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

[CopticChristian]

I didn’t say that surgery should be done because the patient is suicidal. I’m saying that the surgery should be done because the patient desires it and it doesn’t go against any Catholic doctrines (other than super secret stuff that might not even exist).

I’m not saying transsexuals should be allowed surgery because of gender dysphoria. I’m saying we should be allowed surgery because we have a legitimate medical condition called transsexuality, or more appropriately in my opinion, intergender. This is not very different from surgeries which correct intersex conditions.

I am a big supporter of neuro linguistic programming. As a matter of fact, it did help me get over my gender dysphoria. However, you might be surprised to learn that I used NLP to unlearn the incorrect socialization I received as a child and to allow myself to realize my actual gender identity as a woman. :curtsey:

Viv,

If you are a man and believe you are a woman or a woman that believes you are a man, then you have shown that you can change the way you think.

You only have a disorder because the DSM IV says so. I disavow the DSM IV so where does that leave you. William Glasser, M.D. also disavows the DSM IV. We are not alone.

If you found NLP helpful then you need to step into Neurosemantics and understand that you are only dablling in the ABC of NLP and there is more that you can do to change your mind.

While the surgical procedures for intersex conditions are the same the motives are different.

A face lift is a face lift. A facial paralysis and a face lift is reconstructive. A face lift for no reason other than I want one is cosmetic.

 

[Viviphilia]

I don’t see the humor however there has to be distinguished pseudohermaphrodite and true hermaphrodite. This is rare and I muse at the transexual population looking at the rarities and anomalies to ascribe their thinking and behavior.

A hermaphrodite is an animal with both sexual organs. Intersex people do not have both organs, rather, they have conflicted organs which contain elements of both male and female.

Similar to intersex people, intergender people (transsexuals) have conflicted gender identity.

Just as there is a wide range of ambiguous genitalia in intersex people, (some appear to be like a penis and others appear to be closer to a vagina) transgender people have a spectrum of gender identities. Some transgender people feel that they are closer to the opposite sex from which they were assigned. Others feel they are in between genders, just like the ambiguous genitalia of intersex people can appear to be half way in between male and female genitalia.

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

If you are a man and believe you are a woman or a woman that believes you are a man, then you have shown that you can change the way you think.

I have never identified as a man, never.

If you think I can change the way I think, then shouldn’t you be able to change the way you think?

Ask yourself why you won’t accept my challenge and live as a woman for a week. Be honest with yourself.

You only have a disorder because the DSM IV says so. I disavow the DSM IV so where does that leave you. William Glasser, M.D. also disavows the DSM IV. We are not alone.

I’ve already said that the GID diagnosis of the DSM is seriously flawed. The DSM does have some value, but it is certainly overrated and lacks objectivity and empirical support for the classification system.

Also, I don’t really suffer from gender dysphoria any more. I’ve accepted the fact that I’m transsexual and I’m moving on in my life.

If you found NLP helpful then you need to step into Neurosemantics and understand that you are only dablling in the ABC of NLP and there is more that you can do to change your mind.

I have no desire to use NLP to change my mind because I am quite satisfied with being a woman.

While the surgical procedures for intersex conditions are the same the motives are different.

A face lift is a face lift. A facial paralysis and a face lift is reconstructive. A face lift for no reason other than I want one is cosmetic.

The motives are not different. Intersex people don’t need genital surgery to survive. They do it for cosmetic reasons and because it isn’t immoral. The confusion over sex correction surgery arises from the fact that the intergender individual might have fully functioning genitalia. However, assuming you are a man with a penis, imagine if you woke up tomorrow morning and you had a fully functioning vagina. Obviously that can’t really happen, but just for the sake of the argument. Wouldn’t you be upset and want to fix it?

 

[Viviphilia]

Viv,

Your touting of the genetic anomalies that are rare is no different. When the shoe does not fit you discard it. Let’s look at the unrelated genetic anomalies that prove nothing and when you find one case that disproves your beliefs you scoff. This is one study and as you know that suggests there are more and more people are interested in the problem. So you want to believe that adults cannot change their minds and children can.

