Catholic Bishops Support Employment Discrimination against Gays

[Santi2]

But that’s not what ENDA says, does it? There is a religious exemption, the same as in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964.

The religious exemption proposed by ENDA is ambiguous because of the way it is drafted.
traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ENDAAnalysis2007Religion.pdf

Or am I wrong, and that the US Catholic church has to conduct Jewish weddings, and weddings of divorcees?

Really now, Zoe. Do you really think that it is likely that those from other faith communities would opt to get married in a Catholic Church? As to divorcees, yes the Catholic Church does allow celebration of marriages but, only in certain and strict circumstances

So the US Bishops are arguing against a law that doesn’t have the odious provisions of a UK law proposal - one that was abandoned - because…um… why exactly?

The amendments as originally proposed by the British government was defeated because it would discriminate against religious institutions. Where the LGBT community over here already enjoy equal rights by law in respect of secular institutions, the mischief was to encroach same rights within religious institutions. Now I ask you in return, why was that attempted by the radical wing of the LGBT community and their advocates?

It’s because there is so much good in the Catholic faith that I care, you see.

I believe you, Zoe. But at the same time, please try not to erode that goodness you see with attempts to find fault in Her and Her Bishops because of your personal circumstances, which was already addressed by a canon lawyer some time ago. The Catholic Church cannot change where it does not have the authority to do so (I am sure that it is not the first time that you have heard that). If the Catholic Church’s faith, character and identity were to change as a result of overwhelming secular campaigns, it would not be the Church that you presently find goodness.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The religious exemption proposed by ENDA is ambiguous because of the way it is drafted.
traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ENDAAnalysis2007Religion.pdf

That’s a different bill, HR3685, the 2007 one that the Catholic Bishops had no objection to. As you’d note by the name ENDAAnalysis2007.

The objections about uncertainty in bill HR 3017, the 2009 version, don’t apply. You might also notice that it’s now 2010, the Democratic party has successfully stalled this bill until it’s too late for the Senate to consider it, just as they did for the 2007 one.

Really now, Zoe. Do you really think that it is likely that those from other faith communities would opt to get married in a Catholic Church?

About as likely as Gay couples, I’d say. Some commenters here seem to think that this employment bill will cause this to happen.

Where the LGBT community over here already enjoy equal rights by law in respect of secular institutions, the mischief was to encroach same rights within religious institutions. Now I ask you in return, why was that attempted by the radical wing of the LGBT community and their advocates?

Because the Gay/Lesbian (not GLBT) lobby in the UK are a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots, prejudiced, irrational, and malicious. Though I perhaps understate the case, many are worse than that.

Next question? Or did you think that I was so blinded by partisanship that I can’t recognise faults in “my own side”, even when they’re glaringly obvious? Oh yes, they’re not just anti-Catholic, they’re anti-Baptist too, and anti- a lot of traditional religion.

But at the same time, please try not to erode that goodness you see with attempts to find fault in Her and Her Bishops because of your personal circumstances, which was already addressed by a canon lawyer some time ago.

Except the situation has changed since then, when it was possible to say that there was no official policy, that the situation was being looked into. His Holiness has spoken. The US Catholic Bishops have spoken.

My existence is a threat to humanity, and to grant me equal rights would infringe on others rights of privacy and association. Legislation in the name of defending human rights for me, and those like me, is an attack from the viewpoint of His Holiness. Not for anything we’ve done, but for what we are.

Santi2 - if only all in the Catholic Hierarchy were like you. We may disagree, but at least you don’t call me a threat to Humanity, and wish me to be persecuted.

post scriptum
I was born in the UK. Because of the vagaries of UK Law, I’m considered male there, as I’m Intersexed. Had I been Transsexual, I’d be considered Female. As regards GLBT groups in the UK - their lobbying has resulted in laws that have been a disaster for Intersexed people, overturning far more human (if imperfect) case law. The UK Gender Recognition Act has been a catastrophe for us.

In the UK, the Catholic Church would condemn any attempt by me to marry a man as being a same-sex marriage, but might perhaps allow me to marry another woman - I think not though, as I’m sterile, and that appears to be an impediment. In Australia, my other country of citizenship, the Catholic Church would condemn any attempt by me to marry another woman as being a same-sex marriage, but might perhaps allow me to marry another man - but I’ve been sterile there since at least age 20, due to surgery performed without my informed consent. Does the Church allow women who have had involuntary hysterectomies to marry? I’m not sure.

