudimentary understanding of transsexuality by seriously contemplating what it would take for you to meet that challenge - but you have to be honest with yourself. I sincerely hope you are capable of a serious attempt at that thought experiment.

You’re ruling out cancer surgeries again.

If a body appears to be female yet contains the 46,XY chromosomes, how is that not deceiving in the same way in which you are implying that a transgender person’s mind is deceiving them?

“to mislead by a false appearance or statement”

Are you suggesting that the vagina serves no other purpose than for reproduction? Do trans women who desire a vagina need to wait to have a functional uterus created before we can proceed with what medical treatments we have available to us today?

I don’t claim to be a consequentialist, I’m more of a pragmatist. I prefer to stick to rules, but I admit that there are sometimes exceptions to rules which require unique solutions. And in addition, sometimes the rules are just bad rules which should be changed.

In the BID situation, it is not necessarily immoral to remove the leg under the Catechism if the surgery genuinely constitutes a “strictly therapeutic medical reason.” If a patient appeared to be committed to removing his own leg, then there would exist such a reason for the doctor to do the operation in the safest way possible. How could the valid use of the harm reduction principle not be considered a strict therapeutic medical reason?

And take a look at what I assume is your response to the BID situation, to refuse to help the patient remove his leg. Your ends, upholding your moral beliefs, do not necessarily justify your means, allowing the increased risk with a disturbed patient who needs help. That is especially true given there is some doubt about whether it would be immoral for the surgeon to perform such a surgery under the circumstances of the desperate patient.

That’s fine with me if you prefer to take Jesus allegorically. I prefer to take that scripture literally, as Origen did. And by the way, you only responded to Matthew 5, you forgot about the verse from Matthew 19, as well as the situation with Church Father Origen. You can ignore those cases if you like, but they are important to me. The way that I see for the Catechism to be aligned with the Scripture is to admit that sometimes removing a functioning appendage can be a valid medical therapy.

I enjoy debate with a talented thinker and I hope we can continue despite our disagreement. I hope you don’t mind me not responding to all the points I’d like to respond to, for the sake of brevity, as this post is already quite long!.

Viv,

Lets create a neorectum that ends in a blind pouch. For what? It is functionless. The entire digestive tract from mouth to anus serves a purpose. The vagina, Uterus, Ovary are all part of the same system. The neovagina serves no purpose in this system and I wouldn’t hold your breath for a neouterus.

You are amusing attempting to suggest that any Surgeon in his/her right mind would sever a body part to treat a desire to be an amputee. Surgery is not done for Psychological problems. Medical School 101.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your problem is the same as everyone that has little to no information causing them to be a danger to others. You don’t define what is medically therapeutic. That job is up to researchers, not unprofessional individual physicians with narcissisitic personality disorder.

Actually, the thread is about public recognition of transsexual relationships, which includes validation of transsexuals as Human beings.

However, thanks for showing everyone here the kind of institutionalized hatred and prejudice that we have to face on a daily basis. Your mistakes keep adding up in my favor.

Viv,

You are too funny. Researcher do not define therapeutic. The practicing physician makes that decision. That decision is made based on what is called knowledge, training, experience and the standard of care. Now don’t go trying to define the standard of care. You have no clue what therpeutic is and I don’t want you to look up definitions. This is way out of your league.

You are a man. You can have a relationship with a woman and if you have a relationship with a man don’t have sex to comply with the OHCAC.

PS, did you not know that every Physician scores, Obsessive Compulsive and Narcissitic on the MMPI., it comes with the territory…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

The problem with trans women is we lack a uterus. However, it is possible, and desirable, that scientists will invent such a procedure that would allow for full reproductive capability in trans women.

Your statement above speaks for itself, of how radical and extreme transgenders / transsexuals can get and will go, the only question being if there are any willing doctor and scientist collaborators.

Given such lack of professionalism, I find it impossible to believe that you could be a licensed and practicing physician. You didn’t really think your appeal to authority fallacy would persuade any one, did you?

Actually, what the doctor stated appeals to this reader and I would suspect to others as well in following your exchange with him. In a post upthread, you asked to be respected; yet, you fail to give it, using emotion to punctuate your thought instead of making a counter logical or reasonable reply and leaving it at that.

Your comment is no less of an ad hominem and is very disrespectful of a CAF member who disclosed he is a physician in the course of discussion on indications for medical therapy / procedure to address transgender issues. It is not as if it would not be within his purview to express a professional opinion. Or that he should not be free to disagree with you even if he were not a physician.

