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

[St_Francis]

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 Are they no longer valid marriages?

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.

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.

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? I remember during, iirc, the presidential campaign: a woman said she wanted more help with her perscription meds because she didn’t have much money, and then it was discovered that her son was quite successful and had quite a lot of money. So she said she wanted to be independent! By getting aid from strangers (taxpayers) rather than from her own son whose diapers she had changed and for whom she had cared for years.

Unfortunately the Catholic Church is hostage to its thinking on contraception. Catholics aren’t really fearing human extinction due to contraception, are they?

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.

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

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…

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?

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?

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.

I am not sure why Elizabeth’s comment should have elicited this response, but you are correct that in the US, marriage has been terribly reduced from the formation of a family to a fancier form of going steady, due to the acceptance of artificial contraception and no-fault divorce.

Why do Catholics insist on governments keeping marriage between a man and a woman anyway?

Because marriage *is *something, and to say it is something else is a lie. Those who advocate SS"M" are lying about the nature of what marriage is and its purpose. There is nothing that homosexuals can attain through going through an enactment of marriage which they cannot obtain legally now, or more easily if some laws were changed, but those things are less easily undone than if obtained through “marriage.”

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.

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?

Instead of legislating morality, wouldn’t it be better to change behavior by preaching the Gospel?

Well, sure. We could get rid of *all *laws based on morality: the laws against theft, murder, rape, etc, and just change the behavior of thieves, murderers, and rapists by preaching the Gospel to them.

The only thing I can conclude is that Catholics are fearful of modern science, because it threatens the Catholic Church.

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

Why is science NOT authoritative to you?

True science is authoritative in its realm.

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)

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.

1. How do you reconcile what we know about transgender people with Catholic teaching?

Just as we do many other things: sorrow and empathy those who suffer from a mental problem.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

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? I remember during, iirc, the presidential campaign: a woman said she wanted more help with her perscription meds because she didn’t have much money, and then it was discovered that her son was quite successful and had quite a lot of money. So she said she wanted to be independent! By getting aid from strangers (taxpayers) rather than from her own son whose diapers she had changed and for whom she had cared for years.

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.

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…

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?

I am not sure why Elizabeth’s comment should have elicited this response, but you are correct that in the US, marriage has been terribly reduced from the formation of a family to a fancier form of going steady, due to the acceptance of artificial contraception and no-fault divorce.

Because marriage *is *something, and to say it is something else is a lie. Those who advocate SS"M" are lying about the nature of what marriage is and its purpose. There is nothing that homosexuals can attain through going through an enactment of marriage which they cannot obtain legally now, or more easily if some laws were changed, but those things are less easily undone than if obtained through “marriage.”

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.

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?

Well, sure. We could get rid of *all *laws based on morality: the laws against theft, murder, rape, etc, and just change the behavior of thieves, murderers, and rapists by preaching the Gospel to them.

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.

Just as we do many other things: sorrow and empathy those who suffer from a mental problem.

Francis,

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

The number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810 when compared to the Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854, should be viewed as those that believed homosexuality is a mental disorder did not vanish and go away and probably did not change their opinion and they have a right to a dissenting opinion, and point of view protected by law. There are 3,810 dissenting voices to the gay agenda within the ranks of the APA and their opinion and view can and should be honored.

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…

 

[St_Francis]

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…

Very interesting, and I hope they will be able to bring out a book or something to explain what is going on.

I am catching glimpses by listening to talks about philosophy; hard going sometimes! But now I am hearing about the ways of thinking which seem to so heavily influence people like Calilobo, ideas like Ockham’s idea that we cannot categorize, thus we cannot abstract from the individual to acquire an idea of the nature of the category. This idea is of course crazy on the face of it–to me, it should cause cognitive dissonance but apparently this is overlooked by people who think along these lines.

I am just now learning about this stuff, but the more I learn, the more I understand why people say the things they do, altho back when I had nothing, when I was an uncatechized but baptized Catholic, secular thinking made no sense to me and I just found it terribly depressing.