In the USA, it would depend on whether they considered my UK passport - based on biological reality - or my UK birth certificate - based on appearance at birth - as definitive. In theory, I could marry one of each, and not be considered a bigamist except in Massachussets and other jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage. Because one or the other (if not both) marriages would be considered a nullity.

The existence of people like me really is a threat to deeply-held Catholic beliefs, just as much as the existence of telescopes was 500 years ago. No wonder that His Holiness and the US Catholic Bishops want us to be persecuted and suppressed, our existence hidden if not prevented altogether.

 

[Dale_M]

That’s a different bill, HR3685, the 2007 one that the Catholic Bishops had no objection to. As you’d note by the name ENDAAnalysis2007.

The objections about uncertainty in bill HR 3017, the 2009 version, don’t apply.

I’m not so sure about that. The Senate version of ENDA (S. 1584) bases its religious exemption on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

  This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or institution of learning, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), 2000e-2(e)(2)).

opencongress.org/bill/111-s1584/text?version=is&nid=t0:is:65

The letter from the bishops specifically complain that this is too vague. But they, too, were vague about why they were concerned.

The document which Santi2 provided spells out the problems of relying on Title VII for religious exemption. It notes the the US courts have given it conflicting interpretations over the years, and notes several cases of concern. See pp 2-5 of the document.

BTW, thanks Santi2, for finding this document. It helps to clarify the worries of the bishops, at least for me.

 

[Santi2]

Originally Posted by **Zoe Brain **] That’s a different bill, HR3685, the 2007 one that the Catholic Bishops had no objection to. As you’d note by the name ENDAAnalysis2007.

The objections about uncertainty in bill HR 3017, the 2009 version, don’t apply. You might also notice that it’s now 2010, the Democratic party has successfully stalled this bill until it’s too late for the Senate to consider it, just as they did for the 2007 one.

The Bishops think otherwise though. And, what is most certain is that they will continue to voice opposition for so long as it is perceived that ENDA provisions remain ambiguously drafted. The Catholic Church never opposes legislation on equality if the framework is proportionate to rights reserved by private or public individuals and institutions.

About as likely as Gay couples, I’d say. Some commenters here seem to think that this employment bill will cause this to happen.

Perhaps, they comment in that way because the law remains to be clarified in terms of the exemptions on religious grounds. Our legislation here provide for opting out.

Because the Gay/Lesbian (not GLBT) lobby in the UK are a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots, prejudiced, irrational, and malicious. Though I perhaps understate the case, many are worse than that.

Next question? Or did you think that I was so blinded by partisanship that I can’t recognise faults in “my own side”, even when they’re glaringly obvious? Oh yes, they’re not just anti-Catholic, they’re anti-Baptist too, and anti- a lot of traditional religion.

You are so admirably honest and must say that I greatly appreciate that your arguments are on the basis of your personal circumstances, not partisanship and, understand where our Bishops’ position must appear hostile towards you in matters such as this legislation and associated legislation of that ilk.

Except the situation has changed since then, when it was possible to say that there was no official policy, that the situation was being looked into. His Holiness has spoken. The US Catholic Bishops have spoken.

My existence is a threat to humanity, and to grant me equal rights would infringe on others rights of privacy and association. Legislation in the name of defending human rights for me, and those like me, is an attack from the viewpoint of His Holiness. Not for anything we’ve done, but for what we are.

No, Zoe. You must not think that way because it will only cause you more hurt. The Catholic Churchs’ position has not changed since Gretta1 clarified canon law as it pertains to your circumstances and, one must give allowance that the Church will treat each person on the merit of circumstances as it is presented to Her. The Church, when approached, treats everyone foremost as a person, a Catholic next. Then, the Church will give Her direction as to how each problem is resolved. The Church cannot give a general directive where circumstances differ because it opens to opportunities for error.

Santi2 - if only all in the Catholic Hierarchy were like you. We may disagree, but at least you don’t call me a threat to Humanity, and wish me to be persecuted.

Oh, but I am only one of many, Zoe!!! There are 1.4-6 billion of us, although I must admit that there are a few of us who can be short with patience and tentative with compassion. Perhaps, because compassion is misconstrued as akin to compromising a deeply-held faith. Occasionally, I am one of the confused few Then, like some of those few, one hastens to find the roots of one’s Catholic faith to get back on track and re-acquaint oneself with compassion all over again. So, pray for us in order that even with our differences we can all manage to find a charitable way to communicate when we defend and explain our Catholic faith.