Many surgeons and doctors do not agree with SRS or transitioning as options for transgender patients. That includes two brothers of mine, both physicians and the wife of one of them who is also a medical doctor. They would rather do something else than make a living out of SRS, or “collaborate with madness” as Dr. Paul McHugh of John Hopkins University Hospital said in 2004.

It is also unfair to charge that such medical professionals are unChristian for refusing to be part of any SRS and transitioning options. In fact this position is consistent with that of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. In spring of 2009, NCBC released a 30 page report on the Psychopathology of “Sexual Reassignment” Surgery,which you likely have read.

In assessing the medical, psychological and ethical appropriateness of SRS, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons et al had this to say:
Sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) violates basic medical and ethical principles and is therefore not ethically or medically appropriate. (1) SRS mutilates a healthy, non-diseased body. To perform surgery on a healthy body involves unnecessary risks; therefore, SRS violates the principle primum non nocere, “first, do no harm.” (2) Candidates for SRS may believe that they are trapped in the bodies of the wrong sex and therefore desire or, more accurately, demand SRS; however, this belief is generated by a disordered perception of self. Such a fixed, irrational belief is appropriately described as a delusion. SRS, therefore, is a “category mistake”—it offers a surgical solution for psychological problems such as a failure to accept the goodness of one’s masculinity or femininity, lack of secure attachment relationships in childhood with same-sex peers or a parent, self-rejection, untreated gender *identity disorder, addiction to masturbation and, poor body image, excessive anger, and severe psychopathology in a parent. (3) SRS does not accomplish what it claims to accomplish. It does not change a person’s sex; therefore, it provides no true benefit. (4) SRS is a “permanent,” effectively unchangeable, and often unsatisfying surgical attempt to change what may be only a temporary (i.e., psychotherapeutically changeable) psychological/psychiatric condition.
Now, before you go on your tangent, please understand that this post is not a personal attack. It is a disagreement with the position and decision(s) you might have undertaken that have to do with your gender dysphoria. Neither is it intended to minimize the pain and suffering associated of anyone with the condition, nor an attempt to invalidate trans individuals as human beings.

Respectfully,

ISoG
,

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

I have had my fill of the transgendered dysfunctional thinking. If you have an endocrinone dysfunction and you are like the CAIS then you were born with a malady. If you have no endocrine dysfunction and you believe that you are a woman with a mans body then there is no relationship to the former. They are apples and oranges. You insist on linking the two that are unrelated.

The DSM is not universally accepted and the DSM V is meeting opposition. Too many do not even use DSM criteria for diagnosing. It is a standard by comittee with a cause to create more patient flow through a Psychiatrists office for more meds.

The WPATH and Endocrine attempts to provide standards is nothing more than that. It is a response to something that is going to be done anyway. It is a standard and that is all. There are standards for abortion but abortion is murder. There are standards for Euthanasia. The practice of medicine is done without reference to morality. It responds.

Your thinking would drive any physician whacko. You want to dictate. Surgeons cut. They in your view are nothing more than technicians responding to your need. It does not work that way.

What this all has to do with the OP who knows other than you attempt to avoid the obvious. You are a man. You can have a relationship with a woman. You can have a relationship with a man as long as you don’t have sex within the OHCAC view. What more is their to discuss.

What more is there to discuss? The only discussion you’re engaging in is the one between you and the strawman you’re talking to. You’re ignoring almost everything I’ve actually said. You’re putting words in my mouth and responding to them. Why are you pretending like we are having a discussion?

 

[Viviphilia]

Lets create a neorectum that ends in a blind pouch. For what? It is functionless.

Labiaplasty makes the neovagina visually indistinguishable from a cis vagina. The neovagina is also capable of being aroused and producing orgasm. You do realize women are capable of orgasm, I hope?

The neovagina serves no purpose in this system and I wouldn’t hold your breath for a neouterus.

I don’t need to hold my breath for the development of a neouterus because developments in designer organs are being made at an excellent rate. My guess would be less than ten years. And no, I’m not interested in your opinion on my prediction.

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

You are too funny. Researcher do not define therapeutic. The practicing physician makes that decision. That decision is made based on what is called knowledge, training, experience and the standard of care. Now don’t go trying to define the standard of care. You have no clue what therpeutic is and I don’t want you to look up definitions. This is way out of your league.

You are a man. You can have a relationship with a woman and if you have a relationship with a man don’t have sex to comply with the OHCAC.

