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

[Theresa_Frances]

It’s a deep seated psychological issue. There was a show on Catholic Answers regarding this issue once. The guest speaker explained that such children have problems going on in the home that lead them to identify with the wrong gender.

Your SEX can never be changed. It is gender confusion that we’re talking about here, btw.

The issue isn’t a matter of absolutes. There have been many threads in CAF discussing this same issue. It isn’t a matter of attributing gender issues to the environment in which a child is raised, but more a result of the in utero environment when the child is developing. The present understanding is that during gestation, the signals that should masculinize or feminize the area of the brain determing gender concept are somehow disrupted resulting in an individuals self realization that although male in body they are female in nature, or vice versa. What is termed “transsexualism, or transgender” can be regarded a an intersex condition. It has been termed by some medical professionals as “Harry Benjamin” syndrome. It is also important to note that gender is a separate concept related to, but not the same as, physical sex as determined by the outer anatomy. If it is an intersex condition, then why would corrective surgery to bring the two into congruence. Since the brain cannot be changed but the anatomy can, why is reassignment considered to be wrong. I realize this is not a complete solution, the person cannot procreate, but that is also a reality for many individuals who for other reasons cannot bear children. I realize there are a lot of perversions sometimes associated with this issue but they are not all the same issue. Usually the seedier elements are the ones given the most attention. For most of us faced with this issue, we would want to quietly assimilate into society as any other woman would. In my own case my identity as a born and raised Catholic is as much a part of me as my knowledge that I am a woman. I would want to be able to function in that role as a member of the Church, including being able to marry as a woman. I understand there are opinions very much in opposition to that, but I wanted to explain that “transgender” is a very broad term that I don’t belive should be so inclusive. There are more individuals desiring to lead a wholesome lifestyle base on who they are than those who relish a preverse lifestyle.

 

[1ke]

It is also important to note that gender is a separate concept related to, but not the same as, physical sex as determined by the outer anatomy.

Here is the source of your problem. This is a false idea. This is incompatible with Church teaching.

Nouns have gender, people have sex.

Using gender when referring to people is nonsensical. The term refers to WORDS and grammar.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The present understanding is that during gestation, the signals that should masculinize or feminize the area of the brain determing gender concept are somehow disrupted resulting in an individuals self realization that although male in body they are female in nature, or vice versa. What is termed “transsexualism, or transgender” can be regarded a an intersex condition. It has been termed by some medical professionals as “Harry Benjamin” syndrome. It is also important to note that gender is a separate concept related to, but not the same as, physical sex as determined by the outer anatomy. If it is an intersex condition, then why would corrective surgery to bring the two into congruence. Since the brain cannot be changed but the anatomy can, why is reassignment considered to be wrong?

TF,

I see an answer to your question in the way you describe the problem.

“the signals that should masculinize or feminize the area of the brain determing gender concept are somehow disrupted”

It is OK to fix the disruption. It is morally licit (OK) to truly fix health problems, to put them back to the way they should be.

However, your solution seems to be to bring about ‘full disruption’. That is, what was not already broken, should be broken, to be broken in the ‘same’ way as the other part.
For the only reason that we have not figured out how to fix the actual disruption.

I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right, but that seems to be your logic.

 

[irishpatrick]

Some compassion for people with this situation is in order. I cannot imagine what a person goes through with this cross. Perhaps they are truly saints in the making by daily struggling against such difficulties.

 

[Dale_M]

Here is the source of your problem. This is a false idea. This is incompatible with Church teaching.

Nouns have gender, people have sex.

I am not sure whether the terms she used are the best, however I don’t think she is using the same definitions as you are.

It may be premature to ask which Church teaching(s) her idea violates, since I am not quite sure of her argument. But if you would like to explain your view more fully, I would appreciate reading it.

 

[Dale_M]

“the signals that should masculinize or feminize the area of the brain determing gender concept are somehow disrupted”

It is OK to fix the disruption. It is morally licit (OK) to truly fix health problems, to put them back to the way they should be.

However, your solution seems to be to bring about ‘full disruption’. That is, what was not already broken, should be broken, to be broken in the ‘same’ way as the other part.
For the only reason that we have not figured out how to fix the actual disruption.

Hm… I dunno. Fixing the health problem is morally licit. So if sexual reassignment surgery fixes the problem, wouldn’t that be acceptable?

Could you explain what you consider to be morally illicit about such a surgery, for those rare individuals who would benefit from it?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Hm… I dunno. Fixing the health problem is morally licit. So if sexual reassignment surgery fixes the problem, wouldn’t that be acceptable?

Could you explain what you consider to be morally illicit about such a surgery, for those rare individuals who would benefit from it?

Did I say that sexual reassignment surgery fixes the problem? I thought I was saying that it did not. That be the case, I can’t answer your questions.