 

[Santi2]

Originally posted by Zoe Brain]I was born in the UK. Because of the vagaries of UK Law, I’m considered male there, as I’m Intersexed. Had I been Transsexual, I’d be considered Female. As regards GLBT groups in the UK - their lobbying has resulted in laws that have been a disaster for Intersexed people, overturning far more human (if imperfect) case law. The UK Gender Recognition Act has been a catastrophe for us.

Excepting religious exemptions, what is the negative impact of the GRA ? I thought everyone in the secular community went away happy with that particular legislation. Here’s a link on the current Gender Recognition Act 2004: opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040007_en_1

pfc.org.uk/node/1468

nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/Pensions/wpqa.pdf

In the UK, the Catholic Church would condemn any attempt by me to marry a man as being a same-sex marriage, but might perhaps allow me to marry another woman - I think not though, as I’m sterile, and that appears to be an impediment. In Australia, my other country of citizenship, the Catholic Church would condemn any attempt by me to marry another woman as being a same-sex marriage, but might perhaps allow me to marry another man - but I’ve been sterile there since at least age 20, due to surgery performed without my informed consent. Does the Church allow women who have had involuntary hysterectomies to marry? I’m not sure.

The impediment of impotence must be read in the context of canon law on antecedent and perpetual impotence where it states "Without prejudice to the provisions of Can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage (Can. 1084 §3). Can. 1098 reads: “A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life”.

In the USA, it would depend on whether they considered my UK passport - based on biological reality - or my UK birth certificate - based on appearance at birth - as definitive. In theory, I could marry one of each, and not be considered a bigamist except in Massachussets and other jurisdictions that allow same-sex marriage. Because one or the other (if not both) marriages would be considered a nullity.

I would presume that the US will recognise documentation as UK issues in consideration of current legislation.

 

[Santi2]

BTW, thanks Santi2, for finding this document. It helps to clarify the worries of the bishops, at least for me.

You’re welcome and glad to have helped.

 

[crazzeto]

Churches are exempt from this law, it doesn’t apply to them.

And schools? Hospitals? Charitable orginizations which employ staff? There’s more to the Catholic Church than just the Churches, to force the church to do something so contrary to the cosntant teaching of the faith in any of these settings would be a scandal.

It’s illegal for a 10 yearold to sign any contract, because they are not adult. There is no such thing as a legal contract with a minor.

Nice way to avoid the basic point, the Church can’t use contracts to circomvent this law. If passed it would be a violoation of religious freedom.

 

[crazzeto]

You mean … that contrary to the 14th Amendment, not everyone is being treated equally? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

This shows your ignorance, the 14th amendment in no way addresses this issue what so ever. Rather, you are doing what many others try to do and just grab at anything to sort of sounds like it’s all about equality and misapply it to fit your agenda.

Let’s not mention Catholic Priests.

Lets mention them since you seem to want to, the vast majority are terrific. Those who have errored have been or are in the process of being diciplined. Of course since I assume you agree with me that the behaviour of some of these priests would be considered illegal in any context, it is really neither here nor there. Your suggestion sir is truely dispicable.

It’s only a small minority who engage in orgiastic behaviour and child rape, less than one in 10. Or did you have another group in mind? After all, Baptist pastors are just as bad, by all accounts.

Now enough of the points-scoring.

Again, this information is off of your own original topic and was meant to try and press fingers in old wounds. Poor form.

Yes, allowing gays to be employed will have the effect of not persecuting them as much. This can reasonably be seen as no longer discouraging (as much) homosexual behaviour. It’s no great stretch to see this as actually encouraging behaviour that the Church finds immoral.

They should say so, honestly. That their argument is based on religion.

And in what way does this invalidate the argument? It’s based upon the natural law which is known to all men. The founding fathers of this nation had aboslutly no intention what so ever to suppress religion as you seem to wish here.

That discrimination contrary to the 14th amendment exists,

Again, you show your ignorance of constiutional law.

and that they think that the constitution is wrong in this area,

No, unlike you they understand it doesn’t apply to this situation. If it did, there wouldn’t be a need for this law in the first place.

and should be overturned. That while other cults and sects don’t think homosexuality should be against the law, they do.

The Church is being dishonest, though. This isn’t about “religious freedom”, quite the contrary. It’s about imposing ones religious beliefs on others who don’t hold them. We’ve seen that in the comments.

Yet another bogus argument, this is about the freedom of the Church to choose not to imploy certain individuals who do not live a life in keeping with the clear teachings of Christ.

The extent to which people lie or distort the law to say that it protects orgiastic behaviour and other such bizarre fantasies shows this. The Church knows that it can’t win this by overtly saying “We believe X, and so we wish to encodify this in law, just because of our belief” - which is honest - because they know that won’t play well with the largely non-Catholic electorate.