PS, did you not know that every Physician scores, Obsessive Compulsive and Narcissitic on the MMPI., it comes with the territory…

A practicing physician who ignores research on which therapies are effective is a quack.

 

[Viviphilia]

Your statement above speaks for itself, of how radical and extreme transgenders / transsexuals can get and will go, the only question being if there are any willing doctor and scientist collaborators.

Oh noes! Somebody who was not born with a uterus wants one anyway! So what?

Actually, what the doctor stated appeals to this reader and I would suspect to others as well in following your exchange with him. In a post upthread, you asked to be respected; yet, you fail to give it, using emotion to punctuate your thought instead of making a counter logical or reasonable reply and leaving it at that.

Your comment is no less of an ad hominem and is very disrespectful of a CAF member who disclosed he is a physician in the course of discussion on indications for medical therapy / procedure to address transgender issues. It is not as if it would not be within his purview to express a professional opinion. Or that he should not be free to disagree with you even if he were not a physician.

Oh right, we’re all “doctors” on the internet, aren’t we? If he feels the need to make the claim, he can back it up with verification or stop with the appeal to authority fallacy and start treating others as intellectual equals instead of being unjustifiably condescending.

Here is what he said:

I respectfully ask you to respect my professional opinion. My opinion is that your postings have nothing to do with the OP.

Do I understand you to be saying that you believe an accusation of a post being off topic is a professional opinion?

Many surgeons and doctors do not agree with SRS or transitioning as options for transgender patients. That includes two brothers of mine, both physicians and the wife of one of them who is also a medical doctor. They would rather do something else than make a living out of SRS, or “collaborate with madness” as Dr. Paul McHugh of John Hopkins University Hospital said in 2004.

You mean the same Paul McHugh who admitted that he intended to shut down the gender clinic at Hopkins before he did any research on the results of sex reassignments?

“It was part of my intention, when I arrived in Baltimore in 1975, to help end it.”

Is that how you believe professionals should behave, that they should make prejudiced moral judgements, and afterwards, produce methodologically flawed research to support their biased conclusions?

It is also unfair to charge that such medical professionals are unChristian for refusing to be part of any SRS and transitioning options.

You misread me. Here is the post you’re referring to:

CopticChristian;9398233:

Dan,

Having reviewed and denied Insurance guidelines for Transexuals…they think it is therapeutic and in reality it is not.

You seem a little proud of denying medical treatment to people who are suffering. I find that a rather strange attitude for a Christian.

Can you provide any evidence for your claim that transitioning, or even surgery are not therapeutic?

First, I did not make an accusation that anyone was being unChristian. What I actually said was that I thought his attitude seemed “rather strange.”

Second, I didn’t actually comment on his denying transsexuals insurance. I commented on what appears to be *pride as he brags about it *to a bunch of random people on an anonymous internet forum, including someone he knows is a transsexual, and who he went on to falsely accuse of being here for the purpose of getting covered by insurance? (And no, that is not the reason why I’m here.)

Third, I added my next statement in that exchange because it wasn’t addressed.

Don’t worry, I don’t expect any apology from you regarding your false accusations. I’d rather you spend your time digging up some scholarly research to support his point, since he was unable to do so.

In fact this position is consistent with that of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. In spring of 2009, NCBC released a 30 page report on the Psychopathology of “Sexual Reassignment” Surgery,which you likely have read.

In assessing the medical, psychological and ethical appropriateness of SRS, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons et al had this to say:

No, I haven’t read it yet. Thanks for sharing, since my goal here is to learn more about Catholic beliefs. Although I must add that I find it a little odd that in defending against an accusation of being un-Christian, one would fail to actually quote Christ.

Now, before you go on your tangent, please understand that this post is not a personal attack. It is a disagreement with the position and decision(s) you might have undertaken that have to do with your gender dysphoria. Neither is it intended to minimize the pain and suffering associated of anyone with the condition, nor an attempt to invalidate trans individuals as human beings.

Respectfully,

Respectfully? If your message were intended to be respectful, then why did you make the contradictory statement,

“Now, before you go on your tangent, please understand that this post is not a personal attack.”

Why pretend to be respectful and then commit an ad hominem against me and then try to deny the insult? Why not just admit how it appears you really feel, that you don’t respect me at all, and that I’m just someone for you to vent your anger at?

 

[CopticChristian]

What more is there to discuss? The only discussion you’re engaging in is the one between you and the strawman you’re talking to. You’re ignoring almost everything I’ve actually said. You’re putting words in my mouth and responding to them. Why are you pretending like we are having a discussion?