I’m looking at various rare populations to prove my point that exceptions to the gender binary exist in nature. You’re looking at a single case study to prove a rule.

As for children changing their minds, I don’t know why most cases of childhood gender identity disorder spontaneously correct themselves around the time of puberty. I suppose it could be possible that something to do with the hormone surge around puberty has some activational effects. Either way, I haven’t been a teenage for a long time so that isn’t a realistic consideration.

 

[Viviphilia]

Vivi,

neovagina, not really a vagina, fully functional for what? They cannot perform the created function of a vagina as there is no uterus. So what are they functional for other than as you point out pleasure.

The amputated inverted penis was a sex organ before it was mutilated so is it any surprise that it functions as a pleasure site.

So you have a situation where pleasure could be obtained with a sex organ, mutilating surgery is done and then pleasure can be obtained with a sex organ. Makes sense to me??

It’s not mutilating. Neovaginas look just like cisvaginas. The neovagina surgery was developed for cis women suffering from deformities and injuries, as well as intersex folks to make their genitals appear normal. It’s not some circus freak show, it’s sound medicine. Please try to be respectful.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Gender transition does fix the problem for almost all transsexuals.

Not if their genitals are further away from natural function after surgery. Otherwise they are only further damaged individuals.

Therapuetic does not mean, “just make me feel better.” It means to cure from disease. If the disease is one of the body, surgery may be used to correct the disease. If the disease is mental, then a mental solution is licit. Perhaps the word you mean to use is ‘placebo’. That is something that is not therapuetic, but does bring mental relief.

If your logic can also be used to justify those that yearn to amputate a limb only because they are mentally driven to do so, then it obviously is flawed.

Once again, look at the case of a woman with CAIS. Was she “made to be” a man since she has 46,XY chromosomes? Or was she “made to be” a woman since she has a vagina and the gender expression and gender identity of a woman?

If everything is working, I don’t understand the question? Why would the question even apply if the body is working as it should and the psychological side is in alignment with the physical.

Why do you believe your judgement of what we are “created to be” is more valid than anyone elses? Why would you ignore it when a trans woman believes she was “created to be” a woman and her male genitalia is a biological anomaly?

There appear to be three possible situations. 1. This person was made as God intended, and any surgery then is obviously mutilation. 2. This person was made male, and developed a disease that causes them to want to be female. Again, mutilating the body would not be the cure. 3. This person was made female, but given a perfectly working male’s body. In this case, the problem cannot be cured, because this person cannot be given a working female body, and the attempt, being unsuccessful, would be mutilation. It appears that in all cases, physical surgery to fix a properly working body is not the answer.

I think it is obvious what man and woman were created to be, isn’t it? It is in basic physioligical textbooks. Reality is only suggested to be a subject of judgement by those that do not want to accept what is real.

You’re assuming that her “affliction” is in her mind when in reality it could be that the problem occurred in her development which resulted in the appearance of the wrong sexual features.

No, I am not. If you refer to the post that mine was originally responding to, the poster described the situation that led to a desire for ‘sex-reassignment surgery’ was a development problem of the mind at an early age. So for me to ‘assume’ otherwise would be the invalid assumption, would it not?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

It’s not mutilating. Neovaginas look just like cisvaginas. The neovagina surgery was developed for cis women suffering from deformities and injuries, as well as intersex folks to make their genitals appear normal. It’s not some circus freak show, it’s sound medicine. Please try to be respectful.

What’s the textbook purpose of a vagina? Are neovaginas suitable for that purpose?

As an academic exercise, I applied your logic as presented in this thread to what is called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). “A psychological disorder wherein sufferers feel they would be happier living as an amputee. It is typically accompanied by the desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs to achieve that end.”

Using your logic, who is anyone to tell someone suffering this disease that it is a mental disorder. Perhaps amputation (done professionally, it is “sound medicine” and certainly not mutilation) is therapuetic (a cure) for them. Perhaps they don’t have a mental problem, but only that their bodies mistakenly developed arms and legs, and limb amputation is cure their problem.

If our reasoning skills are taking us down the roads to justifying physical mutilation due to inordinate desires, then God help us.