 

[CopticChristian]

Very interesting, and I hope they will be able to bring out a book or something to explain what is going on.

I am catching glimpses by listening to talks about philosophy; hard going sometimes! But now I am hearing about the ways of thinking which seem to so heavily influence people like Calilobo, ideas like Ockham’s idea that we cannot categorize, thus we cannot abstract from the individual to acquire an idea of the nature of the category. This idea is of course crazy on the face of it–to me, it should cause cognitive dissonance but apparently this is overlooked by people who think along these lines.

I am just now learning about this stuff, but the more I learn, the more I understand why people say the things they do, altho back when I had nothing, when I was an uncatechized but baptized Catholic, secular thinking made no sense to me and I just found it terribly depressing.

Francis,

Just keep this information handy when you see postings…

Licensed profesional bodies and societies as opposed to Fringe…ie NARTH and the above mentioned bodies

or

Science that caused the truth about Homosexuality to come out that you don’t like…well where is that science and why did those that dissented dissent if it was science?

or

Conversion therapy causes harm…and then where are those bonified reports written by whom?

The APA task force says…have you read it, did you know it was appropritated by looking for and asking for people to report to them for the notion of harm and in fact their report may say what it says however without proof…and this you will find on the legal site that Liberty Counsel points out in a brief countering California SB-1172, in fact Liberty Counsel points out that the APA says it may do some good…

or

I know lots of Homosexuals, transgendered, Swyer Syndrome, I have counselled…Oh yeah…how is it you know so many, I don’t know but a few…and how is it you counselled, in what capacity…makes you wonder about whether it is all made up…

Science?..uh uh…Propaganda and that sad part is you will see that propagated by some that say they are Catholic from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom…Singapore and who knows where else…

resist, tell the truth, ask questions…

 

[St_Francis]

Francis,

Just keep this information handy when you see postings…

Licensed profesional bodies and societies as opposed to Fringe…ie NARTH and the above mentioned bodies

or

Science that caused the truth about Homosexuality to come out that you don’t like…well where is that science and why did those that dissented dissent if it was science?

or

Conversion therapy causes harm…and then where are those bonified reports written by whom?

The APA task force says…have you read it, did you know it was appropritated by looking for and asking for people to report to them for the notion of harm and in fact their report may say what it says however without proof…and this you will find on the legal site that Liberty Counsel points out in a brief countering California SB-1172, in fact Liberty Counsel points out that the APA says it may do some good…

or

I know lots of Homosexuals, transgendered, Swyer Syndrome, I have counselled…Oh yeah…how is it you know so many, I don’t know but a few…and how is it you counselled, in what capacity…makes you wonder about whether it is all made up…

Science?..uh uh…Propaganda and that sad part is you will see that propagated by some that say they are Catholic from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom…Singapore and who knows where else…

resist, tell the truth, ask questions…

Good insights, thank you

 

[JohnTomHoc]

JTC,

I appreciate your openness. You are not coming to the forum as we have seen…

Transgender in love…

You state you have gender dysphoria and as you know there are children with GD that outgrow it and then there are adults that say they have GD and they are not the same entity.

You point out that difference when you say that there are some that state this GD in childhood. So you would not be that person and you should know that there is still lots to be discovered about this.

You are fortunate because you identify something you suffer with that you don’t understand.

Any attempt to aid someone with a problem demands…

Identification of something that is not desired
Motivation to do something about that
Creating a plan to do something about it
Feedback as to what has been done and what works
Solidifying that plan, continuing the motivation and working towards that end…

These aforementioned points are unavailable to someone that says…

I am a woman trapped in a man’s body and want to be castrated to be fulfilled…this does not equate to someone believing that this is not desired…

You’re identifying the middle term, a means, as if it were the goal. The interior logic is this: “I’m female. Females do not have testicles. I have testicles. Either (a) my fundamental knowledge of my own identity is mistaken or (b) I should have the testicles removed and my body surgically and hormonally altered in a manner consistent with my identity.”

