Being gay is in your genes

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ncronline.org/news/vatican-says-sex-change-operation-does-not-change-persons-gender

Yes, I realize the link source is oftentimes heterodox, but if you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the article was originally written by CNS, which is orthodox.

This is the only official policy in the Church, and it is only binding on bishops as a sub secretum document. It says that, in rare cases where there is a medical probability that surgery can cure someone’s “internal turmoil,” surgery can be morally licit. Interestingly, it says nothing at all about HRT, but I guess that is not really an issue a bishop would deal with. Also, post-operative transgender individuals currently cannot have their baptismal certificates changed (though a notation can be made) or enter into a Church vocation that requires a Sacrament of Vocation. Also, an operation is not viewed as changing one’s sex.

Unfortunately, I think many in the Church, even high-up, confuse transsexuality (a person has an innate sense of themselves for their entire conscious lives as one gender; that gender does not match their genitalia) with genderqueer/gender spectrum theory, which argues that one has a “fluidity” to their gender and that there is no gender binary. Transsexuality can be compatible with the Church. Gender spectrum theory absolutely cannot.

Also, considering that genitalia determination occurs after one’s gender is given by God (as gender is a permanent concept, present from the moment of ensoulment at conception), and that soon, parents will be able to decide pre-natally what genitalia their children have, I don’t see how a policy that focuses on genitalia as the determination of gender can even be compatible with Church teaching. You’d either have to argue that parents can change the gender of their children (they can’t) or that ensoulment happens when genitalia are differentiated (it doesn’t). This is, of course, not to say that one’s identity should be the deciding factor on one’s gender. I take no position on how one’s gender should be theologically determined. I just don’t see how genitalia can be used as such in a fallen world stained by birth defects from original sin.
The article says that the Church is satisfied with the physical determination of sex, so that if a man underwent an operation to become physically like a woman, he would remain a man in the eyes of the Church. This is how I have always viewed it as well.

The part where it says that a person can have the sex change operation if there is a medical probability that it can cure their internal turmoil is followed by the statement: “But a source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.” And so, it tends to leave one right back where we started from.

In my own opinion, I believe that a man who has a sex change operation remains a man, albeit one with a disfigured body. If I were victim of being a man who felt like a woman, I think (but I can’t know) I would choose to consider myself a man, apart from my feelings to the contrary. In that way I would picture myself a man with feminine feelings, not a female trapped inside a man’s body. There is a difference, is there not, between feeling like a women and believing oneself to be a women?

OTOH, I have seen a person with bipolar disorder where the feeling, irrational as it was, was so strong, it overwhelmed the intellect. The person felt so strongly that someone was going to break into the house and murder them that reasoning with them proved futile. I am not suggesting that transgender persons are psychotic, but is it the same in the sense of feelings overriding intellect, i.e., I feel so strongly that I am a woman, therefore, I must be a woman?

BTW, thank you for the article.
 
Lisa: While we differ on our interpretation of those laws and their effects, the amount of people who “pretend” and so on, I think we’re starting to reach a sort-of understanding. I want to thank you for your willingness to have an honest debate; I have to admit I misjudged you by your first comments. I apologize. There are still things I’d like to comment on, but as I’m on an extended weekend trip, I might not get the time.

James: Regarding what the Church teaches, Joie is right. There is also a policy (not doctrinal) document which has been discussed in other threads - as I mentioned I’m on vacation and dont have time to look the relevant posts up now, but I’ll see if I can’t find them later.

Regarding your questions about effeminacy and so on: Yes, there are effeminate men, who clearly are men. But those men, no matter how feminine they are, react adversely to estrogen. Trans women react positively; their brains seem to be hardwired to expect estrogen instead of testosterone. Whether or not you recognize them as women is your decision (though I hope you treat them with the respect they deserve, including using the pronouns they identify with etc), but hormone treatment is really the only thing that can alleviate the pain resulting from the condition. I think our brains tell us more about who we are, than any other parts of the body.

But my primary goal is not to get everyone to agree with me; it is to make them understand what we go through, that our condition is real (whatever its implications) and that transition through hormones and in some cases surgery is often the only choice; it means life or death, in many cases.
I do try to understand. I have spent many hours on the phone with a friend who is transgender discussing the problem. I don’t hear from him nowadays and wonder how he is faring. As Lisa stated earlier, it is a very difficult cross to bear. I believe the Church’s position is that if a person had sex change surgery, the surgery would be considered superficial, and they would still be of the same sex (the sex determined by their former physical characteristics) making it impossible for them to marry. The Church would, however, approve of surgery if there was a medical probability that it would cure their inner turmoil. But that’s a big :if", since medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance, as the article provided by SMGS127 above states. Again, it’s a difficult cross to bear, and that is an understatement. We can know one thing for sure, and that is that God understands and cares. Suicide may be a temptation, but his grace is sufficient. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Thanks for being so open, patient and rational about this issue.
 