They have to argue on secular grounds in order to win. And to do that, they have to lie. Just as they have lied about the extent of Pedophilia in the Church. They have a track record of lying.

Now they’re coming clean about that, something other religious sects and cults have yet to do. Rather than being excoriated for admitting the problem, they should be praised to the stars for doing something very difficult, admitting the Church’s shame in public. I still have hope for them, as they really are far better than most of those who are criticising them. They’re no longer being hypocrites, while others remain so.

I just wish they’d come clean on this one too. I could respect that. What I can’t respect is the doubletalk, the distortion and mendacity they engage in because “the ends justify the means”.

The only other area that deeply saddens me is that they believe that Intersexed and Trans people should be persecuted, because the existence of these medical conditions causes problems for their theology. In my humble opinion, as someone who is Intersexed, this is morally bankrupt, and completely against Christian principles. Quite in keeping with some of the errors the Church has fallen into in the past though. Errors they have long since corrected, unlike some cults and sects. I hope they outgrow it soon, they usually do, unlike their competitors.

It’s because there is so much good in the Catholic faith that I care, you see. Others, I could wipe the dust off my shoes. But there’s hope for you, I can’t just walk away.

 

[portarica]

The answer is, it does do so.

So why are those who condoned abuse and engaged in subterfuge still in their positions of employment?

Peace

 

[WatchingMedia]

QUOTE=Zoe Brain;6680417]The following is the text of a letter sent to members of Congress on May 19, from the USCCB, on the topic of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) and, in relation to that, same-sex marriage.

Part I

Title does not relate to Bishops letter.
Bishops are absolutely correct in letter, regarding teachings of Church. It must be supported by all Catholics. “Religous Freedom” as well as respecting persons is at stake.

(Note the reference to the “CCC” (“Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in US in March 2000)

 

[aspawloski4th]

Nice way to avoid the basic point, the Church can’t use contracts to circomvent this law. If passed it would be a violoation of religious freedom.

Also an awesome way to show that you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to American law.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I must admit that there are a few of us who can be short with patience and tentative with compassion.

Whereas I of course have shown nothing but patience and complete willingness to give every benefit of the doubt, as my posts have shown.

Er.

(snort) Perhaps not.

I think it’s called being human, Santi. Fallible. Doing our best, but sometimes not being all we should be, or we’d like to be. Fortunately, we get forgiven for it.

Hugs, Zoe

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Excepting religious exemptions, what is the negative impact of the GRA ? I thought everyone in the secular community went away happy with that particular legislation. Here’s a link on the current Gender Recognition Act 2004: opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040007_en_1

Not as such. The voice of Intersexed people was drowned out in the popular acclaim. As usual.

Take the case of Caroline Cossey, aka Tula. It was her mistreatment by the law that was a major spur towards the GRA being passed. The one that allowed transsexual women to marry in their target gender. Not just those who had surgery, like Caroline, but those who hadn’t.

Except… a recent medical examination showed that she was never entirely male after all. She’s 47XXY, not 46XX like most females, nor 46XY like most males. As such, she’s Intersexed. Intersex precludes a formal diagnosis of Transsexuality, and you need that diagnosis to be recognised.

So she, like myself, even though we have almost normal female anatomy - and were partly born with that - must remain legally male. Those born with entirely male anatomy do not though - even if they retain male genitalia.

Caroline has Klinefelter syndrome. Sophia Seidelberg, of Organisation Intersex International, has 5ARD syndrome. I have IPSR syndrome, I’m a protandrous pseudohermaphrodite. We were all born in the UK, are all biologically female, but legally male in the UK - and can’t change that. The GRA overturned all the previous case law that would have dealt with the sutuation adequately.

The impediment of impotence must be read in the context of canon law on antecedent and perpetual impotence.

Lack of a male member in the normal sense would, I think, be seen as an impediment. Delicacy forbids me from going further, I hope you understand. I had the ambiguous mess reconstructed to an approximately normal female appearance and functionality in 2006, anyway.

To see the kind of thing I’m talking about here, for while IPSR is ridiculously rare, 47XXY is 1 in 500, see aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/picture-gallery.html (NSFW)

This URL has pictures of:
46XY Plus AIS 2-3: Sex Identity Male
46XX Plus CAH : Sex Identity Male
The Author: Sex Identity Female
46XX Homo Neanderthalis (reconstruction from skeletal remains)

It’s possible I have more than the usual 4% H.Neanderthal DNA than most people of European ancestry, and this might explain some of the peculiar genetic anomalies. I postulated this back in January, and it was gratifying to see the new discoveries in April that supported my conjecture. But I digress.