Viv,

Here was the question commencing this thread.

I saw this on the news recently and out of curiosity, I want to know if transgendered people are allowed to get married / be in relationships, or does the CC still recognize it as a gay relationship?

You are a man. You believe you are transgendered. If you have a relationship with a man it is a gay relationship. End of story.

 

[Cupcake143]

Viv,

Here was the question commencing this thread.

You are a man. You believe you are transgendered. If you have a relationship with a man it is a gay relationship. End of story.

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

Here was the question commencing this thread.

You are a man. You believe you are transgendered. If you have a relationship with a man it is a gay relationship. End of story.

My concern on this thread is not for myself, but rather for the women with CAIS and other gender variances who could potentially have their marriages annulled for no good reason, thanks to the sort of deeply flawed and unjustifiable logic which you have attempted to express on this thread.

 

[CopticChristian]

Labiaplasty makes the neovagina visually indistinguishable from a cis vagina. The neovagina is also capable of being aroused and producing orgasm. You do realize women are capable of orgasm, I hope?

I don’t need to hold my breath for the development of a neouterus because developments in designer organs are being made at an excellent rate. My guess would be less than ten years. And no, I’m not interested in your opinion on my prediction.

Viv,

Your fantasy world does a diservice to the many women that have a vagina and suffer dysparunia, women with a uterus that does not function, Ovaries filled with cysts that cause pain…many that would love to have children but cannot. I would imagine if reality could creep into your head when you look in the mirror and see your self for the man that you are, all the wishing in the world will not change the fact that what you see does not come close to the suffering one woman born with a vagina, uterus, ovaries wanting to have children cannot. If there were any hope in 10 years of such nonsense then the Ob-Gyn literature would be filled with prototypes.

As a Reconstructive Plastic Surgeon your fantasies do a diservice to what you expect a surgeon to accomplish. Wish away. I am reminded of many of the transgendered I happen to entertain in consultation. I am reminded of one in particular.

This man routinely came in explaining the plans to change sex. Too many times he brought magazines of the women he would like to look like. One day he showed up dressed in a womans clothes, makeup, dressed to the nines…the problem…he looked like Ron Howards brother in drag.

He had all these pictures of beautiful models that had great hair, great noses, great cheeks, chins, mouths and would parallel Cindy Crawford and the like. He showed me all these photos and said…“my therapist says that I could look like this”…I looked at him, smiled…and said nothing…I thought without saying “not in this lifetime”…such is the plight of fantasy.

You are a man. In the context of this discussion having a relationship with a man would be a gay relationship.

 

[CopticChristian]

My concern on this thread is not for myself, but rather for the women with CAIS and other gender variances who could potentially have their marriages annulled for no good reason, thanks to the sort of deeply flawed and unjustifiable logic which you have attempted to express on this thread.

Viv,

If you have CAIS then let us know the issues you dealt with. If not then stop rescuing. Speak for yourself. I am troubled by dysfunctional behavior that transgenders exhibit and in this context unless you are CAIS there can be no discussion.

Imagine a Scottish man, wearing a kilt, red beard, red hair, a burly man, a man that knows he is a man…and hear him say this…

“Hoot man…speak for yourself”…

A transgendered man having a relationship with a man is in a gay relationship according to the OHCAC.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Oh noes! Somebody who was not born with a uterus wants one anyway! So what?

…

A poster upthread said you don’t have objectivity. He is correct.

Why not just admit how it appears you really feel, that you don’t respect me at all, and that I’m just someone for you to vent your anger at?

Truth is you are the angry one. In fact, the abstract by Dr. Fitzgibbons in my post listed excessive anger, among other unresolved issues, associated witt transgender individuals.
’

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh noes! Somebody who was not born with a uterus wants one anyway! So what?

Oh right, we’re all “doctors” on the internet, aren’t we? If he feels the need to make the claim, he can back it up with verification or stop with the appeal to authority fallacy and start treating others as intellectual equals instead of being unjustifiably condescending.

Here is what he said:

Do I understand you to be saying that you believe an accusation of a post being off topic is a professional opinion?

You mean the same Paul McHugh who admitted that he intended to shut down the gender clinic at Hopkins before he did any research on the results of sex reassignments?

“It was part of my intention, when I arrived in Baltimore in 1975, to help end it.”

Is that how you believe professionals should behave, that they should make prejudiced moral judgements, and afterwards, produce methodologically flawed research to support their biased conclusions?

You misread me. Here is the post you’re referring to:

First, I did not make an accusation that anyone was being unChristian. What I actually said was that I thought his attitude seemed “rather strange.”