But that’s a big :if", since medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance, as the article provided by SMGS127 above states.
Something you should know about this statement is that it was done in consultation with Dr. Paul McHugh, a discredited “researcher” from JHU. It isn’t true, and the surgery actually has a high satisfaction rating post-operative. If you can actually find the research that is being alluded to, I would be most certainly open to changing my mind. But I have looked for it as a result of previous threads on this topic on CAF, and I can’t find a single study that shows anything but improvement in the quality of life for post-operative transgender patients.
 
Something you should know about this statement is that it was done in consultation with Dr. Paul McHugh, a discredited “researcher” from JHU. It isn’t true, and the surgery actually has a high satisfaction rating post-operative. If you can actually find the research that is being alluded to, I would be most certainly open to changing my mind. But I have looked for it as a result of previous threads on this topic on CAF, and I can’t find a single study that shows anything but improvement in the quality of life for post-operative transgender patients.
I’ll keep my eyes open for any studies negative or positive. I realize there are people on both sides who want to bend the data to serve their own preconceived ideas. That’s part of the problem with such emotionally charged and easily misunderstood issues.
 
This is an interesting discussion.

Is it possible that a man (all the outward appearances) can “feel” like a woman feels, but nevertheless be a man? For example, I see something cute that an child does and I feel “Oh! Isn’t that darling!” but being a man, I mask that feeling by expressing, “That’s cute.” I am feeling, I think, exactly like a woman feels, but I go to the trouble of expressing it as a stereotype man would in order not to appear feminine.

We all have both masculine and feminine traits. Some men are pretty and some women are handsome. Some men feel all kinds of soft and tender emotions and some women feel all kinds of strong and assertive feelings. So what is transgender? If all my feelings are feminine, does that make me a woman in your view? Or do I have to definitely believe I am a woman trapped in a man’s body?

Why is it considered a torture for a man to have feminine feelings? Why can’t he learn to express those feeling in a more acceptable form for the sake of blending in? Is self expression so awfully important? Or if he is courageous, why can’t he simply express his feelings as they are, no apologies?

Would not such a person, say, a man, seek out someone trustworthy to share those feelings, like for instance, a sympathetic woman? Could not writing poetry be a way for a man to express feminine feelings. I love poetry, by the way, so don’t get me wrong. I don’t see the appropriateness of surgery to align a man’s feelings with his body. I don’t believe it is a right to be able to express one’s feelings in line with their sexual function. It may be a mismatch, but I am sure there is the right partner for that situation.

Rather than transgender, I prefer, in the case of a man, to think of it as a man with feminine feelings, much more pronounced, maybe even totally so, than the average man, who also may have some feminine feelings and qualities. Do you find this perspective on it to be entirely unacceptable, and if so, please, why?

I know this is the “me” generation, but isn’t there some wisdom in such cases in simply accepting what is. To me, a man with feminine feelings is not the most horrible prospect in the world, and I do not assume a person who expresses himself in a feminine manner to be effeminate in any bad sense nor homosexual. I would suggest that person try to cultivate masculine feelings, if that is possible, and to at least, express himself in a more masculine manner if acceptance is critical to his comfort.

I don’t know of any commandment that says, "Thou shalt feel like a man (or vice versa)! " Acceptance of oneself might well be the only course of action wise and necessary. I would wholly reject surgery to change an undeniably male body into the semblance of a female body in order to match inner feelings with outward appearances. To me there is something sacred about the bodies that God gave us, unless they are obviously malformed as in the case of someone having both male and female organs.

A man with feminine feelings who has his body changed to be like a woman, is a man with a women’s body and feminine feelings, not a woman. Only God can create a woman, or at least, that’s my belief. So how do you respond to these thoughts? Is there any agreement at all between us? I hope so. I don’t mean to be disrespectful or condescending.

I have a good friend, a male, who claims he is transgender, and at different periods has dressed as a woman. He also has seriously considered a sex change operation. We have had lengthy conversations in the past, and are still friends, though we do not appear to think alike on this subject. He acts and talks as any man would in conversation. .
The typical male response to babies is actually the result of conditioning not masculine thought processes.