Accept that we don’t understand and accept that you are looking to do something about it…this thread is not about you…

Actually, it's been a decade since I stopped (well short) of the steps taken toward sexual reassignment surgery. I wasn't sure at the time why I did, and it's taken a good deal of time to understand my experience at the time. I only adduce my case in order to clarify for those who have neither experienced it but assume they understand it, or who are not really specialists in the matter but believe on a matter of scriptural interpretation that they do.

But the misrepresentation of psychological realities is what’s at issue here. The original poster was insisting that science shows there are multiple genders – this is the source of the term “transgender,” which was an attempt to change the term “transsexual”. In what is now called the “transgender” community was the question of binary or multipolar gender. The first generation or so of those who did have sexual reassignment surgery were quite clear: men and women exist, and their identity from the very first moment of conscious remembers was female & they poured all their efforts into the cosmetic surgery that would permit them to do so. They were not satisfied living as cross-dressing men, or living as women every day in hopes no one would ever find out about their genitalia, as female-to-male Billy Tipton did before any surgical options were available.
I absolutely agree that God's revelation is true, that male & female identity are the two options available. The very rare condition of true transsexuality involves cosmetic surgery which permits the person to live in accordance with their brain sex. To identify birth genitalia as absolutely determinative, rather than the explicit interior knowledge, is simply to say that you know, on the basis of revelation and Church teaching, that they must be lying or that they can be corrected. Reparative therapy does not even work on gay people, despite your assertion, and the transsexual condition manifests well before any question of sexual attraction does. On the question of the pure transsexual, you're in the position of those Catholics & Protestants who said that Galileo had to be mad for believing that the earth circled the sun, because of scripture. It's the interpretation of scripture & its meaning that is it issue; and I say, solely on the question of pure transsexuality, "Eppur si muove."

 

[JohnTomHoc]

Let me add that, if the Church insists that those who have had sexual reassignment surgery live chastely, without attempting marriage, I can see no objection that someone truly desiring to live faithfully could make, since the whole point of the surgery is NOT to have sexual relations, but to live a female life, which being born with female genitalia would have included the possibility of marriage.

 

[pnewton]

On the question of the pure transsexual, you’re in the position of those Catholics & Protestants who said that Galileo had to be mad for believing that the earth circled the sun, because of scripture.

This comparison begs the question, assuming that the subjective feelings are right and the Church, God and biology are wrong. We can make observation of the physical motion of the planets. There is not physical, objective proof or measurement of the concept of “brain sex.” It is not at all difficult for one to build a case of self-deception. We all do it to some degree. In the end, our own perceptions are so flexible, I simply can not accept the concept of gender identity until it can be shown be an objective reality. This is partially based on divine revelation, but more based on my own skepticism of human perception.

 

[JohnTomHoc]

This comparison begs the question, assuming that the subjective feelings are right and the Church, God and biology are wrong. We can make observation of the physical motion of the planets. There is not physical, objective proof or measurement of the concept of “brain sex.” It is not at all difficult for one to build a case of self-deception. We all do it to some degree. In the end, our own perceptions are so flexible, I simply can not accept the concept of gender identity until it can be shown be an objective reality. This is partially based on divine revelation, but more based on my own skepticism of human perception.

I know that without the actual experience, the difference between just “subjective feelings” and “fundamental identification” makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree about the self-deception, because I went from “I don’t female male, why am I not female?” to “I must be transsexual,” and the first therapist I chose let me go with that. Two subsequent therapists with much greater training however recognized that it was a case of self-deception.

The nature of the case is such that it is not easily susceptible to measurement; but neither are the realities of faith, whether merely natural faith or supernatural faith. There were many innocent people executed for murder before DNA testing was possible, because all appearances were against them & they could not prove their innocence. These cases are similar – they require a certain degree of trust in the absence of scientific demonstration.

