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

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan,

The Essentialsim that clouds thinking gets distributed into all thinking…

If Essentialism=Born that way=immutable

then the notion that there is a statistical distribution is clouded by the underlying thinking that anyone is born that way. It is an inherent prejudice in thinking that then determines subsequent thought.

If you accept Essentialism then it is logical to conclude that humans are distributed in some percentage that is concrete thinking that does not equate to reality.

One form of thinking causes the rest to be jaded by the initial form of thinking. Essentialism is an absolute and all subesquent thinking is in the form of absolutes, black or white, this or that, this percentage etc…

I’m not talking about Essentialism and immutability. What I’m talking about is deriving clarity from non-clarity. If the body and soul are a composite, then it’s unreasonable to rely on unclear or indefinite mental states as the definition of proper sex or gender over against very definite and clear physical states.

I don’t at all doubt that social upbringing can influence mental states. You state that: “If you accept Essentialism then it is logical to conclude that humans are distributed in some percentage that is concrete thinking that does not equate to reality” but this doesn’t follow. Homosexual distribution is related to mental states not to physical ones - unless, of course, you can demonstrate a homosexual gene. That’s why it seems reasonable to conclude that homosexual attraction and transgenderism are forms of disorders because physically we are not built that way (that is, a woman in a man’s body; a man with sex organs to reproduce with another man).

What I’m suggesting is that to follow this path of judging the unclear over the clear is poor philosophy and can lead to all sorts of problems.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan,

Do a search for “Dichotomous Thinking”…Essentialism is that type of thinking…it is dysfunctional.

psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201112/black-and-white-thinking-splitting-is-both-borderline-and-narciss

The Essentialist cannot fathom that Homosexuality is not born that way and with acceptance of that faulty notion it indicates that the acceptance is consistent with a thinker that may have other dichotomous thinking and that is why you get frustrated in dialogue…the insistence, it is this way or that…just chalk it off to dichotomous thinking and say thank you for that insight…

Actually, I’m quite open to homosexuality being partly genetic. We are a fallen species, with all sorts of genetic issues as a result. Therefore, if homosexuality were genetic, I’d notch it up as a genetic disorder. Why a disorder? Because again, physically, men and women aren’t constructed in a way that is conducive to homosexual actions, which should be some sort of indication.

If what you seem to be suggesting is true (and correct me if I’m wrong), Coptic Christian, you’ve got to accept an anorexic’s account of their physical state. Would you agree with this?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Do a search for “Dichotomous Thinking”…Essentialism is that type of thinking…it is dysfunctional.

Haha isn’t that interesting! I’ve read the article. So these days, people who believe in black and white (and, I guess, all sorts of dichotomous thinking, like right and wrong) are labelled “dysfunctional” but those who have inclinations clearly and demonstrably in opposition to their physicality are not?

Doesn’t this seem like just a form of “labelling” to avoid having a reasonable argument? “Oh, you just think in black-and-white terms, you’re dysfunctional, we don’t have to listen to you!”

It’s also telling that this kind of data comes from - not the average man on the street or some farmer in southern France - but the same associations that tend to be moral relativists and agnostics.

As I said, interesting.

 

[CopticChristian]

Actually, I’m quite open to homosexuality being partly genetic. We are a fallen species, with all sorts of genetic issues as a result. Therefore, if homosexuality were genetic, I’d notch it up as a genetic disorder. Why a disorder? Because again, physically, men and women aren’t constructed in a way that is conducive to homosexual actions, which should be some sort of indication.

If what you seem to be suggesting is true (and correct me if I’m wrong), Coptic Christian, you’ve got to accept an anorexic’s account of their physical state. Would you agree with this?

John,

This is a slippery slope, there is no proof for it, however imagine the gene for homosexuality was discovered and it was discovered it also caused the behavior like addiction, depression, etc…can you imagine someone somewhere trying to take these miserable children to be out of their misery before they are born.

 

[CopticChristian]

Haha isn’t that interesting! I’ve read the article. So these days, people who believe in black and white (and, I guess, all sorts of dichotomous thinking, like right and wrong) are labelled “dysfunctional” but those who have inclinations clearly and demonstrably in opposition to their physicality are not?

Doesn’t this seem like just a form of “labelling” to avoid having a reasonable argument? “Oh, you just think in black-and-white terms, you’re dysfunctional, we don’t have to listen to you!”

It’s also telling that this kind of data comes from - not the average man on the street or some farmer in southern France - but the same associations that tend to be moral relativists and agnostics.

