Does what we know about transgender people throw a wrench at Catholic teaching on sex and marriage?

[Stephanie_Pauls]

Stephanie, I didn’t ask for justification of the course. I asked for the name of your employer because I was very surprised that a company would invest a large amount of capital (as seen in loss of employee productivity) for this issue. I am getting the sense that this is a phantom course or a course you would desire to see take place but that has never taken place.

First off Im not employed anymore, Im disabled. Second we are not talk hume amounts of capital.

 

[CaliLobo]

Stephanie, I didn’t ask for justification of the course. I asked for the name of your employer because I was very surprised that a company would invest a large amount of capital (as seen in loss of employee productivity) for this issue. I am getting the sense that this is a phantom course or a course you would desire to see take place but that has never taken place.

At the risk of identifying myself and misrepresenting my work, I’m not comfortable disclosing in the open. But let’s say it has to do with constitutional rights…

 

[CopticChristian]

At the risk of identifying myself and misrepresenting my work, I’m not comfortable disclosing in the open. But let’s say it has to do with constitutional rights…

Cali,

Consitutional rights of what?

 

[St_Francis]

cali,

consitutional rights of what?

aclu?

 

[St_Francis]

aclu?

I did capitalize those!!! ACLU

 

[CaliLobo]

Francis,

The Coptic voice does not stand alone objecting the the DSM…

and

It is important to cause others to understand that there is a Rermation of Thinking that has more basis in reality than the Fundamentalist point of veiw of the APA…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=769113

The Catholic Medical Association
The Catholic Psychoanalytical Association
The Catholic Social Workers Association
The American College of Pediatrics

are all voice that join with those 3,810 dissenting voices that said the DSM should have Homosexuality remain that join with my voice and yours…

They may start listening, as we keep speaking…

The reality is that there is no bona fide concrete, pathologic, serial study showing that the brains of someone that wishes, desires, believes, wants to be other than the sex they appear to be coincides with other than the sex of the brain that is identical with their genitals…until then it remains conjecture and whatever you want to believe remains only a belief.

5854 to 3810, in politics, would be a landslide, an arse-whooping.

I still believe that for you to conclude that there’s nothing legitimately scientific about the phenomenon of transgender people, that you are boldly or haphazardly rejecting the majority of academia around the world. Just look up “transgender scientific journals” on Google…

You and St Francis say that putting one’s emotions above one’s external biology is bad philosophy. But isn’t that the point, that one’s gender isn’t all about one’s external biology?

Why do you discredit social sciences and humanities??

 

[CaliLobo]

The nature of those involved is what makes a [heterosexual] marriage a marriage. The fact that in certain individual cases one or the other spouse is infertile does not change the *nature *of those involved.

Sounds like semantics to me.
St Francis:

Why is it a cultural handicap to have children? Because our culture is inimical to children. I met a woman in her 80s who had had 8 children who said she guessed “she shouldn’t have had them all…” but why not? Her (now middle-aged) children are wonderful-- why should she feel guilty for giving 8 wonderful people to the world?

And why is it an economic handicap to have children? Possibly because the government does so much for the elderly that one’s children don’t have to do much?

There are many couples who choose not to have children, and it’s their right to make that choice. It interferes with lifestyle, changes the woman’s body, increases likelihood of family drama and dysfunction, etc. Some people just don’t like children and don’t feel motherly.
St Francis:

It has nothing to do with a fear of extinction but of a deliberate reduction of the act of conjugal relations.

The Chirch not hostage to its thinking on sexual activity. Those who are held hostage to an idea of sexual activity are those which hold the contraceptive idea of sex as a form of pleasure: those “addicted” to sex, to pornography, etc.

And the Biblical basis for this is…?
St Francis:

You don’t think that surgery to have those body parts removed is at all dangerous? There is the danger inherent in surgery itself, there is the unnecessary removal of body parts, there is the hormonal disruption…

Surgical techniques can be improved to be made safer.

Do you know that there are people who believe they have no legs, and they are horrified by those lumps of flesh they see there? They too want to have surgery to align their actual bodies with their images of their bodies.

It is not a prejudice to think these people have a problem, is it?

In this case, civil rights are not at issue.

The benefits accruing to marriage have been given *because *the nature of marriage is a benefit to society. SS"M" does not contribute to society in this way by their very nature.

