Catholic teaching on sex changes?

[Benadam]

The unusual way the Church develops it’s teaching causes alot of unnecessary grief IMO. Not that the way it develops it is at fault but that it is unusual.

It doesn’t so much discover what it teaches as announce what it has been shown and knows to be true.

It’s like this What the early Church fathers might have said. " has anyone else noticed that issues aren’t settled untill the Bishop of Rome speaks?"

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Hi Zoe Brain!

These are my thoughts on what you said:

When I talk about XX and XY I am referring to the fact that XX is normally the chromosomes that defines femaleness and XY normally defines maleness. I am talking about what is normally seen, in the medical sense.

It is true that chromosomal aberrations do sometimes exist but they are a rarity. My guess, (though, I admit, again, I am guessing…) they constitute a very, very low percentage of the people in the world…and also a very, very low percentage of people who call themselves gay.

I believe that gay people become gay more because of the environment they lived in when they were growing up. If their family, their peers or society find being gay acceptable…there is a tendency to have more gays in the population.

Still…whether straight or gay, chromosomal aberration or not…we should all love and treat everyone with respect.

Best thing to do for us is to pray for everyone --you, me included— that God would show us His path—to enlighten us on His Truth-- so that we will all see each other in heaven in the end.

God bless!

 

[Zoe_Brain]

It is true that chromosomal aberrations do sometimes exist but they are a rarity. My guess, (though, I admit, again, I am guessing…) they constitute a very, very low percentage of the people in the world…and also a very, very low percentage of people who call themselves gay.

Just those with 47,XXY chromosomes, neither 46,XX nor 46,XY are 1 in 500 in the general population. It appears that 1 in 200 don’t match your expectation - so call it 1.5 MILLION people in the USA alone. Not exactly a tiny minority.

As regards gays - what has that got to do with the issue? You may as well have said " they constitute a very, very low percentage of the people in the world…and also a very, very low percentage of people who are left handed" or “of people who are overweight” or “of people were born on a Tuesday”.

I admit I don’t have any figures about those who identify as “gay” who are also chromosomally unusual.

I do have a question for you though: Hermaphrodites - those with two sets of genitalia - are really, really rare, and make up a really tiny percentage of Intersexed people. Dichogamous Pseudohermaphrodites - those whose genitalia changes from looking like that of one sex to look like that of the other - are almost as rare.

Can you tell me if either of these cases can be heterosexual? Can they be homosexual? If a dichogamous person is only attracted to those with the opposite genital configuration before and after the change, are they heterosexual even though their sexual orientation changes?

These are not scientific questions, they are moral and theological ones. I don’t think that they’re easy ones though.

All the very best,
Zoe (who is a dichogamous pseudohermaphrodite herself, so those questions are NOT hypotheticals to me)

 

[Ma.Eugenia]

Just those with 47,XXY chromosomes, neither 46,XX nor 46,XY are 1 in 500 in the general population. It appears that 1 in 200 don’t match your expectation - so call it 1.5 MILLION people in the USA alone. Not exactly a tiny minority.

As regards gays - what has that got to do with the issue? You may as well have said " they constitute a very, very low percentage of the people in the world…and also a very, very low percentage of people who are left handed" or “of people who are overweight” or “of people were born on a Tuesday”.

I admit I don’t have any figures about those who identify as “gay” who are also chromosomally unusual.

I do have a question for you though: Hermaphrodites - those with two sets of genitalia - are really, really rare, and make up a really tiny percentage of Intersexed people. Dichogamous Pseudohermaphrodites - those whose genitalia changes from looking like that of one sex to look like that of the other - are almost as rare.

Can you tell me if either of these cases can be heterosexual? Can they be homosexual? If a dichogamous person is only attracted to those with the opposite genital configuration before and after the change, are they heterosexual even though their sexual orientation changes?

These are not scientific questions, they are moral and theological ones. I don’t think that they’re easy ones though.

All the very best,
Zoe (who is a dichogamous pseudohermaphrodite herself, so those questions are NOT hypotheticals to me)

Hi Zoe!

What I meant when I said this:

…and also a very, very low percentage of people who call themselves gay

…was that I believe that there is a low percentage, if ever, of gays who have the XXY gene–though, this is just a guess on my part. I think that chromosomes do not play a big factor to what makes gay people who they are…but more of outside factors such as family, peer and social influences.

As to your question on hermaphroditism—truth is I am no expert, though, the field I studied in college is science-related. What I write here is usually based on how I perceive the lessons that was taught to me in school.

I am learning more about hermaphroditism and pseudohermaphrodites now that you mentioned it.

However, I believe true hermaphrodites do not exist but pseudohermaphrroditism do. My take in this is that if one is born with both female and male sex organs----wouldn’t a DNA test for chromosome XX or XY determine their true gender? —and the baby should be raised as a male or female based on that test.

I am not an expert in Church teachings on this issue…but I don’t think God ever wants anyone to be homosexual…but people become one eventually because of personal choice. I believe that personal choices can still be changed.

If we don’t agree on each other’s opinion—. let’s pray for each other instead.

God loves us and has a plan for .you, me…everyone.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

However, I believe true hermaphrodites do not exist but pseudohermaphrroditism do.

I know personally 2 “True Hermaphrodites”. The condition, while extremely rare, one in several million, is actually more common than my own :sad_yes:

Petra had genital reconstruction from male to female - but inside her, they found a mess. Including a partially reabsorbed foetus in an atrophied womb.