As I said, interesting.

John,

You miss the point. Right and wrong are not dichotomous…Moral and Immoral is not dichotomous…

Essentialism is a paradigm that clouds the entire form of thought…

Your moniker says Catholic and I would assume that you would believe you must form your conscience…in that regard there is your will and God’s will a very functional dichotomy…

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

I’m not a medical doctor but I can spot a over-generalised statement when I see one! Is this a longitudinal study? I mean, how many generations and centuries has this study taken place to justify such a blanket statement?

Certainly, we can say that contemporary figures show that 2-5% identify as homosexual, but we also have to take into account changes in society over the last fifty years. Perhaps 100 years ago, less than 1% would have identified as homosexual, or more than 10%. The fact is, studies like this that purport to give a generalised account of human nature or sexuality can only give us contemporary data which is only slightly helpful.

The historical data likely will never be known. The better data from history would be what percentage of homesexuals would not try to hide it in the past, which I’d think is a tiny amount.

 

[jonathan_hili]

John,

This is a slippery slope, there is no proof for it, however imagine the gene for homosexuality was discovered and it was discovered it also caused the behavior like addiction, depression, etc…can you imagine someone somewhere trying to take these miserable children to be out of their misery before they are born.

It’s not a slippery slope argument, it’s an argument based on the principle that mental states trump physical states, or that specifically, the subjective mental state trumps the objective physical state.

I know. That’s why I think a “homosexual gene” would be bad news for the world. It would mean more abortions and genetic manipulation.

 

[jonathan_hili]

John,

You miss the point. Right and wrong are not dichotomous…Moral and Immoral is not dichotomous…

Essentialism is a paradigm that clouds the entire form of thought…

Your moniker says Catholic and I would assume that you would believe you must form your conscience…in that regard there is your will and God’s will a very functional dichotomy…

I don’t understand. If black and white are dichotomous, how are right and wrong not dichotomous, or good and evil?

Again, I’m not talking about Essentialism, I’m talking about the philosophical approach to these issues based on clear versus unclear.

 

[CaliLobo]

markeverett49:

Marriage can only involve a man and a woman. All sexual acts of same-sex couples are sterile. I don’t see anything in reason that compels one to claim that sterile acts are the equivalent of those which can produce offspring. I don’t think the rights of heterosexual fathers who wish to marry their heterosexual daughters are being violated either. The problem with ‘same-sex marriage’ is NOT that the parties may be gay (–and nothing REQUIRES same-sex couples to be gay anymore than there is a “straight” test for those applying for a conventional marriage license) but that what they enter into isn’t marriage.

No, I didn’t say one had to give birth in order to be feminine, though most females do want to give birth and it is something only females can do. Many transgender people are simply submissive and they mistake that for being female.

This argument assumes that a marriage has to be procreative to be a marriage. But why? Isn’t this more archaic thinking?

There are straight marriages in which the woman is infertile for a variety of reasons–menopause being one of them. Are they no longer valid marriages?

I’ll save the undergrad-style emotional equal rights rhetoric for later, because I want a thoughtful answer.

And though many women want children, many do not, to the point of breakup or divorce! Why? Because it’s an economic and cultural burden in today’s world to have children. Unfortunately the Catholic Church is hostage to its thinking on contraception. Catholics aren’t really fearing human extinction due to contraception, are they?

jonathan_hili:

I’m not a medical doctor but I can spot a over-generalised statement when I see one! Is this a longitudinal study? I mean, how many generations and centuries has this study taken place to justify such a blanket statement?

Certainly, we can say that contemporary figures show that 2-5% identify as homosexual, but we also have to take into account changes in society over the last fifty years. Perhaps 100 years ago, less than 1% would have identified as homosexual, or more than 10%. The fact is, studies like this that purport to give a generalised account of human nature or sexuality can only give us contemporary data which is only slightly helpful.

There have always been gays throughout human history. Do we really need figures over time just to validate contemporary figures?

Thank you for your point on post #108. Good point. But anorexia is harmful to the body. Being transgender is not.

CopticChristian:

The Essentialsim that clouds thinking gets distributed into all thinking…
If Essentialism=Born that way=immutable
then the notion that there is a statistical distribution is clouded by the underlying thinking that anyone is born that way. It is an inherent prejudice in thinking that then determines subsequent thought.

Some are born left-handed, some are born blue-eyed, some are born freckled. Am I then prejudiced to think that those attributes are normal? What’s the difference between those attributes and being born gay or trans?