I would presume that the US will recognise documentation as UK issues in consideration of current legislation.

Ah, but which UK documentation? My UK passport - which says “F” based on actual biology, or my UK Birth Certificate saying “Boy”, which is what I looked most like at birth?
The Foreign Office and the Public Records Office have different definitions, you see. The PRO are most irate that their records have to be altered for some under the GRA - so they are less than helpful in those cases where the GRA doesn’t apply.

It’s actually worse in the USA, where each state has their own laws on the issue.

“Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”
– Littleton v Prange

It helps to have a sense of humour about this. But as you can see, it does tend to make me regard the whole kerfuffle about same-sex marriage with less than complete solemnity. If the Law, and the Church, could just decide which sex I was, pick one story and stick to it, I might feel differently.

But while they can’t, I have to treat their claims of “defending the sanctity of marriage” and same-sex relationships being “inherently disordered” as being bafflegab.

The Pope is right that my existence threatens some well-accepted (though not ex-cathedra) Dogma. In that regard, yes, I’m dangerous, and so is my son. I think His Holiness is wrong though, tragically so, if he thinks that denying us human rights will solve the Church’s Theological dilemma. Eppur si muove.

From OII Australia:

We note that Nicholas Tonti-Filippini’s statement is being read by some in the Catholic community as tacit approval of the existence of androgynous people and for birth certificates to be issued with no ‘gender.’ (We are sure he meant to say ‘sex’ however as birth certificates record sex and not gender.)

It is interesting Tonti-Filippini is quoted on intersex people, given the Catholic Church’s centuries-long persecutions of intersex people starting from an edict by Emperor Constantine that intersex newborns be sealed up in boxes and cast into rivers to die.

Most recently, intersex Catholics have reported being thrown out of the laity or as priests or nuns for being intersex. Intersex Catholics applying to take vows have reported being refused on the grounds of being intersex.

Intersex Catholics have reported mistreatment in Catholic medical institutions including one case in Sydney where the intersex person died. A subsequent police investigation was mysteriously quashed.

A member of OII Australia was refused urgent medical treatment in a public hospital run by a Catholic administrator.

We get the feeling that the Church disapproves of intersex.

 

[Santi2]

Not as such. The voice of Intersexed people was drowned out in the popular acclaim. As usual.

Take the case of Caroline Cossey, aka Tula. It was her mistreatment by the law that was a major spur towards the GRA being passed. The one that allowed transsexual women to marry in their target gender. Not just those who had surgery, like Caroline, but those who hadn’t.

Except… a recent medical examination showed that she was never entirely male after all. She’s 47XXY, not 46XX like most females, nor 46XY like most males. As such, she’s Intersexed. Intersex precludes a formal diagnosis of Transsexuality, and you need that diagnosis to be recognised.

So she, like myself, even though we have almost normal female anatomy - and were partly born with that - must remain legally male. Those born with entirely male anatomy do not though - even if they retain male genitalia.

Caroline has Klinefelter syndrome. Sophia Seidelberg, of Organisation Intersex International, has 5ARD syndrome. I have IPSR syndrome, I’m a protandrous pseudohermaphrodite. We were all born in the UK, are all biologically female, but legally male in the UK - and can’t change that. The GRA overturned all the previous case law that would have dealt with the sutuation adequately.

Lack of a male member in the normal sense would, I think, be seen as an impediment. Delicacy forbids me from going further, I hope you understand. I had the ambiguous mess reconstructed to an approximately normal female appearance and functionality in 2006, anyway.

To see the kind of thing I’m talking about here, for while IPSR is ridiculously rare, 47XXY is 1 in 500, see aebrain.blogspot.com/2010/01/picture-gallery.html (NSFW)

This URL has pictures of:
46XY Plus AIS 2-3: Sex Identity Male
46XX Plus CAH : Sex Identity Male
The Author: Sex Identity Female
46XX Homo Neanderthalis (reconstruction from skeletal remains)

It’s possible I have more than the usual 4% H.Neanderthal DNA than most people of European ancestry, and this might explain some of the peculiar genetic anomalies. I postulated this back in January, and it was gratifying to see the new discoveries in April that supported my conjecture. But I digress.