There was a psychologist who was much reviled in the transgender community who invented the term “autogynophelia” to cover all cases of purported transsexuality – namely, that a young male child will come up with an ideal image of himself as female & 'fall in love with it" – a sort of extreme trans-narcissism – and try to make it a reality. I think my own experience, if not exactly that, is in that vicinity.

But there remain those whose testimony about themselves can’t be just waved away because some are determined that there are no mysteries in the mind & in nature that Church definitions cannot immediately clear up. This is one such mystery, and it’s a great disservice to the exigencies of moral theology & personal responsibility to simply lump the moral difficulty in with questions of sexual orientation, which is a totally different affair.

 

[St_Francis]

… On the question of the pure transsexual, you’re in the position of those Catholics & Protestants who said that Galileo had to be mad for believing that the earth circled the sun, because of scripture. It’s the interpretation of scripture & its meaning that is it issue; and I say, solely on the question of pure transsexuality, “Eppur si muove.”

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.

Also, Galileo was teaching that the sun was stationary, so he was not entirely correct.

 

[CopticChristian]

You’re identifying the middle term, a means, as if it were the goal. The interior logic is this: “I’m female. Females do not have testicles. I have testicles. Either (a) my fundamental knowledge of my own identity is mistaken or (b) I should have the testicles removed and my body surgically and hormonally altered in a manner consistent with my identity.”

Actually, it's been a decade since I stopped (well short) of the steps taken toward sexual reassignment surgery. I wasn't sure at the time why I did, and it's taken a good deal of time to understand my experience at the time. I only adduce my case in order to clarify for those who have neither experienced it but assume they understand it, or who are not really specialists in the matter but believe on a matter of scriptural interpretation that they do.

But the misrepresentation of psychological realities is what’s at issue here. The original poster was insisting that science shows there are multiple genders – this is the source of the term “transgender,” which was an attempt to change the term “transsexual”. In what is now called the “transgender” community was the question of binary or multipolar gender. The first generation or so of those who did have sexual reassignment surgery were quite clear: men and women exist, and their identity from the very first moment of conscious remembers was female & they poured all their efforts into the cosmetic surgery that would permit them to do so. They were not satisfied living as cross-dressing men, or living as women every day in hopes no one would ever find out about their genitalia, as female-to-male Billy Tipton did before any surgical options were available.

I absolutely agree that God's revelation is true, that male & female identity are the two options available. The very rare condition of true transsexuality involves cosmetic surgery which permits the person to live in accordance with their brain sex. To identify birth genitalia as absolutely determinative, rather than the explicit interior knowledge, is simply to say that you know, on the basis of revelation and Church teaching, that they must be lying or that they can be corrected. Reparative therapy does not even work on gay people, despite your assertion, and the transsexual condition manifests well before any question of sexual attraction does. On the question of the pure transsexual, you're in the position of those Catholics & Protestants who said that Galileo had to be mad for believing that the earth circled the sun, because of scripture. It's the interpretation of scripture & its meaning that is it issue; and I say, solely on the question of pure transsexuality, "Eppur si muove."

JTC,

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.

 

[CopticChristian]

I know that without the actual experience, the difference between just “subjective feelings” and “fundamental identification” makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree about the self-deception, because I went from “I don’t female male, why am I not female?” to “I must be transsexual,” and the first therapist I chose let me go with that. Two subsequent therapists with much greater training however recognized that it was a case of self-deception.

There was a psychologist who was much reviled in the transgender community who invented the term “autogynophelia” to cover all cases of purported transsexuality – namely, that a young male child will come up with an ideal image of himself as female & 'fall in love with it" – a sort of extreme trans-narcissism – and try to make it a reality. I think my own experience, if not exactly that, is in that vicinity.

But there remain those whose testimony about themselves can’t be just waved away because some are determined that there are no mysteries in the mind & in nature that Church definitions cannot immediately clear up. This is one such mystery, and it’s a great disservice to the exigencies of moral theology & personal responsibility to simply lump the moral difficulty in with questions of sexual orientation, which is a totally different affair.