Elizabeth502:

And note that throughout history, especially in the 20th century, homosexual men have often married heterosexual women for reasons of the former’s profession/public image. Sometimes they did have sexual relationships with their spouses, sometimes not. These arrangements have included all kinds of people from all kinds of fields (the performing arts, business, academics, and even government). They are/were legitimate marriages (and sometimes produced offspring). Such marriages have normally been entered into with mutual knowledge about needs, motives, and limitations of the marriage.

And this is why many people today view marriage as outdated and no longer believe in marriage, because so many have turned marriage into a big joke. Why do Catholics insist on governments keeping marriage between a man and a woman anyway? Instead of legislating morality, wouldn’t it be better to change behavior by preaching the Gospel?

pnewton:

This thread is the worst case of the false authority fallacy I have ever seen. “Science proves…” “Science says…”

The only thing I can conclude is that Catholics are fearful of modern science, because it threatens the Catholic Church. Why is science NOT authoritative to you?
**
And once again, no one is answering these questions:

1. What’s so junk science about my original post? (Besides Coptic’s OPINION that he rejects DSM IV)
2. How do you reconcile what we know about transgender people with Catholic teaching?**

 

[jonathan_hili]

There have always been gays throughout human history. Do we really need figures over time just to validate contemporary figures?

Thank you for your point on post #108. Good point. But anorexia is harmful to the body. Being transgender is not.

Hi CaliLobo, not at all. Obviously there have been homosexual people throughout human history. I’m trying to say that the figures demonstrate only contemporary information. If homosexuality is partly learned or a result of social upbringing, it is certainly possible that there are more homosexual people today because of the nature of Western society (e.g. absent parents, mainstream pornography, or whatever may be contributing causes). Does this figure you quote take account other cultures, e.g. in Asia or Africa? And then, does it take account of less-developed societies or cultures? It’s just interesting from an anthropological perspective.

My point wasn’t that this or that is harmful or not, but rather that anorexia is a clear example where a mental state is obviously at variance to a clear physical state. In pretty much all these kinds of cases, we weigh in on the physical state because it is clear, whereas mental states can be deluded, suffer from neuroses, etc. Having said that, the argument could be made that the consequences of transgenderism, such as cosmetic alterations to one’s body, is harmful, especially if you believe in the sanctity of the body.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Some are born left-handed, some are born blue-eyed, some are born freckled. Am I then prejudiced to think that those attributes are normal? What’s the difference between those attributes and being born gay or trans?

Can’t you see the obvious difference, CaliLobo? Being born left-handed or blue-eyed or with freckles is not disharmonious with your mental and physical make-up. If someone was born with no eyes or two left-hands, however, we’d say something was wrong. Why? Because it is not how the body is constituted to function. Similarly, homosexual acts don’t accord with the function of human genitalia, and being transgender denies the enter genitalia and physical biology of a person.

 

[ephesians4]

So at work we had a seminar on transgender people and etiquette when meeting a transgender person.

What I learned was honestly fascinating. We have long thought of gender as binary (male vs female), but it is scientifically very clear that gender is an analysis of four variables:

1. Assigned gender upon birth
2. Sexual orientation
3. Gender identity
4. Gender expression

What is also scientifically very clear is that these four variables can all be blurred, and have NO correlation with one another. And that is what explains the existence of gays (#1 not correlated with #2), transgender (#1 not correlated with #3 and #4), and intersex people (#1 is blurred and not correlated with #3 and #4). #2 can be blurred (bisexuality, transgender attraction), and #3 and #4 can be blurred (genderqueer, crossdressing, switching gender identity in one’s mind, etc.) And transgender people can also be gay or straight (all four variables not correlated).

My question then is,** if it’s scientifically very evident that our concept of gender, which we long thought of as binary, instead is expressed by a wide range of values for the four variables above, and humans do exhibit this wide range of values, then doesn’t that throw a wrench into Catholic teaching on sex, gender, and marriage?**

Doesn’t this also add ammunition to the idea that Catholic teaching is losing relevance in modern society, because the Catholic Church, with its insistence on upholding tradition, becomes hostage to its doctrines and cannot change according to what we now know scientifically?

We do not know anything scientifically about this. At its worst, psychology does not establish, examine or investigate the underlying physical mechanisms of a given problem, and as such you end up with a lot of observations of correlations, guesses at what is causal, and doomed attempts to separate correlation from cause without any physical evidence of the processes and mechanisms involved.