 

[Dale_M]

Did I say that sexual reassignment surgery fixes the problem? I thought I was saying that it did not. That be the case, I can’t answer your questions.

I apologize for giving the impression that was your view. That wasn’t my intent.

But I would still appreciate hearing your reasoning as to why you think the procedure is not morally licit.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I apologize for giving the impression that was your view. That wasn’t my intent.

But I would still appreciate hearing your reasoning as to why you think the procedure is not morally licit.

No problem, I was just confused by the question.

The words used will shed light on the answer.

Reassignment = changing the initial assignment. If the initial assignment was of one sex, then reassigning would be attempting to make the other sex. That is not licit.

The original poster attributed the initial problem to an event that happened with the brain not getting the proper development signals to match the initial genetic assignment to male or female. The body developed according to the basic genetic XX or XY pattern, but something interfered with the brain’s proper development, possibly very early. That is the problem that may be licitly fixed.

But, the body is not what is broken. It developed properly. Mutlilating IT in an attempt to match the broken part is not fixing anything. Breaking another part of a person is not the solution to the original problem.

 

[1ke]

I am not sure whether the terms she used are the best, however I don’t think she is using the same definitions as you are.

It may be premature to ask which Church teaching(s) her idea violates, since I am not quite sure of her argument. But if you would like to explain your view more fully, I would appreciate reading it.

This idea that our “gender” is separate from our sex is a made up idea. The term "gender> doesn’t even apply to people, it applies to words. This is a construct, created by those with disordered appetites to explain and rationalize them. Gender is seen as something the person defines.

This is not compatible with Church teaching. The human person is body and soul. We are male or female biologicially-- our bodies determine our sex. We are in the image and likeness of God by the infusion of our spiritual sou–which is NEITHER male nor female. The idea of a third “part”, our “gender”, which can be different from our sex, is illogical. Our sex is either male or female. If something goes wrong physically, hormonally, or emotionally/psychologically it is a defect or disorder. It is not to be embraced or acted upon.

I’m not saying this is easy.

I’m saying constructing a concept of “gender” separate from our sex is not the answer.

 

[OraLabora]

Did I say that sexual reassignment surgery fixes the problem? I thought I was saying that it did not. That be the case, I can’t answer your questions.

It doesn’t fix the underlying cause because that is poorly understood. But it is believed that in many cases it may provide symptomatic relief and perhaps prevent a suicide or allow a dysfunctional person to return to being a functional part of society.

Giving someone with terminal cancer pain killers to improve quality of life is morally licit even if it hastens death due to the addictive effect of the narcotic.

I think therefore you have to view sex-reassignment surgery in the same light: not curative, but intended to reduce suffering and even in extreme cases, prevent suicide.

Where it gets problematic is that selection criteria often aren’t robust enough, and candidates are approved for surgery that never should have been, who then commit suicide because a grave mistake was made. I believe that was partly the reason that John Hopkins stopped doing the surgeries. Other places still carry them out using the Benjamin standards of care.

That said, if a course of treatment actually does alleviate suffering even though it isn’t curative, it may be licit. However for transsexual surgery, the jury is still out on whether the surgery truly reduces suffering. It may do so in selected cases but it appears some rightly worry that the selection criteria themselves are not foolproof enough or rigorous enough to assure safety.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

But it is believed that in many cases it may provide symptomatic relief and perhaps prevent a suicide or allow a dysfunctional person to return to being a functional part of society. Giving someone with terminal cancer pain killers to improve quality of life is morally licit even if it hastens death due to the addictive effect of the narcotic. I think therefore you have to view sex-reassignment surgery in the same light: not curative, but intended to reduce suffering and even in extreme cases, prevent suicide.

There are licit ways to relieve symptoms and there are illicit ways. Surgery to create what was never supposed to be there in the first place is not a licit way to relieve symptoms. Here is an analogy. Frontal lobotamies relieve a very wide range of mental maladies, including depression and suicide. For what reasons would we NOT consider frontal lobotomies a licit manner of relieving the anquish caused by sexual confusion? I believe that ‘sex reassignment surgery’ is unjusified in the same way frontal lobotomies are. You seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the means. The means have to stand on their own justification. Since these particular means are not restorative, but instead are physical mutilation, they can not be justified on their own. Other licit methods of relief must be sought.

I do appreciate your post, by the way. Thank you.

Dan

 

[OraLabora]

There are licit ways to relieve symptoms and there are illicit ways. Surgery to create what was never supposed to be there in the first place is not a licit way to relieve symptoms. Here is an analogy. Frontal lobotamies relieve a very wide range of mental maladies, including depression and suicide. For what reasons would we NOT consider frontal lobotomies a licit manner of relieving the anquish caused by sexual confusion? I believe that ‘sex reassignment surgery’ is unjusified in the same way frontal lobotomies are. You seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the means. The means have to stand on their own justification. Since these particular means are not restorative, but instead are physical mutilation, they can not be justified on their own. Other licit methods of relief must be sought.