 

[CopticChristian]

A hermaphrodite is an animal with both sexual organs. Intersex people do not have both organs, rather, they have conflicted organs which contain elements of both male and female.

Similar to intersex people, intergender people (transsexuals) have conflicted gender identity.

Just as there is a wide range of ambiguous genitalia in intersex people, (some appear to be like a penis and others appear to be closer to a vagina) transgender people have a spectrum of gender identities. Some transgender people feel that they are closer to the opposite sex from which they were assigned. Others feel they are in between genders, just like the ambiguous genitalia of intersex people can appear to be half way in between male and female genitalia.

Viv,

Explain how any of this information has to do with the question as to whether or not the Church sees a man XY, surgically changing exteriors or not is looked at in terms of valid relationships as the OP asks.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have never identified as a man, never.

If you think I can change the way I think, then shouldn’t you be able to change the way you think?

Ask yourself why you won’t accept my challenge and live as a woman for a week. Be honest with yourself.

I’ve already said that the GID diagnosis of the DSM is seriously flawed. The DSM does have some value, but it is certainly overrated and lacks objectivity and empirical support for the classification system.

Also, I don’t really suffer from gender dysphoria any more. I’ve accepted the fact that I’m transsexual and I’m moving on in my life.

I have no desire to use NLP to change my mind because I am quite satisfied with being a woman.

The motives are not different. Intersex people don’t need genital surgery to survive. They do it for cosmetic reasons and because it isn’t immoral. The confusion over sex correction surgery arises from the fact that the intergender individual might have fully functioning genitalia. However, assuming you are a man with a penis, imagine if you woke up tomorrow morning and you had a fully functioning vagina. Obviously that can’t really happen, but just for the sake of the argument. Wouldn’t you be upset and want to fix it?

Viv,

So you are a man that thinks he is a woman. The Church would not accept a man that thinks he is a woman having a relationship with a man. This would be homosexual.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m looking at various rare populations to prove my point that exceptions to the gender binary exist in nature. You’re looking at a single case study to prove a rule.

As for children changing their minds, I don’t know why most cases of childhood gender identity disorder spontaneously correct themselves around the time of puberty. I suppose it could be possible that something to do with the hormone surge around puberty has some activational effects. Either way, I haven’t been a teenage for a long time so that isn’t a realistic consideration.

Viv,

It appears that you are a man that thinks he is a woman of less than 21 years of age and the OP has asked how this determines a possibility of a homosexual relationship or not. This information has nothing to do with the OP. You are looking for acceptance.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s not mutilating. Neovaginas look just like cisvaginas. The neovagina surgery was developed for cis women suffering from deformities and injuries, as well as intersex folks to make their genitals appear normal. It’s not some circus freak show, it’s sound medicine. Please try to be respectful.

Viv,

I am a physician and I believe it is mutiliating. Looks like, feels like, appears, could be…isn’t.

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

 

[Viviphilia]

Not if their genitals are further away from natural function after surgery. Otherwise they are only further damaged individuals.

Therapuetic does not mean, “just make me feel better.” It means to cure from disease.

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.

If the disease is one of the body, surgery may be used to correct the disease. If the disease is mental, then a mental solution is licit. Perhaps the word you mean to use is ‘placebo’. That is something that is not therapuetic, but does bring mental relief.

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.

If your logic can also be used to justify those that yearn to amputate a limb only because they are mentally driven to do so, then it obviously is flawed.

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.

1. This person was made female, but given a perfectly working male’s body. In this case, the problem cannot be cured, because this person cannot be given a working female body, and the attempt, being unsuccessful, would be mutilation. It appears that in all cases, physical surgery to fix a properly working body is not the answer. I think it is obvious what man and woman were created to be, isn’t it? It is in basic physioligical textbooks.

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.

No, I am not. If you refer to the post that mine was originally responding to, the poster described the situation that led to a desire for ‘sex-reassignment surgery’ was a development problem of the mind at an early age. So for me to ‘assume’ otherwise would be the invalid assumption, would it not?

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.

What’s the textbook purpose of a vagina? Are neovaginas suitable for that purpose?

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.