You underestimate the ability of same-sex couples to find genuine, stable love, raise children, and hold prominent positions in society.

Moreover, there are great damages to people, esp men, who are homosexually active. Is it a loving thing to do to encourage people to engage in damaging behavior? Would it not be more loving to discourage the behavior and support those so inclined in avoiding this damaging behavior?

What is the great damage? What is so damaging? The gays I know are doing just fine. I admire their strength in the face of discrimination from government and the Catholic Church. Maybe a change in government and the Church will ease their psychological pain.

As has been pointed out, this “science” is not based on actual scientific ways of looking at things but is heavily biased.

True science is authoritative in its realm.

That it starts out with a preconceived notion. Coptic rejects the change because the change is not based on anything scientific but on a change in social perception. It is also based on bad philosophy.

Why heavily biased? Why is it not “truly” scientific?

 

[CopticChristian]

5854 to 3810, in politics, would be a landslide, an arse-whooping.

I still believe that for you to conclude that there’s nothing legitimately scientific about the phenomenon of transgender people, that you are boldly or haphazardly rejecting the majority of academia around the world. Just look up “transgender scientific journals” on Google…

You and St Francis say that putting one’s emotions above one’s external biology is bad philosophy. But isn’t that the point, that one’s gender isn’t all about one’s external biology?

Why do you discredit social sciences and humanities??

Lobo,

In medical school we learn to sift data…Google is not part of medical training…

Landslide voting true…does not equate to science…let’s vote Cancer out of the Pathology books…

You don’t understand, dissent is dissent…voting does not change the dissenter…they continue to dissent and if you have not heard NARTH has a bunch of those dissenters supporting their point of view…

 

[CopticChristian]

Sounds like semantics to me.

There are many couples who choose not to have children, and it’s their right to make that choice. It interferes with lifestyle, changes the woman’s body, increases likelihood of family drama and dysfunction, etc. Some people just don’t like children and don’t feel motherly.

And the Biblical basis for this is…?

Surgical techniques can be improved to be made safer.

In this case, civil rights are not at issue.

You underestimate the ability of same-sex couples to find genuine, stable love, raise children, and hold prominent positions in society.

What is the great damage? What is so damaging? The gays I know are doing just fine. I admire their strength in the face of discrimination from government and the Catholic Church. Maybe a change in government and the Church will ease their psychological pain.

Why heavily biased? Why is it not “truly” scientific?

Lobo,

Jerry McGuire…Show me the Money

Science…Show me the Science…ain’t there…show meopcorn:

 

[St_Francis]

Sounds like semantics to me.

How do you figure that? Where’s the error? Do you honestly believe that there is no difference between men and women, that they are completely interchangeable? Do you honestly believe that homosexual relations, which have no possibility of creating children are *the same as *heterosexual relations, which do have the potential of creating new life?

[quite]There are many couples who choose not to have children, and it’s their right to make that choice. It interferes with lifestyle, changes the woman’s body, increases likelihood of family drama and dysfunction, etc. Some people just don’t like children and don’t feel motherly.
This is a repky to me question about why you call it a “cultural handicap” to have children? Because some people chose not to have children makes it a cultural handicap to have children?

Apparently you do not know that the Catholic view of marriage includes the intention to not exclude children. If the couple *plans *to exclude children, that is grounds for annulment.

And the Biblical basis for this is…?

Even the Protestants don’t believe that the Bible is the *only *source of knowledge! But on CAF alone there are enough stories of addiction to porn, and there is an entire 12-Step program for “sex addicts.” Do you need more evidence of me contention?

Surgical techniques can be improved to be made safer.

There will always be dangers associated with surgery, and any future improvements are only current figments of the imagination. The reality is that not only are there health problems associated with the change, but for some, it turns out to be the wrong solution to their problem.

In this case, civil rights are not at issue.

How do US civil rights have anything to do with this?

You underestimate the ability of same-sex couples to find genuine, stable love, raise children, and hold prominent positions in society.

Well, first of all, I think you are overestimating or have fallen for the propaganda that active homosexuals often form stable relationships. In fact, the average for long-term homosexual male relationships is 18 months, and the vast majority of homosexual male relationships involve a lot of other partners.