I do appreciate your post, by the way. Thank you.

Dan

My point is that we must consider it on the grounds that it may alleviate suffering, and I emphasize may.

I’m not sure frontal lobotomies permit the victims to return to society as fulling contributing members; that is the case, sometimes, with sex reassignment surgery. But let’s not kid ourselves, it is a cosmetic surgery. We do carry out cosmetic surgery for gross deformities when they cause suffering. This though, is not a gross deformity but a deep-seated identity issue.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

My point is that we must consider it on the grounds that it may alleviate suffering, and I emphasize may.

I’m not sure frontal lobotomies permit the victims to return to society as fulling contributing members; that is the case, sometimes, with sex reassignment surgery. But let’s not kid ourselves, it is a cosmetic surgery. We do carry out cosmetic surgery for gross deformities when they cause suffering. This though, is not a gross deformity but a deep-seated identity issue.

Cosmetic surgery to correct gross deformities is licit, as it attempts to correct what is damaged; it is oriented to return the body to what it should be. Cosmetic surgery in the case of sex reassignment is the opposite, it seeks to damage an undamaged body, and is therefore illicit. And the very same reasoning applies to frontal lobotomies, which I would suggest have a MUCH higher rate of success in relieving the emotional suffering caused by these ‘gender identity’ issues than sex reassignment surgery. But, even though their effectiveness may be substantial, frontal lobotomies also do not correct what is broken, and only seek to break other things that are not broken. In both the case of frontal lobotomies and of sex reassignment surgery, two wrongs do not make a right.

Your logic is that if there is some indication that a procedure will provide emotional relief, that it should be considered. That appears to be an ‘ends justifies the means’ argument. The Catholic Church teaches that only licit methods can be used. That is, the ends don’t justify the means, if the means themselves are illicit.

 

[OraLabora]

Cosmetic surgery to correct gross deformities is licit, as it attempts to correct what is damaged; it is oriented to return the body to what it should be. Cosmetic surgery in the case of sex reassignment is the opposite, it seeks to damage an undamaged body, and is therefore illicit. And the very same reasoning applies to frontal lobotomies, which I would suggest have a MUCH higher rate of success in relieving the emotional suffering caused by these ‘gender identity’ issues than sex reassignment surgery. But, even though their effectiveness may be substantial, frontal lobotomies also do not correct what is broken, and only seek to break other things that are not broken. In both the case of frontal lobotomies and of sex reassignment surgery, two wrongs do not make a right.

Your logic is that if there is some indication that a procedure will provide emotional relief, that it should be considered. That appears to be an ‘ends justifies the means’ argument. The Catholic Church teaches that only licit methods can be used. That is, the ends don’t justify the means, if the means themselves are illicit.

I suspect in true deep-seated cases, it’s more than just emotional but is rather related to physiological differences in brain chemistry or structure. But the jury is still out and the Church certainly hasn’t said anything at least in public. I myself am not ready to judge one way or the other given the lack of conclusive evidence.

 

[Theresa_Frances]

This idea that our “gender” is separate from our sex is a made up idea. The term "gender> doesn’t even apply to people, it applies to words. This is a construct, created by those with disordered appetites to explain and rationalize them. Gender is seen as something the person defines.

This is not compatible with Church teaching. The human person is body and soul. We are male or female biologicially-- our bodies determine our sex. We are in the image and likeness of God by the infusion of our spiritual sou–which is NEITHER male nor female. The idea of a third “part”, our “gender”, which can be different from our sex, is illogical. Our sex is either male or female. If something goes wrong physically, hormonally, or emotionally/psychologically it is a defect or disorder. It is not to be embraced or acted upon.

I’m not saying this is easy.

I’m saying constructing a concept of “gender” separate from our sex is not the answer.

My understanding is that the word gender is used to describe “kind or sort” of something. In consulting medical and psychological professionals it was used to describe my understanding of my concept of myself and of my realization of my “gender identity” related to if I fit in to a social structure as female or male. I understand that you would consider the method of dealing with my issue as not a valid choice. When I was old enough to learn of individuals dealing with a similar situation and the possible solutions, I was frightened by the prospect but ultimately, through therapy, came to realize completing the gender transition process is at present the only effective way to address the issue. I also understand that as persons we are spiritual and physical in nature. In my case somehow the spiritual was diverse from the physical. As a Catholic, it is not an issue I dealt with without consideration of all the spititual consequences. At the time I read of opinions but didn’t see anything difinitive in Church teaching that conclusively stated one way or the other. I had read that in those type situations, it is a matter of personal conscience. I don’t mean to be argumentive or disrespectful of your opinion. My parents had similar reactions when they first became aware of my situation. They came to a diiferent understanding as a result of participating in my therapy, and becoming more aware of the parameters. I agree it i not a cure all and not appropriate for every instance, but in my case gave me the opportunity to experience a decidedly better quality of life and also be a better and more chartable person with resepct to how I interact and treat other people…

 

[1ke]

My understanding is that the word gender is used to describe “kind or sort” of something.