As an academic exercise, I applied your logic as presented in this thread to what is called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). “A psychological disorder wherein sufferers feel they would be happier living as an amputee. It is typically accompanied by the desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs to achieve that end.”

Using your logic, who is anyone to tell someone suffering this disease that it is a mental disorder. Perhaps amputation (done professionally, it is “sound medicine” and certainly not mutilation) is therapuetic (a cure) for them. Perhaps they don’t have a mental problem, but only that their bodies mistakenly developed arms and legs, and limb amputation is cure their problem.

If our reasoning skills are taking us down the roads to justifying physical mutilation due to inordinate desires, then God help us.

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

 

[Viviphilia]

Explain how any of this information has to do with the question as to whether or not the Church sees a man XY, surgically changing exteriors or not is looked at in terms of valid relationships as the OP asks.

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.

So you are a man that thinks he is a woman. The Church would not accept a man that thinks he is a woman having a relationship with a man. This would be homosexual.

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?

It appears that you are a man that thinks he is a woman of less than 21 years of age and the OP has asked how this determines a possibility of a homosexual relationship or not. This information has nothing to do with the OP. You are looking for acceptance.

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.

I am a physician and I believe it is mutiliating. Looks like, feels like, appears, could be…isn’t.

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

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?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Gender transition does fix the problem for almost all transsexuals.

Once again, look at the case of a woman with CAIS. Was she “made to be” a man since she has 46,XY chromosomes? Or was she “made to be” a woman since she has a vagina and the gender expression and gender identity of a woman?

Why do you believe your judgement of what we are “created to be” is more valid than anyone elses? Why would you ignore it when a trans woman believes she was “created to be” a woman and her male genitalia is a biological anomaly?

You’re assuming that her “affliction” is in her mind when in reality it could be that the problem occurred in her development which resulted in the appearance of the wrong sexual features.

CAIS is an extremely rare exception

If she is 46,XY then her male genitalia is biologically consistent and her mind is the one that is incorrect.

If she is XY then male genitalia are the right sexual features.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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.

It is not your definition that matters, it is the Church’s. And I believe that the Church uses the phrase ‘strictly therapeutic’, which would indeed suggest that it is as ‘strict’ as I suggest it is. It does not matter what ‘you’d like it to be’, either. In my case, I have no motivation to twist the Church’s definition, I have no emotional stake in the ensuing conclusions. I do not have the motivation to justify any acts of my own. I don’t believe that you have the same objectivity.

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.

No, it does not. If the action is directed at the REAL problem, it is a cure. Chemotherapy is used to attack the cancer, which is the problem. A hysterectomy is a radical procedure for cancer treatment, but if it is done to remove the cancer, and other less radical procedures would not be effective, then it is a true cure for the true problem, the cancer, by acting to remove it. The concept of ‘double effect’ is that the uterus happens to be removed as an unintended consequence of the removal of the cancer. Removal of the uterus is not the real intent, removal of the cancer is the real intent and action.

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.\

So, I can understand cancer without having it, but I can’t understand trans without having it? You are being contradictory. I suggest that I can be objective because I have never had either. When people suffer, they become more subjective when it comes to moral dilemnas, not more objective. Selfishness sets in, and it is very difficult to stay objective. The evidence is in this thread.

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?

Placebos that do bring relief do not cure. Therefore they are not ‘strictly therapeutic’.

Your comment on prayer is interesting, as it betrays your view of prayer. Prayer serves two purposes, not just one, as you wish to limit it to. It does help our mental state, as you suggest. But it also brings about real, tangible results (cures to problems) as well. That would make prayer ‘strictly therapeutic’ as well as mentally therapy.

And no, gender transition therapy is not a placebo or the beneficial results would not occur in almost all transsexuals.

That claim requires some backing. It assumes that there is some definite limit to the effectiveness of placebos. I have never seen one, their effectiveness at providing mental relief seems to vary widely, dependent upon the underlying disease being treated.

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 .