And while it may be true that some very few homosexual couples might be able to provide an adequate environment for a child, the *nature of their relationship is such *that they cannot create a child nor can they provide appropriate role-modeling of both sexes and the relation between the sexes, and there is just no getting around that.

What is the great damage? What is so damaging? The gays I know are doing just fine.

It was the physical damages I was talking about, the STDs, the cancers, etc. Those you know may be fine now, or may not know they are not all right, bit there are a lot of serious health problems associated with male homosexual activity.

Why heavily biased? Why is it not “truly” scientific?

Because they start off with the preconceived notion that there is validity to the feelings of those who believe they are the “wrong” sex.

It’s as if the police investigated a crime with the idea that butler had done it: they would discard evidence pointing to someone else’s guilt, and they would exaggerate evidence that the butler did it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sounds like semantics to me.

There are many couples who choose not to have children, and it’s their right to make that choice. It interferes with lifestyle, changes the woman’s body, increases likelihood of family drama and dysfunction, etc. Some people just don’t like children and don’t feel motherly.

And the Biblical basis for this is…?

In this case, civil rights are not at issue.

You underestimate the ability of same-sex couples to find genuine, stable love, raise children, and hold prominent positions in society.

Why heavily biased? Why is it not “truly” scientific?

Lobo,

Surgical techniques can be improved to be made safer.

Here you show a genuine lack of understanding. The risk of Surgery has less to do with the techniques than the time under anesthesia. The anesthesia risk is determined by what is called the ASA…and that varies from I-IV…V=dead…the higher the number the higher the risk…Your lack of understanding of what a knife in the operating room does and the time it takes has less to do with techniques and safety.

What is the great damage? What is so damaging? The gays I know are doing just fine. I admire their strength in the face of discrimination from government and the Catholic Church. Maybe a change in government and the Church will ease their psychological pain.

What is it you find necessary in your life that you come to a Catholic Forum, knowing that any one Catholic cannot and never will change Church teaching, suggesting you know and understand Psychologic pain, arguing for what may be 1-2% of a population that form most on this thread see as acting unnatural, acting sinful, and wanting some sort of understanding…Have you thought of walking on glass barefoot, wearing hair shirts, sleeping with sand…what is your ultimate goal on this CAF…?

 

[aux1]

You really don’t want to use that analogy… the problem the Church had with Galileo was that he was teaching as true something which had not yet been proven. Because the issue touched upon the Faith in terms of what had been written in Scripture, his writing about heliocentrism as physically true was taken very seriously, and had been previously addressed. Note that the originator of the theory, Brother Copernicus, was able to navigate this without incurring any censure from the Church.

It’s a very good analogy actually

What you are ignoring is that Galileo has been sentenced twice: in 1616 and in 1633. While the arguments you’re quoting made some sense in 1616, they definitely did not hold in 1633. That’s because of Johannes Kepler, who has published his two first laws of planetary motion in 1609 and the third one in 1619. 14 years between 1619 and 1633 was enough to gather extra observational evidence in favor Kepler. Now, the reason Kepler is important here is that his laws cannot hold in geocentric universe. Yet, the 1633 sentence against Gallileo reads:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

and

And in order that a doctrine so pernicious might be wholly rooted out and not insinuate itself further to the grave prejudice of Catholic truth, a decree was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index prohibiting the books which treat of this doctrine and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.

Now, I challenge you to find me a Church document which reverts classification of heliocentrism as a formal heresy. It does not exist. Instead, books advocating heliocentrism were quietly removed from Index between 1758 and 1835. But no formal statement until the 1992 apology.

(As for Brother Copernicus, he had no problems, because (a) he worked in Poland, far away from the Holy See; (b) his work was published after his death; and (c) he published before the couter-reformation movement gained any force, while Gallileo published at the height of the counter-reformation.)

So, if we applied to heliocentrism the same criteria this board routinely applies to, say, Humane Vitae, we’d have to conclude that everyone who believed in the motion of the Earth before 1992 would have to suffer a latae excommunication for heresy. Yes, the laity held a widespread belief that the Earth indeed moves, but the Church’s 2000 years of tradition were firmly on the side of geocentrism. Likewise, today the laity largely holds beliefs on contraception and other sexual matters which are in conflict with 2000 years of tradition.

