If your eye causes you to sin, cut it off, but nice tryMatthew 18:9: And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee…
Perhaps a trans-woman’s penis offends her
. I’m sure the reasn Jesus used this example is that no one’s organs causes sin. Sin is always a choice of the free will, not the natural activity of physical organs undirected by deliberate human action. Hence the very obvious metaphrical intent of the passage.Yes the church considers things such as castration mutilation. And removing the penis too I am sure.
My niece believes she’s a boy who likes boys. When they did testing on her, they found that she has high levels of testosterone not associated with poly-cystic ovarian syndrome or other abnormalities. It’s just her natural state of being according to the docs at U Mass. She doesn’t get periods. She has breasts, a vagina and facial hair. She’s always, since I can remember from her toddler years, identified as male. A few years ago, she asked that we call her by her male name and refer to her as him. And with great love and support, we do. He is a child of God. He’s not broken, disabled or a freak. He’s a perfectly healthy, loving human being deserving of our love and support. God made him that way and it would be rather presumptuous of us to assume that it’s our job to clean up God’s mess by realigning and reconfiguring his creation.
But isn’t that exactly what you are doing,realigning and reconfiguring your niece by not recognizing God made her female? Back in the day,girls that were more inclined to enjoy male activities were called tomboys. The fact that your niece is attracted to males,it sounds as though she is in fact a female with extra testosterone. This is why encouraging gender confusion through acceptance is dong such individuals no favor.They are in conflict with God and the way He created them.
Argo Ergo Sum is having loading issues at this time, but I look forward to reading it in full.
With that line of reasoning, demanding surgical removal of one’s normal disease-free appendix would be reasonable, since the organ has no apparent use for an individual.
Blanchard has more than one supporter. To repeat, Blanchard’s autogynephilia theory has its critics, yes, but it also has its supporters among whom are Anne Lawrence, Michael Bailey and John Cantor. Accordingly, Dr. Lawrence is a physician who is an MrF transsexual and a recognized expert on transsexualism.
He’s chosen not to mess with his body, his chin hair, his muscular physique, his uterus, anything. He’s not getting a hysterectomy nor is he going on drugs. He’s happy with the way God made him. I see nothing wrong with sticking with God’s plan. Too many of us ignore God and try to fix what is not broken in order to conform to our personal view points and desires. He is what he is, a loving faithful follower of Christ, happy to exist in the beautiful divine gift his creator has bestowed. I really love how our family has come around him to protect him from those whose hearts are hardened by human thoughts and conventions. We only ask that people soften their hearts to let God in and to see that to force this person to conform to human ideals of femininity, to pollute his healthy body with human hormone correction therapies, is to admit that God got it wrong. He didn’t. There is no conflict because God, whom we do not question, made him that way. Forcing him to say he’s a female, to act as a female and to go thru life as a female is slap in the face of God and his handi-work. My nephew’s parish is very supportive of him as is his community of family and friends. He is living a happy life as a Catholic and that’s awesome. I am so proud of him, our church and our family. We are certainly blessed and it doesn’t take much to see and feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Would you mind defining “man” and “woman” for me? I’m not sure we mean the same things by those terms, thus any response I’d offer might be talking past your point. God bless.He’s chosen not to mess with his body, his chin hair, his muscular physique, his uterus, anything. He’s not getting a hysterectomy nor is he going on drugs. He’s happy with the way God made him. I see nothing wrong with sticking with God’s plan. Too many of us ignore God and try to fix what is not broken in order to conform to our personal view points and desires. He is what he is, a loving faithful follower of Christ, happy to exist in the beautiful divine gift his creator has bestowed. I really love how our family has come around him to protect him from those whose hearts are hardened by human thoughts and conventions. We only ask that people soften their hearts to let God in and to see that to force this person to conform to human ideals of femininity, to pollute his healthy body with human hormone correction therapies, is to admit that God got it wrong. He didn’t. There is no conflict because God, whom we do not question, made him that way. Forcing him to say he’s a female, to act as a female and to go thru life as a female is slap in the face of God and his handi-work. My nephew’s parish is very supportive of him as is his community of family and friends. He is living a happy life as a Catholic and that’s awesome. I am so proud of him, our church and our family. We are certainly blessed and it doesn’t take much to see and feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
So is it also wrong for a man to be circumcised since this involves the surgical removal of a normal disease-free appendix? I’ve been told that the foreskin protects the glans and removing the foreskin decreases sensitivity in the penis. Some men who have been circumcised as children feel that they have been mutilated and that sexual intercourse without a foreskin is less satisfying, but for others, it’s not a big deal. So who’s right? (Apparently God doesn’t mind the removal of this disease free appendix).
Circumcision in males is not considered wrong. It was raised earlier too in relation to female genital cutting of the clitoris in some cultures. I know of no health benefit to FGM, unlike with male circumcision.
The last is the reason the males in my family are all circumcised.
I think the key phrase you used is “back in the day.” Yes, once we called them tomboys since we didn’t know any better. Then we found out that some (by no means all) of those tomboys were actually lesbians. Now we are finding out that some (not all) of those lesbians are really transgender. We learn by means of science. It is nothing to be so disturbed about, in my view, even though it is natural to be disturbed since we are so unfamiliar with the phenomenon and it therefore appears strange to us. But it does NOT mean we are going against G-d’s creation based on gender. It just means we are discovering through science more of the previously undisclosed mysteries and complexities of G-d’s creation, as science has been doing for generations.
Circumcision of children is certainly considered wrong by many men who didn’t want their foreskins removed and feel that it has negatively impacted their sex lives as adults. Also, if there are health benefits to being circumcised, then why did God create a foreskin on the penis in the first place? Why didn’t He just leave it off? Almost no Europeans practice circumcision and even in the US, only about half of new parents are now deciding to circumcise their sons.
This is actually far more messy than it might appear at first. There’s a growing body of medical literature challenging the “benefits” of male circumcision and if you do a search here on CAF, you’ll find threads in which men who were circumcised as babies and are irate that their level of sexual satisfaction was so significantly and permanently curbed by this procedure. Claiming that “circumcision in males is not considered wrong” is far too general, then – it may be by some but by others, it’s considered unnecessary mutilation.
For a female to have facial hair, a muscular physique, and not menstruate sounds like more than just being a “tomboy”.
Male circumcision is certainly a controversial issue, and we have had threads on CAF about whether or not it should be completely banned. The health benefits of the procedure are open to debate. For those of us who practice circumcision because it is an important part of our religion, we are obligated to defend the ritual on religious principles. It is surely not regarded as child abuse under these circumstances. However, how then can we protest female circumcision based on religious principles? I am not sure.
Well, the circumcision practice is unchallenged in my natal family (coming from one with six boys, two of whom are medical doctors, and myself having two sons) as the benefits prove to outweigh the problems associated with non-circumcision. So we do not agree that it is unnecessary mutilation.
Based on what religious principle? My impression was it is cultural, practiced in some cultures,