Thanks for the background info and it surprises me that there was no stronger representation made on behalf of those who share your concerns when legislation was amended to be inclusive and cohesive with rights for all. That being the case, the reality is that equality currently exists albeit with religious exemptions for the obvious stated reasons. And, while that exemption may be the case with the Catholic Church, the Bishops’ Conference remain progressive with pastoral care of transexuals (I must apologise if I am wrongly referring to intersexed individuals as within same category, but only because one lacks further understanding in the matter). It might help if I referred you to the “Work Review of the Bishops’ Conference on Equality, Religious Freedom and Social Cohesion”. Pages 14, 45 and onwards might be offer some assistance towards understanding the Church’s position. catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-Church/legislation_and_public_policy

Ah, but which UK documentation? My UK passport - which says “F” based on actual biology, or my UK Birth Certificate saying “Boy”, which is what I looked most like at birth?
The Foreign Office and the Public Records Office have different definitions, you see. The PRO are most irate that their records have to be altered for some under the GRA - so they are less than helpful in those cases where the GRA doesn’t apply.

It’s actually worse in the USA, where each state has their own laws on the issue.

As I understand, if you applied for a change in your birth certificate, which current legislation allows, you can apply for a British passport on the basis of the changed certificate. The US will recognise your status as your document presents.

 

[Santi2]

It helps to have a sense of humour about this. But as you can see, it does tend to make me regard the whole kerfuffle about same-sex marriage with less than complete solemnity. If the Law, and the Church, could just decide which sex I was, pick one story and stick to it, I might feel differently.

The British peculiarity to treat hardship with some sense of humour does offer plenty of ease, Zoe. But, when the sense of humour does not come easily, prayers help plenty as well.

But while they can’t, I have to treat their claims of “defending the sanctity of marriage” and same-sex relationships being “inherently disordered” as being bafflegab.

The Pope is right that my existence threatens some well-accepted (though not ex-cathedra) Dogma. In that regard, yes, I’m dangerous, and so is my son. I think His Holiness is wrong though, tragically so, if he thinks that denying us human rights will solve the Church’s Theological dilemma. Eppur si muove.

From OII Australia:

During the Holy Father’s visit to Malta, he was asked by one of the abused victims why the errant priest subjected him to abuse. The Holy Father replied: “I do not know” but, was deeply remorseful that it had happened. The same position applies here as far as the Catholic Church, the Holy Father and the Bishops are concerned i.e. lack of present scientific knowledge towards circumstances like yours. And, in its absence, the Catholic Church remains steadfast in Her compassion and pastoral care, which you MUST believe to be the reality to help dispel the notion that She finds you dangerous and undeserving of human rights. She does not. And, the Church doors remain open if you want to visit.

Perhaps, one day, the Catholic Church and your concerns will follow that of Copernicus and Galileo’s as it is clearly in the realm of science more than it is within theology. However, as it was then, we can only abide by God’s time table. In the meantime, one prays that the secular sense of equality in Australia allows for the protection of your rights towards temporal matters, in the same way that British legislation allows for common good.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

As I understand, if you applied for a change in your birth certificate, which current legislation allows, you can apply for a British passport on the basis of the changed certificate. The US will recognise your status as your document presents.

I already have a UK passport saying ‘F’, despite the male Birth Certificate.

I cannot apply for a change of BC under the GRA, as I’m Intersexed, not Transsexual.

 

[Santi2]

I already have a UK passport saying ‘F’, despite the male Birth Certificate.

I cannot apply for a change of BC under the GRA, as I’m Intersexed, not Transsexual.

I do not know if you have surgically transitioned because it seems to be the case that there is recourse for a change of BC for the intersexed in that way. It might help to e-mail the GR Panel to make further enquiries in that regard. grp.gov.uk/

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The British peculiarity to treat hardship with some sense of humour does offer plenty of ease, Zoe. But, when the sense of humour does not come easily, prayers help plenty as well.

And knowing there are people of goodwill out there, who show love and compassion and charity helps even more. Even when we may differ, as reasonable people can.

The same position applies here as far as the Catholic Church, the Holy Father and the Bishops are concerned i.e. lack of present scientific knowledge towards circumstances like yours. And, in its absence, the Catholic Church remains steadfast in Her compassion and pastoral care, which you MUST believe to be the reality to help dispel the notion that She finds you dangerous and undeserving of human rights. She does not. And, the Church doors remain open if you want to visit.

Not just visit. When my son was Baptised, I made a vow to see him brought up in the Catholic faith. I take such vows seriously.

It’s a bit of a challenge though when he asks me why we’re treated this way. You really, really, really aren’t making my task any easier, you know! Trying to explain why we have to go to the Woden Valley Hospital, rather than the Calvary one (much closer) in an emergency, for example.

