Gender dysphoria?

[marymary1975]

Mary how old were you when the desire to be a boy faded away?

How did you react to the bodily changes of puberty?

My puberty and teenage years were very bad. As I said I hated my own body and just to give you a hint of how bad my puberty was, my mother took me for an exorcism because she already did not know what else was to do with me. Around that time I became friends with one girl who was facing similar issues (who is now an active lesbian…and yes we are still friends ) and we became best friends which made things more difficult for my family as I was much more attractedto the opennnes of the lesbian world than my family who kept reminding me that iI was a woman and had to accept it.

I was taken to several psicologist until my grandmother found a priest who became my spiritual director who I credit a lot as to helping overcoming everything. I would go reluctantly to see him twice a week for many years. I cannot tell you exactly when the desire went away as it was a very long process that took years but by 25 the situation was much better and I had been by that time strongly attracted by catholicism. The idea of celibacy actually set pretty good with me so I heavily considered entering into a convent at the time but I thought no one would accept me with all my previous issues. However while I had gotten much better at the time but I still had some very serious psychological and self hatred issues. I think that it was probably not until I reached 35 (and after having gone to hell and came back) that I can properly say that the hate and the desire of being a boy disappeared. Not a short road and it was not certainly an easy road but I am very grateful that I had people like my grandmother and my spiritual director who were able to give me at least the right foundation to overcome it and I am very glad that no one in my family went oh well she says she is Mike then she will be Mike.

 

[Rau]

Mary how old were you when the desire to be a boy faded away?

How did you react to the bodily changes of puberty?

Mary, did you seek or receive any medical assessment or treatment? Was any diagnosis or conclusion reached?

Did you have or form friendships with people suffering dysphoria / transgender issues?

Just looking for similarities and differences with the circumstances Rin describes.

 

[Rin]

What kind of definition are you using for both gender dysphoria? The one I am giving you is basically the one from DSM 5 as to children with the only different that I am switching assigned gender at birth by sex. There is six criteria if I remember correctly in the DSM as to gender dysphoria in children which does not seem to fully fit what you are saying. You seem to be phocusing on phase II. However I would like to know your definition.

I am mainly using definitions and recommendations from the Standards of Care, combined with what I have read in scientific literature, and what I know to be common views among therapists and doctors who are specialized in this.

The DSM is useful as a tool in research, differential diagnosis and not least to aid insurers, welfare providers and so on in management of patients. However, it is hardly exhaustive. No responsible doctor would prescribe HRT based on the criteria in the DSM alone; at the very least, the SoC would have to be consulted. Similarly, few psychiatrists specialized in any field would use the DSM as their only diagnostic tool; you can’t simply treat it as a check list. Take autistic spectrum disorder (which I think it is called now) as an example; the DMS checklist does not even come close to the testing required for a proper diagnosis.

As with autism, for gender dysphoria, you can’t just check a few points and refer people to SRS. Years of trial and possibly error are needed, from initial screening and interviews, to HRT (which includes response evaluation - and this is the single most important and reliable part), to real-life experience, and so on.

Your fourth paragraph reinforces even more

To be honest, I am not interested in further debating this with you. Your ideas are clearly not based on empiric studies, but on ideological bias and anecdotal evidence from your own life. The same bias is clearly visible in how you interpret my posts. I cannot know whether your history is truly as exceptional as you say, however I proposed that maybe your issues were different in nature, based on your description. If not, consider yourself extremely lucky, and perhaps consider whether your insistence that you should be the model of treatment hurts others more than it helps.

It is well established that HRT truly helps sufferers of gender dysphoria. It is well established that “reparative” therapy has detrimental effects. It is just as well established that forcing children to repress their gender identity has detrimental effects. It destroys lives.

It is also well established that transgender individuals have neurological differences that set them apart from the cisgender population. There are observable differences between androphilic and gynephilic transwomen neurologically, but there is no reasonable doubt that the condition is caused by neurological differences, which are too significant to be anything but congenital, in both cases.

So I’m afraid I won’t accept your reasoning, lest you have anything other than personal anecdotes and ideologically biased speeches to bring to the table. And that you don’t have, simply because such scientific evidence does not exist - all empiric evidence to date points towards a neurological, congenital cause, and all evidence to date points towards HRT being the only universally effective treatment. I’m not saying all problems magically go away with HRT, but the dysphoria is significantly alleviated for sure. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt about this.

Additionally, there is no Catholic doctrine about this. What provokes me is not that people disagree with my choices - they are not bound by faith to accept scientific reasoning. You could tell me to choose homeopathy as cancer treatment, and still be a Catholic in good standing. However, what provokes me is when people speak as if their point of view is Catholic doctrine, while in reality it is conservative ideology. This confusion hurts the Church, and not least, it hurts people.