For transwomen it isn’t having to adjust some things, it is having to watch and adjust almost every response to almost everything.

It’s the equivalent to a mental straightjacket.

Poetry isn’t masculine or feminine.
 
I think it would be safe to say that choices are made along the path to being gay, if by being gay you mean living a gay lifestyle, and even if you mean getting to the state in which one’s only attraction is same sex. So, it may not be a single choice, but it may be a number of factors combined with how a person chooses to respond to those factors. We are not automatons who are formed by external influences. We play an active part in determining the effect of those influences.
And the people who really tried to be heterosexual, but never managed to be attracted to the opposite sex?
The article says that the Church is satisfied with the physical determination of sex, so that if a man underwent an operation to become physically like a woman, he would remain a man in the eyes of the Church. This is how I have always viewed it as well.

The part where it says that a person can have the sex change operation if there is a medical probability that it can cure their internal turmoil is followed by the statement: “But a source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.” And so, it tends to leave one right back where we started from.

In my own opinion, I believe that a man who has a sex change operation remains a man, albeit one with a disfigured body. If I were victim of being a man who felt like a woman, I think (but I can’t know) I would choose to consider myself a man, apart from my feelings to the contrary. In that way I would picture myself a man with feminine feelings, not a female trapped inside a man’s body. There is a difference, is there not, between feeling like a women and believing oneself to be a women?

OTOH, I have seen a person with bipolar disorder where the feeling, irrational as it was, was so strong, it overwhelmed the intellect. The person felt so strongly that someone was going to break into the house and murder them that reasoning with them proved futile. I am not suggesting that transgender persons are psychotic, but is it the same in the sense of feelings overriding intellect, i.e., I feel so strongly that I am a woman, therefore, I must be a woman?

BTW, thank you for the article.
That recent medical evidence has since been shown to be badly inaccurate.

Sounds more like schizophrenia than bipolar.
I’ll keep my eyes open for any studies negative or positive. I realize there are people on both sides who want to bend the data to serve their own preconceived ideas. That’s part of the problem with such emotionally charged and easily misunderstood issues.
Dr. Paul McHugh went beyond bending data, his stuff has more logical fallacies than Bob Jones University had bigots in the 1950s
 
Something you should know about this statement is that it was done in consultation with Dr. Paul McHugh, a discredited “researcher” from JHU. It isn’t true, and the surgery actually has a high satisfaction rating post-operative.
The following information seems to contradict this high satisfaction.

plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group

theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.

Obviously there is more than one way to view any evidence and causality is never something easily established. I am only saying that this sort of surgery may not be any more effective psychologically than any other cosmetic surgery, or buying a new wardrobe for that matter. With more time, perhaps clearer data will emerge.

I agree with you about bias in research. I will only say that any research is better than none, or at least no worse that statements made without backing. Why do you thing the satisfaction rate is high? Does that rate stand the test of time or does it drop with time?
 
I think it would be safe to say that choices are made along the path to being gay, if by being gay you mean living a gay lifestyle, and even if you mean getting to the state in which one’s only attraction is same sex.
The above claim assumes that to be lacking in sin necessitates having an attraction to the opposite sex. But the Church *explicitly states *that there is no sin involved merely in being a “homosexual person” – and it makes no caveat that this homosexual person must have some attraction to the opposite sex.

In essence, either you or the Church are wrong. I’m guessing it’s you.
 
The following information seems to contradict this high satisfaction.

plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group

theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.

Obviously there is more than one way to view any evidence and causality is never something easily established. I am only saying that this sort of surgery may not be any more effective psychologically than any other cosmetic surgery, or buying a new wardrobe for that matter. With more time, perhaps clearer data will emerge.

I agree with you about bias in research. I will only say that any research is better than none, or at least no worse that statements made without backing. Why do you thing the satisfaction rate is high? Does that rate stand the test of time or does it drop with time?
First off, thank you for the study and article.