Repeated attempts by OII to get the Vatican to clarify or explain His Holiness’ words have failed. We have had form letters though quoting the Magisterium about Homosexuality being Objectively Disordered. And stating in explanation that it is objectively disordered not in and of itself, but because it confuses the natural and inviolable divinely-ordained boundary between Male and Female. And that anything that does that is a danger to Humanity.

Perhaps, one day, the Catholic Church and your concerns will follow that of Copernicus and Galileo’s as it is clearly in the realm of science more than it is within theology. However, as it was then, we can only abide by God’s time table.

The Mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small, I know. The Catholic Church has an excellent history of getting things right in the end, far better than any other denomination. They just might take a while doing it.

Which wouldn’t be so bad, if in the meantime, they weren’t expressing the view that we should be persecuted by secular law. As the US Catholic Bishops have said in their letter, that preventing us from being arbitrarily fired would violate a “right of privacy”.

By the way - the UK Equality Act doesn’t apply to us either. My surgery was legally genital reconstruction, not sex reassignment as the Act requires. And case law is clear, Sex means male or female, it doesn’t include Intersex.

In the meantime, one prays that the secular sense of equality in Australia allows for the protection of your rights towards temporal matters, in the same way that British legislation allows for common good.

Actually… it took a 20 month legal battle, but I have things sorted out here. Which normally would mean I could get my UK BC changed, on the grounds of being recognised in my country of residence. BUT… while every Australian State and Territory is on the list of recognised jurisdictions, Australia itself is not. So I can get my UK Birth Certificate changed if and only if I managed to be born in both a state or territory of Australia, and the UK, at the same time.

Tricky, that.

Anyway, according to the Catholic Church here in Canberra, I’m arguably female. According to the Catholic Church in the UK, because of my Birth Certificate, I’m unequivocally male.

So a relationship with another woman in Australia would be objectively disordered, but natural (if sinful outside marriage) in the UK. And a relationship with a man in Australia would be in accordance with Natural Law (even if sinful outside marriage) in Australia, but against it in the UK.

Pardon me for saying so - but this makes mock of the sacred bond of matrimony, and turns it into a farce.

Did I mention that I’m married? To another woman. Not just a chaste relationship - it always was - but a celibate one now. Our vows didn’t include any exceptions in the bit about “In sickness and in health”, what medical conditions applied and what didn’t. In law, we cannot divorce, as the relationship has not irretrievably broken down. We still love each other. Too bad neither of us is lesbian.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I do not know if you have surgically transitioned because it seems to be the case that there is recourse for a change of BC for the intersexed in that way.

'Fraid not. The legislation is quite clear - surgical status is immaterial.

It might help to e-mail the GR Panel to make further enquiries in that regard. grp.gov.uk/

chuckle I have correspondence going back over nearly five years… as have other expatriates.

The Gender Recognition Act

(1) In the case of an application under section 1(1)(a), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied that the applicant—

(a) has or has had gender dysphoria,

(b) has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made,

(c) intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death, and

(d) complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.

(2) In the case of an application under section 1(1)(b), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied—

(a) that the country or territory under the law of which the applicant has changed gender is an approved country or territory, and

(b) that the applicant complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.

(3) The Panel must reject an application under section 1(1) if not required by subsection (1) or (2) to grant it.

(4) In this Act “approved country or territory” means a country or territory prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
…
(1) An application under section 1(1)(a) must include either—

(a) a report made by a registered medical practitioner practising in the field of gender dysphoria and a report made by another registered medical practitioner (who may, but need not, practise in that field), or

(b) a report made by a chartered psychologist practising in that field and a report made by a registered medical practitioner (who may, but need not, practise in that field).

**(2) But subsection (1) is not complied with unless a report required by that subsection and made by—

(a) a registered medical practitioner, or

(b) a chartered psychologist,

practising in the field of gender dysphoria includes details of the diagnosis of the applicant’s gender dysphoria.**

(3) And subsection (1) is not complied with in a case where—

(a) the applicant has undergone or is undergoing treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics, or

(b) treatment for that purpose has been prescribed or planned for the applicant,

unless at least one of the reports required by that subsection includes details of it.

(4) An application under section 1(1)(a) must also include a statutory declaration by the applicant that the applicant meets the conditions in section 2(1)(b) and (c).

(5) An application under section 1(1)(b) must include evidence that the applicant has changed gender under the law of an approved country or territory.