JTC,

The nature of the case is such that it is not easily susceptible to measurement; but neither are the realities of faith, whether merely natural faith or supernatural faith. There were many innocent people executed for murder before DNA testing was possible, because all appearances were against them & they could not prove their innocence. These cases are similar – they require a certain degree of trust in the absence of scientific demonstration.

Are you asking me to trust the imagination because I cannot for the life of me see what it is you want someone to trust in.

 

[90Domer]

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?

What kind of work are you in that your company would hold a seminar to educate their employees about a group of people that represent an extremely small segment of the population? I can think of about, oh, 500 or so conditions that your company would educate you on that would be a good trade off versus the loss of productivity.

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

What kind of work are you in that your company would hold a seminar to educate their employees about a group of people that represent an extremely small segment of the population? I can think of about, oh, 500 or so conditions that your company would educate you on that would be a good trade off versus the loss of productivity.

It’s a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, so that the workday goes smoothly vs a good worker being compromised.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, so that the workday goes smoothly vs a good worker being compromised.

Stephanie

Originally Posted by 90Domer
What kind of work are you in that your company would hold a seminar to educate their employees about a group of people that represent an extremely small segment of the population? I can think of about, oh, 500 or so conditions that your company would educate you on that would be a good trade off versus the loss of productivity.

Your comment though supportive of the seminar does not answer the question as to what kind of work place would hold a seminar as noted. I too would like to know what work place would hold this seminar.

 

[jonathan_hili]

On the question of the pure transsexual, you’re in the position of those Catholics & Protestants who said that Galileo had to be mad for believing that the earth circled the sun, because of scripture. It’s the interpretation of scripture & its meaning that is it issue; and I say, solely on the question of pure transsexuality, “Eppur si muove.”

Ummm not sure about this, John. Nobody said Galileo was mad for positing heliocentrism, and certainly not because of the Bible. Copernicus had already proposed the theory years before and found support from Church officials. It was a question of proving the theory, not believing it. Since the heliocentric theory could not be proved in Galileo’s day (for seemingly contrary evidence, such as basic observation, parallax shifts, etc.), the problem concerned Galileo wanting to reinterpret Scripture as a result of his belief.

My main issue with what you’re saying here is this:

“To identify birth genitalia as absolutely determinative, rather than the explicit interior knowledge, is simply to say that you know, on the basis of revelation and Church teaching, that they must be lying or that they can be corrected.”

For me it has nothing to do with revelation but everything to do with philosophy. If one’s physical state is not determinative of the truth of one’s sex or gender, then we get into all sorts of problems. Because, following this principle, one’s identity and sense of self, sexual or otherwise, is essentially the result of “explicit interior knowledge”. However, as far as I can tell, interior knowledge (based on reflection, feelings, introspection, and so on) is more likely to be mistaken than exterior knowledge (based on physicality or biology). Again, I’m returning to this point: if someone in a male body believes he is truly female, how is he different from the anorexic who believes she is fat?

 

[Scott_D]

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 Catholics trust the Church like a child who trusts its mother to teach us right from wrong. God made them male and female. Period.

 

[fix]

How often do you see other person’s genitals outside sexual situations?

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

In societal interactions, gender is identified by secondary characteristics, such as hair, face and body shape, not genitals or genes. With some effort, one can pass themselves off as a person of the opposite sex just fine. As Coptic noted, some MtF transsexuals can be so convincing that they manage to seduce men…

Genitals (or genes) are largely irrelevant except for sex, reproduction, and state or Church bureaucracy…

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

 

[90Domer]

It’s a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, so that the workday goes smoothly vs a good worker being compromised.

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.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Stepahnie is not the original poster, Calilobo is. He may be a teacher or something at a school in Massuchusetts or California; that would explain tthe talk at his work.