Well, I think the more important study should not be comparing post-operative suicide rates to cisgender suicide rates but rather post-operative suicide rates to *pre-*suicide rates. Certainly, there is always going to be a certain unhappiness, considering the poor state of surgery for FtMs and the permanent effects of testosterone on MtFs who wait until after puberty to transition. And I note some things related. First, from your article:
Mr Bellringer, who works at the main NHS gender identity clinic at Charing Cross hospital in west London, said: “I don’t think that any research that denied transsexual patients treatment would get past an ethics committee. There’s no other treatment that works. You either have an operation or suffer a miserable life. A fifth of those who don’t get treatment commit suicide.”
Emphasis mine. Compare that to the suicide rate range of 1.5-5% in the post-operative population in your attached study. So the surgery, under this analysis, taking a strict 20% suicide rate for pre-operative patients, would seem to save 75-92.25% of patients from suicide. I would consider that successful treatment, especially since your audience is highly likely to be ineligible for marriage anyway. If you believe something to be a same-sex relationship, it doesn’t matter if anyone else sees it as such. You cannot enter into something you believe to be a SS relationship. This works the same way as if you see Ash Wednesday as a Holy Day of Obligation. It isn’t, but if you believe it is and miss it, you commit mortal sin.

I do believe that, even if the Church ever definitively states that genitalia are the determination of one’s gender, the surgery will still be considered as morally licit in rare cases of severe emotional turmoil. I do, however, doubt that the Church would ever do so. Too many “odd” cases (odd as in abnormal; I’m not meaning to be pejorative to any intersex or transgender individuals visiting or posting on CAF) with blurred genitalia or mismatching external and internal genitalia or what have you.

Edit: as for long-term studies, it seems there is a high drop-out rate in most studies, as per your article. So I don’t know if we can have any true ones.
 
Compare that to the suicide rate range of 1.5-5% in the post-operative population in your attached study. So the surgery, under this analysis, taking a strict 20% suicide rate for pre-operative patients, would seem to save 75-92.25% of patients from suicide…
I agree that a better comparison would be like with like, using those without operations as a control. I do not know that pre-operative rates is good though, as the option of suicide before an operation by its nature removes those most likely to kill themselves from being factored in. You could use the same argument that turning forty makes you less likely to kill your self simply because of the number of suicidal people that are no longer able to count.

I am trying to verify the suicide rate and am having difficulty because of the number of sites touting attempted suicides, any where from 16-41%. I can see where psychological reasons might be beneficial, as it is with any such body altering surgery. I have my doubts though whether it is a better solution than other therapy. I know that God can heal. I have my doubts about psychology. I am somewhat more confident in medical psychiatry.
 
I agree that a better comparison would be like with like, using those without operations as a control. I do not know that pre-operative rates is good though, as the option of suicide before an operation by its nature removes those most likely to kill themselves from being factored in. You could use the same argument that turning forty makes you less likely to kill your self simply because of the number of suicidal people that are no longer able to count.

I am trying to verify the suicide rate and am having difficulty because of the number of sites touting attempted suicides, any where from 16-41%. I can see where psychological reasons might be beneficial, as it is with any such body altering surgery. I have my doubts though whether it is a better solution than other therapy. I know that God can heal. I have my doubts about psychology. I am somewhat more confident in medical psychiatry.
I agree on both counts. I don’t think we have any good statistics on the population, though it does at least seem there is some relative improvement. And yes, God can heal, and we have to be careful with any form of permanent treatment. But I’ve certainly seen success stories with surgery during my time in the LGBT community, so I don’t feel comfortable throwing it out the window as an option, even without super-reliable data.
 
The following information seems to contradict this high satisfaction.

plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group
That doesn’t suggest that it doesn’t substantially improve their lives, it merely shows that it doesn’t magically fix everything and that they need continued therapy.
theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.
I’m not surprised that even post surgery they still have an elevated risk of suicide compared to the background population given that 40% make a suicide attempt by 20 pre-op.
Obviously there is more than one way to view any evidence and causality is never something easily established. I am only saying that this sort of surgery may not be any more effective psychologically than any other cosmetic surgery, or buying a new wardrobe for that matter. With more time, perhaps clearer data will emerge.

I agree with you about bias in research. I will only say that any research is better than none, or at least no worse that statements made without backing. Why do you thing the satisfaction rate is high? Does that rate stand the test of time or does it drop with time?
I think a drop of more than 75% in the number who commit suicide qualifies as a massive improvement.

In transwomen* surgery means no more tucking, it means they can actually change in a locker room without fear of being outed, it means they can actually have sex like a women, etc.

*You’ll notice I almost always refer to transwomen and not transmen, this is because I actually know transwomen without knowing any transmen, as a woman I can understand them better than I can transmen and they are substantially more common than transmen.
 
I think a drop of more than 75% in the number who commit suicide qualifies as a massive improvement…
If that is true, and if it is not related to the fact that those most likely to commit suicide are dead, then I would say you are right. In any case, it would still not serve as data on the morality of such an operation.
 