In this case as in others even observable, repeatable results - which are great - are seen to come from an impenetrable black box - the insides of which are to be divined through reams of guesswork by people who have proved experts at writing reams of guesswork in the past, rather than established scientifically.

Authoritative pronouncements are then made couched in language that sounds a bit like what a physicist or other proper scientist might say about some rigorously investigated matter, with loads of emphasis placed on how eminent the people making the pronouncements are, and elaborate handwaves and pleas to authority when people want to know about the mechanisms that have been scientifically investigated and established. Thusly do the gears of Accepted Wisdom continue to turn. Gender identity issues are a textbook example of this.

Meanwhile in other sciences, confusing correlation with cause is one of the arch-nonos and even then we still have to work very hard not to do it.

Nothing is in fact scientifically known that is even vaguely suggestive of the tropes underlying transgenderism and gender identity disorder, and the theory that has been espoused at you is nothing more than quackery.

I would nod politely at person selling the snake oil, admire the bottle and the scientific explanation of why it’s so wonderful - then agree to treat people nicely and carefully, as you were probably going to do anyway.

 

[noithatmy]

up cho bác d?t hÃ*ng

UP MÃŒNH = MÃŒNH UP

Share van phòng cho thuê Q.Bình Th?nh 2 phòng t?ng 1, DT20+24m2 giá 5.5tr
Công ty mình c?n share phòng lÃm vi?c d? gi?m b?t chi phà thuê hÃng tháng,
Di?n tÃch m?t sÃn 115m2, còn 2 phòng t?ng 1 di?n tÃch hon 20m2 + 24m2 (có v? sinh riêng),
nhÃ* s? 178/26 Du?ng D1 P.25 Q.Bình Th?nh.
N?m g?n trung tâm Q.1, ngã tu HÃng Xanh, C?u SG, nhi?u Ngân hÃng…
Van phòng tr?ng, ti?n x?p s?p, trang trÃ*. Phòng ti?p khách chung t?ng tr?t.
Có th? thuê 1 ho?c c? 2 phòng, giá 5.5tr n?u thuê c? 2 phòng (nguyên t?ng 1)
N?u thuê t?ng phòng: Phòng Master 24m2 giá 3.2tr; Phòng VIP 20m2 giá 2.8tr
Th?i h?n dang tin t? 10/3 d?n 30/3
Chi ti?t xin liên h?: An 0936666003 (ti?p ngu?i thi?n chÃ*)

 

[markeverett49]

Haha isn’t that interesting! I’ve read the article. So these days, people who believe in black and white (and, I guess, all sorts of dichotomous thinking, like right and wrong) are labelled “dysfunctional” but those who have inclinations clearly and demonstrably in opposition to their physicality are not?

Doesn’t this seem like just a form of “labelling” to avoid having a reasonable argument? “Oh, you just think in black-and-white terms, you’re dysfunctional, we don’t have to listen to you!”

.

In my experience, people who are “open” to homosexuality being ‘natural’ and ‘equal’ to heterosexuality are pretty “closed” to those who see it differently.

 

[kotim]

The simple fact of the matter is that we all ready know statistically that homosexuals/bisexuals etc are dozens of times more likely to be a child sex offender than a heterosexual. Its a simple matter of seeing reasonable data on children abused and then extrapolating that data relative to percentages of homosexual in the population. Now those percentages can never be trully super accurately known but the most extreme numbers on the most populous side are from the like KINSEY saying 10% down to other studies showing in the vicinity of 1% and obviously numbers in between.

The other simple fact is that if say a man is homosexual then not only is is sexuality miss wired but their will be all sorts of other faulty wiring associated with that defect. That faulty wiring will be extensive within the brain.

In all my years of law enforcement and dealing with people of all sorts of defects, I do not need studies to show me that homosexuals are a particularly bad risk around children.

One of the most interesting things of recent years is the growth in reports of lesbian assaults on children, which are being reported at an alarming rate relative to woman sexually abusing a boy. If you discuss these issues with help line and front line organisations you can see a very very clear picture of risk.

I am catholic and whilst I view homosexuality as a defect, my actual opposition to homosexuals to the extent that I do oppose them is actually not based on religeon but upon their practice of deviance of all sorts but particularly with children.

No doubt the whole situation can be a very sad thing being homosexual irrespective of whether born that way or conditioned that way, but in terms of risk mitigation especially as regards children, I whilst sympathetic to their issues can never abide by them in my life because of the downside risks.

 

[CopticChristian]

I know. That’s why I think a “homosexual gene” would be bad news for the world. It would mean more abortions and genetic manipulation.