Had she had a vaginal opening, well, there could have been theological complications. As it was, a tragedy.

“pseudohermaphrodite”, like “hermaphrodite” is usually misused. In the sense I’m using it, it means someone who would be hermaphroditic, except they are sterile in one sex, and fertile, infertile, or sterile in the other.

My take in this is that if one is born with both female and male sex organs----wouldn’t a DNA test for chromosome XX or XY determine their true gender? —and the baby should be raised as a male or female based on that test

Since I’ve given an example of a 46,XY mother and daughter in a previous post, that would be questionable.

But in any case, the odds are pretty good that the person concerned will be 47XXY, or a 45X/46XY, 45XX/47XXY, or 46XX/46XY mosaic anyway. Which doesn’t really help.

Chromosomes are only an approximate guide anyway - else there would be no birth defects that weren’t hereditary, when most are not.

To use an analogy - the architectural blueprints may be perfect: but if shoddy materials are delivered, or substitute materials have to be used, or the plans are held upside-down… the resultant building won’t match the plans.

Finally, we know now that “gender identity” is determined by the brain, not the rest of the body. Intersexed people therefore think it would be a really, really good idea to hold off surgery until the child can tell us what sex they are! We may be able to tell this earlier in the future, with PET and fMRI scans, as well as a number of physical tests - males and female have differences in their sense of smell, for example - but not yet.

There is one good thing about this - that if you only raise the child in the wrong gender - rather than trying to surgically adjust it - it won’t do any harm. By the time the kid is 7, and often 3, the mistake will be obvious, and can easily be corrected. So Intersexed advocates recommend that the child be reared in the gender that’s our “best guess”. But to backtrack if we find out we guessed wrong, as we do about one time in three.

Prayers are always good. My thanks.

Blessings,
Zoe

 

[Bluegoat]

I know personally 2 “True Hermaphrodites”. The condition, while extremely rare, one in several million, is actually more common than my own :sad_yes:

Petra had genital reconstruction from male to female - but inside her, they found a mess. Including a partially reabsorbed foetus in an atrophied womb.

Had she had a vaginal opening, well, there could have been theological complications. As it was, a tragedy.

“pseudohermaphrodite”, like “hermaphrodite” is usually misused. In the sense I’m using it, it means someone who would be hermaphroditic, except they are sterile in one sex, and fertile, infertile, or sterile in the other.

Since I’ve given an example of a 46,XY mother and daughter in a previous post, that would be questionable.

But in any case, the odds are pretty good that the person concerned will be 47XXY, or a 45X/46XY, 45XX/47XXY, or 46XX/46XY mosaic anyway. Which doesn’t really help.

Chromosomes are only an approximate guide anyway - else there would be no birth defects that weren’t hereditary, when most are not.

To use an analogy - the architectural blueprints may be perfect: but if shoddy materials are delivered, or substitute materials have to be used, or the plans are held upside-down… the resultant building won’t match the plans.

Finally, we know now that “gender identity” is determined by the brain, not the rest of the body. Intersexed people therefore think it would be a really, really good idea to hold off surgery until the child can tell us what sex they are! We may be able to tell this earlier in the future, with PET and fMRI scans, as well as a number of physical tests - males and female have differences in their sense of smell, for example - but not yet.

There is one good thing about this - that if you only raise the child in the wrong gender - rather than trying to surgically adjust it - it won’t do any harm. By the time the kid is 7, and often 3, the mistake will be obvious, and can easily be corrected. So Intersexed advocates recommend that the child be reared in the gender that’s our “best guess”. But to backtrack if we find out we guessed wrong, as we do about one time in three.

Prayers are always good. My thanks.

Blessings,
Zoe

Yes, I’ve often wondered why it was thought to be a good idea to “decide” on the gender of such a child as a baby. Too easy to make a mistake that will cause a lot of heartache later. I think people didn’t want the kids to feel different, but it still seems shortsighted. I guess they honestly believed that nurture played the most important part in gender identity.

Now, this is something I find a bit odd. The Church, and most Christian groups, seem to indicate that there is a clear and meaningful biological difference between men and women that says something about who they are. Men are meant to be men, women women. And to my mind, the fact that there are examples where things seem confused biologically supports this strongly… So I think the fact that there are people who are transsexual strongly supports the Churches view about men and women. After all, all the other biological systems of the body which are part of what it means to be human are subject to various abnormalities. We should expect the same if gender is truly biologically based.

But often those who most strongly support the idea of biologically based specific gender identity are the ones who reject the possibility of biological differences that are outside the norm. You get the bizarre argument that God does not make mistakes - well what about people with no legs, or holes in their hearts, diabetes, schizophrenia, downs syndrome? If those kind of “mistakes” which we treat medically are possible, why not in areas relating to sexuality and gender identity?

I think people are scared because they think if it is shown that transsexuals, for instance, have a biological basis for their feeling, it will mean that homosexuals may also have a biological basis, and they have convinced themselves that that could not be the case. (Although there is good medical evidence to support that possibility.) Many people don’t have this problem because they take the view that homosexuality may well be biologically caused, but that does not mean that the Church’s view on homosexual behavior is incorrect. It is an inclination to sin like any other, say an inclination to wrath. And that seems plausible until you see the Church saying that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered”. Then one asks - is diabetes intrinsically disordered too? Must we stop diabetics from being priests? Would being a transsexual or hermaphrodite be intrinsically disordered? It doesn’t seem easy to make any kind of sense out of it.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Well said.