So, back to the subject.

The matter at hand is whether transsexualism exists and is an inborn disorder with neurological basis. Now, such proposition, as you have said yourself, contradicts the scripture.

But, we have slowly mounting evidence that it’s indeed the case. Of course, your side is free to disregard this evidence as long as it you see fit… But you’re just doing a repeat of the Gallileo affair

 

[aux1]

Why even ask such a thing? The truth of the matter does not change depending on who sees what.

Basically, you are saying one simply makes up there sex based on subjective desires. That is quite absurd.

What you are saying is that one’s social role should be defined his/her genitals.

There are historical examples of women who would cross-dress in order to fulfill social roles reserved only for men:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawojka
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillie_Hitchcock_Coit

And your Church even recognizes some of them as saints:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_the_Monk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegund_%28virgin%29
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_of_Alexandria

Oh, and we wouldn’t be probably having this conversation if it wasn’t for one trans-woman:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway

 

[Crescentinus]

The homosexualists will use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to gain converts.

 

[Peebo]

I’m by no means equipped to argue scientifically on this issue…three cases I can relate to personally…a young nephew who…from around six years old was left at home to look after a younger 3 year old sibling while his mom went out partying three or more times a week…he learned to cook…clean the house…wash clothes and do most things a mom would do…his mom used to think it was cute that he could do all those motherly things…during his teen years he became confused as to his sexuality…he had girlfriends…then decided that he wanted boyfriends…then he became a dancer at a gay club and moved in with a boyfriend…last I heard he had decided he was straight…had been married for many years…had children and was living a happy heterosexual life…another case…one of my grandaughters…she was left at home while her mom went to work…she was divorced…she was pretty much left to fend for herself from an early age…her mom had a wide range of friends she would bring home…some of who were homosexual men and women who would stay at her home from time to time…by the time she was a teenager she didn’t know what sex she was either…she had boyfriends and girlfriends…she now lives a lesbian lifestyle… a guy I worked with…52 years of age…married with kids and grandkids…decided he was gay…went through the counseling…hormone therapy etc.and had a sex change operation…after that he met a woman who was a lesbian…and decided that was what he was also…so last I knew they were living together…(still can’t figure that one out)…my point is …from just my limited obsevations much of what I saw was bought about by early childhood influences…and the latter…by someone who was bored with his life and was swept up in the “gay” trendy party going lifestyle he now leads…I’m not saying this is the case in all what is being discussed here before anyone jumps all over me…

 

[jonathan_hili]

What you are saying is that one’s social role should be defined his/her genitals.

There are historical examples of women who would cross-dress in order to fulfill social roles reserved only for men.

While the latter point is true, I’m not sure how this ties in with the discussion. Sexuality and social roles are distinct things. To mix up the two (for example, I identify with female roles in this society such as wearing dresses, playing with dolls, etc. therefore I am female) is fundamentally problematic.

One’s social role is obviously not defined by genitalia but sex is not a social role.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s a very good analogy actually

What you are ignoring is that Galileo has been sentenced twice: in 1616 and in 1633. While the arguments you’re quoting made some sense in 1616, they definitely did not hold in 1633. That’s because of Johannes Kepler, who has published his two first laws of planetary motion in 1609 and the third one in 1619. 14 years between 1619 and 1633 was enough to gather extra observational evidence in favor Kepler. Now, the reason Kepler is important here is that his laws cannot hold in geocentric universe. Yet, the 1633 sentence against Gallileo reads:

and

Now, I challenge you to find me a Church document which reverts classification of heliocentrism as a formal heresy. It does not exist. Instead, books advocating heliocentrism were quietly removed from Index between 1758 and 1835. But no formal statement until the 1992 apology.

(As for Brother Copernicus, he had no problems, because (a) he worked in Poland, far away from the Holy See; (b) his work was published after his death; and (c) he published before the couter-reformation movement gained any force, while Gallileo published at the height of the counter-reformation.)

OK, I don’t know enough about the Galileo case to be able to agree or disagree with what you are saying here; you know a lot more about this than I do.

So, *for the purposes of my comments here, *I will say that I agree with what you are saying here.

So, the first point I want to make is that, assuming I was wrong, does that mean that every post of the over 7,000 posts I have made here on any topic is wrong?