No, gender is a grammar term describing nouns.

In consulting medical and psychological professionals it was used to describe my understanding of my concept of myself and of my realization of my “gender identity” related to if I fit in to a social structure as female or male.

yes, in the last few years people have inappropriately co-opted the term “gender” and attempted to apply it to people and to a construct whereby people can decide their “gender” and define it as something different from and separate from their biological sex.

that does not mean it is a valid use of the term or that this arbitrary construct created to allow people to continue in their confusion regarding their sex is in any way valid.

but ultimately, through therapy, came to realize completing the gender transition process is at present the only effective way to address the issue.

Well, clearly it is not the “only” way. It may be the “only” way this particular therapist wanted you to consider. I’m sure this therapist has bought into “gender” as separate from “sex” hook, line, and sinker.

I also understand that as persons we are spiritual and physical in nature. In my case somehow the spiritual was diverse from the physical.

No, that is just the point. Your spiritual soul is not “male” or “female”. this is a false notion.

As a Catholic, it is not an issue I dealt with without consideration of all the spititual consequences. At the time I read of opinions but didn’t see anything difinitive in Church teaching that conclusively stated one way or the other. I had read that in those type situations, it is a matter of personal conscience. I don’t mean to be argumentive or disrespectful of your opinion. My parents had similar reactions when they first became aware of my situation. They came to a diiferent understanding as a result of participating in my therapy, and becoming more aware of the parameters. I agree it i not a cure all and not appropriate for every instance, but in my case gave me the opportunity to experience a decidedly better quality of life and also be a better and more chartable person with resepct to how I interact and treat other people…

I am very sorry for the hurt, cofusion, and despair you have obviously felt at different times in your life due to something that is largely not of your choosing.

 

[Theresa_Frances]

TF,

I see an answer to your question in the way you describe the problem.

“the signals that should masculinize or feminize the area of the brain determing gender concept are somehow disrupted”

It is OK to fix the disruption. It is morally licit (OK) to truly fix health problems, to put them back to the way they should be.

However, your solution seems to be to bring about ‘full disruption’. That is, what was not already broken, should be broken, to be broken in the ‘same’ way as the other part.
For the only reason that we have not figured out how to fix the actual disruption.

I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right, but that seems to be your logic.

I don’t see “two wrongs don’t make a right” as applicable in this situation. The issue of brain stuctures remaining female was not a “wrong”, but just something that happened in nature the same as any other birth related physical matter. I also don’t consider that in my case gender confirmation surgery was wrong. I know I had used the term “reassignement surgery” before. I don’t mean to reduce the discussion to semantics and apologize for mistating the type surgery before. I usually don’t use the “reassignment” terminology, and my surgeon actually referenced it as gender confirmation. There isn’t any known way to fix the area of the brain that causes the realization of being female while anatomically male. I have mentioned in CAF before that I don’t claim to say I “feel” that I am a woman. It is not possible to know how anyone else feels related to who they are. My realization or concept of how I have always seen myself fitting into society was as a girl. The only effective resolution that was available was to comlplete the transion process. I am aware there are cases where there is regret. There are standards of care that should prevent that. In my case I had lived as a girl for three years before completing the process. I also think the greatest consideration has to be given to the effect a person’s transition would have on the individual’s family. If there would be a detrimental effect then it would not be a valid step to take. I do respect your opinion and understand that you disagree. I hope I was able to express a side of the issue that would help in engendering more understanding of the matter.

 

[Theresa_Frances]

Well, clearly it is not the “only” way. It may be the “only” way this particular therapist wanted you to consider. I’m sure this therapist has bought into “gender” as separate from “sex” hook, line, and sinker.

Yes, honestly that was how my parents and I came to understand the issue. Also for me it offered validation that it was a real issue and not just a mental construct of my making. I also have to be honest in saying that my therapist presenting me the option of beginning HRT and starting a process to address a lifelong need seemed like a positive solution, especially with my parents consent. My parents at first, especially my mother, were skeptical of the process and also concerned of the religious aspect but knowing there was true need that my issue be addressed did agree. As the process continued they did become fully supportive and accepting.

 

[Theresa_Frances]

I am very sorry for the hurt, cofusion, and despair you have obviously felt at different times in your life due to something that is largely not of your choosing.

That is very kind of you and appreciated.