(6) Any application under section 1(1) must include—

(a) a statutory declaration as to whether or not the applicant is married,

(b) any other information or evidence required by an order made by the Secretary of State, and

(c) any other information or evidence which the Panel which is to determine the application may require,

and may include any other information or evidence which the applicant wishes to include.

(7) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (6)(b) without consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.

(8) If the Panel which is to determine the application requires information or evidence under subsection (6)(c) it must give reasons for doing so.

So I’d need a specialist (registered (and licensed since the beginning of 2010) by the UK GMC to testify that I have, or had, suffered from Gender Dysphoria.

In practice, this would mean living in the UK for at least a year, possibly several, while that diagnosis was made. No specialist outside the UK meets the criteria any more.

Now as to the diagnosis - this must be made in accordance with the ICD-10, the World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases manual version 10.

Transsexualism (F64.0) has three criteria:

1. The desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment
2. The transsexual identity has been present persistently for at least two years
3. The disorder is not a symptom of another mental disorder or a chromosomal abnormality

As I’m medically and biologically Female, no medical practitioner could state that I wished to live as a man. I did for 47 years, because I looked like one, and hated every millisecond of it. Furthermore, I have chromosomal abnormalities that caused my syndrome.

So… no diagnosis for me. I’ve already stated that I can’t qualify under section (4) as although every state and territory is “on the list”, the Commonwealth of Australia itself is not.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Yes, in order to just have the benefits of human rights that others take for granted, we have of necessity had to gain expertise in genetics, urology, international law, and now it seems theology as well. Oh, and politics of course.

Fortunately… the same chromosomal abnormality that leads to transsexuality and some intersex conditions gives us unusual neuro-anatomy. A ridiculous number of us are neurosurgeons, rocket scientists, computer scientists, cardiologists, lawyers… not just because of the average 30 pt IQ increase, but because we are able to think in both traditionally female (intuitive, parallel) and male (logical, linear) thought modes.

e.g. just in the field of computing…

Martine Rothblatt (Inventor of satellite radio)

Audrey Tang (Lead Perl designer, named one of the top 10 computer scientists in Taiwan)

Lynn Conway (Co-inventor of the modern microchip design process)

Danielle Berry (Designed video games M.U.L.E. and The Seven Cities of Gold)

Mary Ann Horton (Usenet admin during the 1980s, and leader of the original “backbone cabal”)

Megan Wallent (Microsoft executive, head of the Internet Explorer division of Windows)

Kate_Craig-Wood (CEO and founder of Memset, voted best web host in the UK)

Sophie Wilson (Designer of the Acorn micro-computer)

Rebecca Heineman (Video game programmer at Microsoft)
Then there’sDeirdre McCloskey (Award-winning economics professor at the University of Chicago)

Rachael Padman (Physicist at Cambridge University)

Stephanie Langhoff (Chief scientist at NASA Ames Research Center)

Joan Roughgarden (Professor of Biology at Stanford)

Amanda Simpson (Senior technical advisor to Bureau of Industry and Security, Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon)

More details on Amanda Simpson:

Simpson has more than 30 years of experience in the aerospace and defense industry, most recently serving as Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona.
...
Simpson also holds degrees in physics, engineering and business administration along with an extensive flight background. She is a certified flight instructor and test pilot with 20 years of experience.

In 2004, the YWCA recognized her as one of their “Women on the Move,” and in the same year, she won the Democratic nomination to the Arizona House of Representatives. In 2005, she was given the Arizona Human Rights Foundation Individual Award.

I’m second-rate compared to some. I haven’t been the first woman to parachute over Mt Everest, neither have I been a test pilot for advanced aircraft. I’ve won no Human Rights awards.

Though I will be giving a paper at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2010 in Oregon next month, and another at the Artificial Life XII Conference in Denmark the month after, detailing my PhD research.

My co-author, and good friend, is a Transsexual man with a minor Intersex condition ( He’s 90% 46XX, 10% 46XY, so looked female at birth)

It looks like our work may reduce one of the costs of finding new drugs by 99.6%. Saving drug companies billions, and saving tens of millions of lives, perhaps more.

My work on Emergency Logistics modelling has already helped save perhaps a quarter of a million people in Aceh, and recently, Haiti.

I think… I’ve earned my place on the planet. Others differ on that. Some would like to see me in the gutter, where my kind belong. Others see my existence as a threat to their beliefs, so see legislation that would give us some of the human rights they have as an attack.

I fight dirty. I don’t rant and rave, nor engage in florid rhetoric. I show people the facts, give them the information… and let their consciences do the rest.