Second, I didn’t actually comment on his denying transsexuals insurance. I commented on what appears to be *pride as he brags about it *to a bunch of random people on an anonymous internet forum, including someone he knows is a transsexual, and who he went on to falsely accuse of being here for the purpose of getting covered by insurance? (And no, that is not the reason why I’m here.)

Third, I added my next statement in that exchange because it wasn’t addressed.

Don’t worry, I don’t expect any apology from you regarding your false accusations. I’d rather you spend your time digging up some scholarly research to support his point, since he was unable to do so.

No, I haven’t read it yet. Thanks for sharing, since my goal here is to learn more about Catholic beliefs. Although I must add that I find it a little odd that in defending against an accusation of being un-Christian, one would fail to actually quote Christ.

Respectfully? If your message were intended to be respectful, then why did you make the contradictory statement,

“Now, before you go on your tangent, please understand that this post is not a personal attack.”

Why pretend to be respectful and then commit an ad hominem against me and then try to deny the insult? Why not just admit how it appears you really feel, that you don’t respect me at all, and that I’m just someone for you to vent your anger at?

Viv,

I don’t like to pull rank. We are not intellectual equals. If you went to Medical School then we are colleagues and this discussion would not be this bantering gibberish you produce. I have been as kind as I can be in consideration of your ignorance, agenda, bias and inabililty to separate real problems from yours.

You are a man. You believe you are a woman. You have no need to see an Endocrinologist. You have no need to see a Surgeon. You have no need. You desire. You want. This is very different for the genetic and endocrine anomalies. You discredit their suffering by trying to lump yourself in with them and this is nothing more than an exhibit of your lack of understanding of what a Physician sees. We don’t lump things together like this. We think Taxonomically…kind of like Aquinas. It clarifies thinking.

Someone is Short of Breath. If I give them fluid and they have asthma that is OK. If I give them fluid and they have CHF I kill them. But hey they are both short of breath. They all get oxygen, they all get an intravenous. The Asthmatic wheezes. The CHF wheezes. The asthmatic gets brohchodilators and antibiotics. The CHF gets lasix, a diuretic and possibly digitalis. Yet they both wheeze. They are not the same.

You don’t understand that the mind of a Physician is geared towards what is called differential diagnosis. If someone shows up with a female phenotype that don’t work, then the gears go into motion as to what the diagnosis is. It isn’t this, it isnt that, and if we do this test it is that but not this. We don’t think like you are presenting your information. We think to distinguish and clarify to provide a solution. You present a hodge podge of information suggesting that it is all the same. Sorry Mr. your thinking is not consistent with clarity.

Stop trying to practice what you do not know, particularly by attempting to synthesize information about medical diseases that do not correlate with the OP that asked about transgendered having a gay relationship. This is the issue.

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

Your fantasy world does a diservice to the many women that have a vagina and suffer dysparunia, women with a uterus that does not function, Ovaries filled with cysts that cause pain…many that would love to have children but cannot. I would imagine if reality could creep into your head when you look in the mirror and see your self for the man that you are, all the wishing in the world will not change the fact that what you see does not come close to the suffering one woman born with a vagina, uterus, ovaries wanting to have children cannot. If there were any hope in 10 years of such nonsense then the Ob-Gyn literature would be filled with prototypes.

As a Reconstructive Plastic Surgeon your fantasies do a diservice to what you expect a surgeon to accomplish. Wish away. I am reminded of many of the transgendered I happen to entertain in consultation. I am reminded of one in particular.

This man routinely came in explaining the plans to change sex. Too many times he brought magazines of the women he would like to look like. One day he showed up dressed in a womans clothes, makeup, dressed to the nines…the problem…he looked like Ron Howards brother in drag.

He had all these pictures of beautiful models that had great hair, great noses, great cheeks, chins, mouths and would parallel Cindy Crawford and the like. He showed me all these photos and said…“my therapist says that I could look like this”…I looked at him, smiled…and said nothing…I thought without saying “not in this lifetime”…such is the plight of fantasy.

You are a man. In the context of this discussion having a relationship with a man would be a gay relationship.

Oh, I can see that having to hold in the hatred you felt for that person must have been a challenge. I’m glad you feel comfortable venting your hatred on me, since I’m used to dealing with that kind of bad behavior.

Why do you consider it nonsense to construct a new uterus for someone? Or is it that you merely hate the idea that a trans woman might actually be able to fulfill the Catholic criteria for being married one day?