You are using a third arm, a true natural ‘problem’, to demonstrate a problem with my analogy that concerns a person with two arms, i.e., no natural problem. That is a big fail. However, I do agree with your last statement. It does not justify self-immolation, however. Just because something serves another, does not mean that the another has reign over the something. For example, parents serve their children, it is their responsibility. That does not mean that children then can destroy their parents. So even though the body parts serve the person, that does not mean the person has the right to destroy them.

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.

Satisfaction of the patient does not a constitute a cure, so it is not strictly therapeutic. And my standard for a working body does NOT imply an only purpose, you only suggest that to forward your flawed logic. It does imply a REAL purpose. And, sir, that is different. You wish to totally dispense with any regard for that real purpose. Therein lies the error.

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.

I am not sure what you mean by deceptive. Bodies are not capable of deception, they are what they are.

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.

It appears that you would agree then that given what happens today (the topic of this particular thread off-shoot) there is an intrinsic function that is not possible with a neovagina implanted where none was designed to exist? Realities that don’t exist do not change what is real.

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.

This paragraph makes our differences clear to me, in that regard, the analogy served its purpose. It appears that you believe that the ends can justify the means. That is contrary to Church teaching. The Church teaches that the intents (ends) do not justify the means (acts). The acts are inherently justified or unjustified by what they are. Intent can UNjustify acts (that is, you can do something licit for malintent, and then the act is unjustified), but unjustifiable acts are always unjustifiable, regardless of the goodness of the intent. This seems to be a common moral issue for many in today’s culture that accepts the principle that anything is OK, as long as we are doing it for good reasons.

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.
​

It appears to me that you do not understand these passages. The statement begins with a qualifier: “If a body part of yours makes you stumble (sin mortally), then it is best to rid yourself of it because the attainment of heaven is the only real value.” Can a body part make someone stumble, that is commit mortal sin? The answer is no. Only our conscious free will can sin mortally. It may USE the eye to do so, but that does not mean the the eye is the CAUSE. With that understanding, it is then possible to move beyond the APPARENT challenge of the statement, to what the real meaning is. That is, nothing in this physical world, even the things you value the most (body parts) is of greater value than your eternal future.

I believe that there is some good in this discussion. To maximize that good, I suggest concentrating on the difference in principle that we have as I alluded to above. If you believe that good intents can justify any acts, then that is what you need to justify.​

 

[Viviphilia]

CAIS is an extremely rare exception

If she is 46,XY then her male genitalia is biologically consistent and her mind is the one that is incorrect.

If she is XY then male genitalia are the right sexual features.

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.

 

[Cupcake143]

If you put my statement back into the context you took it out of, you would see I was replying to the claim, “Nothing changes your gender.” As a matter of fact, sometimes gender does change, as the 5-alpha reductase deficiency population shows.

According to much of the logic expressed in this thread, even though those individuals grew a penis, they would still be considered a female - even though they are in fact male. Doesn’t that show you that the topic of gender is more complex than many people realize?

QUOTE]

How can someone be considered a female when in fact they are male? That makes no sense. You are only one —either a male or female. It is unfortunate that you have to deal with this suffering, and I do believc it is not something someone chooses. However, I think the best thing is to either try and bring out the real sex orientation you were born wth or just be how you are without any surery.

 

[Viviphilia]

It is not your definition that matters, it is the Church’s. And I believe that the Church uses the phrase ‘strictly therapeutic’, which would indeed suggest that it is as ‘strict’ as I suggest it is. It does not matter what ‘you’d like it to be’, either. In my case, I have no motivation to twist the Church’s definition, I have no emotional stake in the ensuing conclusions. I do not have the motivation to justify any acts of my own. I don’t believe that you have the same objectivity.

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.

Removal of the uterus is not the real intent, removal of the cancer is the real intent and action.

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)?

So, I can understand cancer without having it, but I can’t understand trans without having it? You are being contradictory. I suggest that I can be objective because I have never had either.

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.

So even though the body parts serve the person, that does not mean the person has the right to destroy them.

You’re ruling out cancer surgeries again.

I am not sure what you mean by deceptive. Bodies are not capable of deception, they are what they are.

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”

It appears that you would agree then that given what happens today (the topic of this particular thread off-shoot) there is an intrinsic function that is not possible with a neovagina implanted where none was designed to exist? Realities that don’t exist do not change what is real.