The concept of natural selection argues against the existence of the gay gene (ie, a transmitted gene that automatically determines a homosexual orientation, much more, homosexual behavior).
 
If that is true, and if it is not related to the fact that those most likely to commit suicide are dead, then I would say you are right. In any case, it would still not serve as data on the morality of such an operation.
Actually it does given that it strongly suggests it being therapeutically necessary.
 
Actually it does given that it strongly suggests it being therapeutically necessary.
I withhold judgment on that until such a time the Church comments. If such surgery is deemed to be immoral, then the result (or the end) can have no bearing on the means, especially since other, morally neutral means, exist to accomplish the same goal.
 
I withhold judgment on that until such a time the Church comments. If such surgery is deemed to be immoral, then the result (or the end) can have no bearing on the means, especially since other, morally neutral means, exist to accomplish the same goal.
CCC2297:
…Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
I think that is relevant
 
You could use the same argument that turning forty makes you less likely to kill your self simply because of the number of suicidal people that are no longer able to count.
If that is true, and if it is not related to the fact that those most likely to commit suicide are dead, then I would say you are right. In any case, it would still not serve as data on the morality of such an operation.
Tell me something about this if you would be so kind.
If we were studying survival rates of persons with cancer, would saying the survival likelihood of the person after chemotherapy or the like is diminished by persons who did not gain treatment or were denied treatment and ultimately died, either by suicide or other effects? Do you believe it’s appropriate to state that pre-treatment circumstances, whether trans related, orientation related, or health related (in case some view all of these as separate issues) impact the statistics of the ones that are treated?

The main flaw that I see in this kind of argument, and I hope you are able to see this as well, is that those that do not go through treatment don’t affect the impact of the treatment of those who do. It’s like saying an apple orchard produces apples for apple juice. They have a process for turning some rotten apples into non-rotten apples or green apples to red apples (the specifics of this example matters less than the concept being conveyed). Let’s say that Jack pitches half of these rotten apples or non qualifying apples. Does that really affect the outcome of the process of the apples that do go through that treatment? The answer is no. Even if 1/2 of the apples are pitched, the half that goes in has X% result of success or better flavor or tartness or whatever, and the statistics or even probability suggests that if those pitched apples were retrieved and put through the process, it would have the same result.

If you dislike the concept of some kind of treatment for a person for varying reasons, it would be helpful if such reasons didn’t include misleading concepts or predictions that are insinuated by what you had said in the quote above, where you suggest implicitly that they would negatively impact the overall statistic.
 
The concept of natural selection argues against the existence of the gay gene (ie, a transmitted gene that automatically determines a homosexual orientation, much more, homosexual behavior).
False – you’ve been drinking too much modern cool aid.

Prior to the 1900s, it was not any less likely for a person with same-sex attraction to have children than for any other person. And evolution has not had time to adjust to developments since 1900.
 
If you dislike the concept of some kind of treatment for a person for varying reasons, it would be helpful if such reasons didn’t include misleading concepts or predictions that are insinuated by what you had said in the quote above, where you suggest implicitly that they would negatively impact the overall statistic.
No, I do not see what you are saying, but would note that it is your* opinion* that the concept is misleading. Your two analogies both have one serious flaw. The first, is comparing a physical ailment with an emotional ailment. The second is comparing apples that have no choice with people that do have a choice. The one study that I read was by some transgender group that promotes sexual reassignment. The people in the study, unlike the apples, chose themselves and were not picked. Think how accurate a political survey would be if hosted at the Republican National Convention and volunteers there were asked their opinion of Obama. In this case, we have the transgender community asking members of the transgender community that if this surgery helped those who sought out this surgery.

So we come to the cancer. Cancer cells are killed by pharmaceuticals. Now I do not doubt that one’s attitude and choice may affect the outcome of cancer treatment. The mind and the body are related. However, it is ultimately a physical effect that destroys cancer cells, not one’s attitude. Depression is affected by attitude. That’s kind of the whole point.

So, those who kill themselves first do not have this surgery. Likewise, those who choose other means of addressing this gender identity issue do not have this surgery. The people in the pool are self-chosen for their very belief that this surgery will help. You can trust who you want and let others do the same. I will always look and see if there is an Heisenberg issue.

In the end, it matters little. We have no official scientific consensus and time may yield more data. If reassignment surgery is determined to be immoral or morally acceptable, the science behind it will not be relevant as to the morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top