In the same way, does the [assumed] fact that some people in the Church were wrong in the Galileo case mean that the Church is wrong about any other particular thing?

No. You yourself may know that you have been wrong about something in yoir life, bit that does not make you think that you are wrong in *everything *that you have ever said, does it?

So, if we applied to heliocentrism the same criteria this board routinely applies to, say, Humane Vitae, we’d have to conclude that everyone who believed in the motion of the Earth before 1992 would have to suffer a latae excommunication for heresy. Yes, the laity held a widespread belief that the Earth indeed moves, but the Church’s 2000 years of tradition were firmly on the side of geocentrism. Likewise, today the laity largely holds beliefs on contraception and other sexual matters which are in conflict with 2000 years of tradition.

The problem is that the analogy falls down here. Well, actually, the first problem is that the topic of this thread is transexualism, so I will only say briefly that the two are in different areas (science, morality), and the nature of each statement is different (one a legal dicision and the other a papal encyclical). So, one cannot extrapolate from the one to draw a conclusion about the other.

The matter at hand is whether transsexualism exists and is an inborn disorder with neurological basis. Now, such proposition, as you have said yourself, contradicts the scripture.

I did not say that at all. In fact, I have already repudiated that idea. This is not knowledge which arises from Scirpture or revealed knowledge.

But, we have slowly mounting evidence that it’s indeed the case. Of course, your side is free to disregard this evidence as long as it you see fit… But you’re just doing a repeat of the Gallileo affair

No one is denying that there are people whose healthy physique and chromosomal information indicate one sex have the idea and feeling that they are the opposite sex.

What is at question is what to make of this. Does this indicate some “multi-genderism” that we were previously unaware of and now need to make room for? Or does it indicate that people who show signs of transsexualism other than their perceived problem that they are “the wrong sex” have a mental or physical *problem, *in which case, from the Catholic point of view, they have a cross to bear?

 

[St_Francis]

What you are saying is that one’s social role should be defined his/her genitals.

There are historical examples of women who would cross-dress in order to fulfill social roles reserved only for men:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawojka
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillie_Hitchcock_Coit

And your Church even recognizes some of them as saints:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_the_Monk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegund_%28virgin%29
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_of_Alexandria

It does not appear that the Church recognizes any of these women as saints, and you left out the one person whom the Church has recognized as a saint: St Joan of Arc.

And your point is…?

[/QUOTE]

 

[St_Francis]

What you are saying is that one’s social role should be defined his/her genitals.

Well, yes and no. On the one hand, we believe that one’s sex should be determined from one’s genitals, while recognizing that a physical problem might cause confusion in that area. On the other hand, the Church does not teach a lot about “social roles.” The Church does not have a problem with women doing many different things. Read Proverbs 31!

However, there are certain roles which only the person of the correct sex *can *fulfill. Men cannot become mothers; women cannot become fathers, either physically or mentally.

What the Church does do is *recognize *the already-existing differences between the two sexes. And there is an order to this which is imposed not only by the Church but by almost every society before and after Christ.

There are historical examples of women who would cross-dress in order to fulfill social roles reserved only for men:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawojka
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillie_Hitchcock_Coit

And your Church even recognizes some of them as saints:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_the_Monk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegund_%28virgin%29
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodora_of_Alexandria

It does not appear that the Church recognizes any of these women as saints, and you left out the one person whom the Church has recognized as a saint: St Joan of Arc.

None of these women seem to have the idea that they were not women. They simply disguised themselves as men for different reasons.

Oh, and we wouldn’t be probably having this conversation if it wasn’t for one trans-woman:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Conway

And your point is…?

 

[aux1]

While the latter point is true, I’m not sure how this ties in with the discussion. Sexuality and social roles are distinct things.

That’s very progressive of you

To mix up the two (for example, I identify with female roles in this society such as wearing dresses, playing with dolls, etc. therefore I am female) is fundamentally problematic.

Err… why?

If you identify – and perform – female roles in a society, then the society should treat you as a female… Period. In fact, that’s the very thing most transsexuals are trying to achieve.

Of course, you would not actually be a female – you would actually be an MtF transsexual – but distinction between an MtF transsexual and female should not matter outside the bedroom.