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?

This paragraph makes our differences clear to me, in that regard, the analogy served its purpose. It appears that you believe that the ends can justify the means. That is contrary to Church teaching. The Church teaches that the intents (ends) do not justify the means (acts). The acts are inherently justified or unjustified by what they are. Intent can UNjustify acts (that is, you can do something licit for malintent, and then the act is unjustified), but unjustifiable acts are always unjustifiable, regardless of the goodness of the intent. This seems to be a common moral issue for many in today’s culture that accepts the principle that anything is OK, as long as we are doing it for good reasons.

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.

It appears to me that you do not understand these passages. The statement begins with a qualifier: “If a body part of yours makes you stumble (sin mortally), then it is best to rid yourself of it because the attainment of heaven is the only real value.” Can a body part make someone stumble, that is commit mortal sin? The answer is no. Only our conscious free will can sin mortally. It may USE the eye to do so, but that does not mean the the eye is the CAUSE. With that understanding, it is then possible to move beyond the APPARENT challenge of the statement, to what the real meaning is. That is, nothing in this physical world, even the things you value the most (body parts) is of greater value than your eternal future.

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 believe that there is some good in this discussion. To maximize that good, I suggest concentrating on the difference in principle that we have as I alluded to above. If you believe that good intents can justify any acts, then that is what you need to justify.

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!

 

[Viviphilia]

How can someone be considered a female when in fact they are male? That makes no sense. You are only one —either a male or female.

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.

It is unfortunate that you have to deal with this suffering, and I do believc it is not something someone chooses. However, I think the best thing is to either try and bring out the real sex orientation you were born wth or just be how you are without any surery.

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.

 

[Viviphilia]

It is not your definition that matters, it is the Church’s. And I believe that the Church uses the phrase ‘strictly therapeutic’, which would indeed suggest that it is as ‘strict’ as I suggest it is. It does not matter what ‘you’d like it to be’, either. In my case, I have no motivation to twist the Church’s definition, I have no emotional stake in the ensuing conclusions. I do not have the motivation to justify any acts of my own. I don’t believe that you have the same objectivity.

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.

Removal of the uterus is not the real intent, removal of the cancer is the real intent and action.

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)?

So, I can understand cancer without having it, but I can’t understand trans without having it? You are being contradictory. I suggest that I can be objective because I have never had either.

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.

So even though the body parts serve the person, that does not mean the person has the right to destroy them.

You’re ruling out cancer surgeries again.

I am not sure what you mean by deceptive. Bodies are not capable of deception, they are what they are.

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”

It appears that you would agree then that given what happens today (the topic of this particular thread off-shoot) there is an intrinsic function that is not possible with a neovagina implanted where none was designed to exist? Realities that don’t exist do not change what is real.

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?

This paragraph makes our differences clear to me, in that regard, the analogy served its purpose. It appears that you believe that the ends can justify the means. That is contrary to Church teaching. The Church teaches that the intents (ends) do not justify the means (acts). The acts are inherently justified or unjustified by what they are. Intent can UNjustify acts (that is, you can do something licit for malintent, and then the act is unjustified), but unjustifiable acts are always unjustifiable, regardless of the goodness of the intent. This seems to be a common moral issue for many in today’s culture that accepts the principle that anything is OK, as long as we are doing it for good reasons.

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.

It appears to me that you do not understand these passages. The statement begins with a qualifier: “If a body part of yours makes you stumble (sin mortally), then it is best to rid yourself of it because the attainment of heaven is the only real value.” Can a body part make someone stumble, that is commit mortal sin? The answer is no. Only our conscious free will can sin mortally. It may USE the eye to do so, but that does not mean the the eye is the CAUSE. With that understanding, it is then possible to move beyond the APPARENT challenge of the statement, to what the real meaning is. That is, nothing in this physical world, even the things you value the most (body parts) is of greater value than your eternal future.

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 believe that there is some good in this discussion. To maximize that good, I suggest concentrating on the difference in principle that we have as I alluded to above. If you believe that good intents can justify any acts, then that is what you need to justify.

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!.