John,

It’s not a slippery slope argument, it’s an argument based on the principle that mental states trump physical states, or that specifically, the subjective mental state trumps the objective physical state.

I had this discussion elsewhere…where is it you find that there is trumping…

Mental states affect Physical states
Physical states affect Mental states

I have no idea where you got this notion of trumping. Where did you learn this?

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t understand. If black and white are dichotomous, how are right and wrong not dichotomous, or good and evil?

Again, I’m not talking about Essentialism, I’m talking about the philosophical approach to these issues based on clear versus unclear.

Jonathan,

Right and wrong guide our actions. When you consider a problem you decide, is it right, is it wrong…is it correct or incorrect. When you accept something that isn’t true, knowing that there may be other than what is said and you accept it as true this is different…

The world is the world. What you have in your mind is a representation of the world. If you accept that Allopathic medicine has nothing to offer and all you are willing to accept is alternative medicine then that jades your thinking. There are some good things in both and does not equate to the world in reality. If you believe Strep Throat is just an allergy based on that belief then you may get sick and die.

 

[CopticChristian]

This argument assumes that a marriage has to be procreative to be a marriage. But why? Isn’t this more archaic thinking?

There are straight marriages in which the woman is infertile for a variety of reasons–menopause being one of them. Are they no longer valid marriages?

I’ll save the undergrad-style emotional equal rights rhetoric for later, because I want a thoughtful answer.

And though many women want children, many do not, to the point of breakup or divorce! Why? Because it’s an economic and cultural burden in today’s world to have children. Unfortunately the Catholic Church is hostage to its thinking on contraception. Catholics aren’t really fearing human extinction due to contraception, are they?

There have always been gays throughout human history. Do we really need figures over time just to validate contemporary figures?

Thank you for your point on post #108. Good point. But anorexia is harmful to the body. Being transgender is not.

And this is why many people today view marriage as outdated and no longer believe in marriage, because so many have turned marriage into a big joke. Why do Catholics insist on governments keeping marriage between a man and a woman anyway? Instead of legislating morality, wouldn’t it be better to change behavior by preaching the Gospel?

The only thing I can conclude is that Catholics are fearful of modern science, because it threatens the Catholic Church. Why is science NOT authoritative to you?
**
And once again, no one is answering these questions:

1. What’s so junk science about my original post? (Besides Coptic’s OPINION that he rejects DSM IV)
2. How do you reconcile what we know about transgender people with Catholic teaching?**

Lobo,

Some are born left-handed, some are born blue-eyed, some are born freckled. Am I then prejudiced to think that those attributes are normal? What’s the difference between those attributes and being born gay or trans?

Left handed people are capable of learning to be right handed and ambidexterous.

Blue eyed people remain blue eyed.

Freckles change with time.

Gay and trans are not fixed. If you believe this then you swallow Essentialism that has no proof and you deny that change has occured and is documented that it does occur.

 

[jonathan_hili]

John,

I had this discussion elsewhere…where is it you find that there is trumping…

Mental states affect Physical states
Physical states affect Mental states

I have no idea where you got this notion of trumping. Where did you learn this?

Hmmm I think we might be arguing the same thing, Coptic, I’m not sure.

Certainly, one affects the other. What I’m saying is that if one accepts transgenderism as legitimate, that is, as a non-disordered human sexual identity, than one has to contend that mental states do in fact trump physical ones, essentially akin to something like Platonism or a radical substance dualism.

But now I’m not sure that’s what you’re saying!!!

 

[CopticChristian]

Hmmm I think we might be arguing the same thing, Coptic, I’m not sure.

Certainly, one affects the other. What I’m saying is that if one accepts transgenderism as legitimate, that is, as a non-disordered human sexual identity, than one has to contend that mental states do in fact trump physical ones, essentially akin to something like Platonism or a radical substance dualism.

But now I’m not sure that’s what you’re saying!!!

John,

Let us just dismiss any particular notion or state of being…

We have in our heads the ability to Think, feel, imagine…
We have in our bodies the ability to Speak and act

There is no trumping…one affects the other…there is no mind without body and no body without mind…

When someone acts and speaks that is based on what is in the head and can affect what is in the head.

When someone has something in the head that causes the acting and speaking…

They act on each other and there is no trumping…while it may be possible that the in the head manifests itself more for one the acting/speaking for another manifests itself more…

Does this make sense?

Transgender is preference, desire, wish, imagined…that causes speaking and acting…in this case the mental state is contrived and accepted as a preference that causes the speaking and acting…