Meanwhile, I will base my continued course of treatment on reason, clinical experience and not ideology. I will judge the effect of such treatment on how I actually feel, and how it actually works, not some armchair online evaluation of the true state of my future mind. I shall also be immensely grateful that my medical treatment is not in the hands of those who subscribe to this form of conservative ideology.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And others reject it out of hand. What if we just keep an open mind?

Keeping an open mind is good.

I just don’t see it as clear-cut as you. Up until the middle of the last century, our understanding of the morality of amputations and the like revolved around the “principle of totality” - it was OK to cut off something when it was necessary to save the whole. That was the “context” of our understanding of the subject. Pius XI and XII wrote against mutilation, … clipped to fit maximum character limit in posting] Over time, an understanding of what was happening grew, and organ donation was recognised as a great act of charity, not one of mutilation. [The physical evil done to the donor’s body was not a moral evil - the Act had in fact a good moral object.]

I’m not trying to draw a long bow here. Just expressing the idea that it is sometimes wise to hasten slowly in proclaiming a moral order upon something not yet well understood.

True, transgendrism and the desire to undergo SRS are not fully understood, although SRS has been actually done since the late fifties when French physician Georges Burou pioneered the SRS (vaginoplasty via penile inversion) technique in Casablanca. As sex change surgeon, he performed male-to-female surgeries, improving on said surgical technique through his career on over 3,000 international patients who could afford to travel to Morroco and pay for it. In a glimpse into the ethical perspective of Dr. Burou in a new specialty, he is reported to have said, “I do not transform men into women. I transform male genitals into genitals that have a feminine aspect. All the rest is in the patient’s head.”

The innovator of SRS obviously thought transgender ailment is a mental one, but he had no problem with a livelihood rendering a surgical solution to a psychological problem. Enter the mental health profession, the ensuing decades bringing social and cultural changes with the acceptance of openly gay and lesbian unions. By judicial fiat and help by the medical profession, the landscape of formation of family and raising of children is being radically changed. The LGB movement added “T” under its umbrella, with transgenders now asserting rights to cross dress, hormone and tax paid SRS treatment.

As for proclamation of moral order, the Church has not changed her teaching on homosexual sex and “marriage,” notwithstanding dissent in ranks led by moral theologians in the hierarchy who were homosexuals themselves, leading to splintered Catholic groups.

There is a parallel in the mental health profession, when a few gay activists began to make protests to try to get the designation of homosexuality changed in the DSM, with the help of homosexual psychiatrists in the APA. Just google “81 Words, by Alix Spiegel”, and read the transcript or listen to the NPR tape of the story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

On the morality of SRS, there is no division that I have come across among Catholic moral theologians, priests, bishops, and Popes. So, the proscription is clear cut to me. At any rate, society moved towards secularization and it pays no more mind to moral order, and instead gave the nod to social experimenters, via the state to legalize what has always been deemed immoral and unnatural.

Transgender activists conveniently advance science that supposedly establishes a trans brain with differences in structure and white matter similar to the opposite sex with which they identify. Transgenderism is not the same as pedophilia, but did you know that there is a “scientific” claim now that M.R.I.s of sex offenders with pedophilia show fewer of the neural pathways known as white matter in their brains? It is now being claimed that the pedophilia condition, a disorder found in 1% of the male population, is a natural and involuntary trait. An orientation as legitimate as homosexuality and transgenderism by those defending homosexual and trans behavior. Not so subtle a move to persuade society that the behavior or action is understandable, also to be excused. Let’s not forget the path successfully taken by homosexual activists, appeal to toleration first, then demand for acceptance, going even further in celebration of homosexual behavior. The transgenders are clearly riding on the coat tails of the homosexual movement.

You raised organ donation where agreement was/is more easily reached from a moral and rational standpoint. The solution is clearly better than no action at all with the problem of medically needed human tissue and organs from donors who provided their informed consent. It is deemed as a charitable act of great benefit to the community in almost all cultures, and as a noble application of science. Moral / ethical concerns in all aspects of the procedure from organ removal from the donor to transplantation to another person had been (and are continuously being) addressed. Government organizations are also known to move towards preventing actual and potential misapplication (e.g., in organ commerce to meet the demand of patients who can pay, financial exploitation of donors who “sell” a kidney, etc.)

The Catholic Church hierarchy did go through a serious determination whether “mutilation” of a body part of one already deceased should be condemned, and if a donated organ from a living person in good health can be permitted, that is, without forsaking said person’s functional and anatomical integrity, in order to save the life or improve the dire health of another living person. The teleology of organ donation is not mutilation along the Principle of Totality, therefore, but one of charity.

 

[marymary1975]

I am mainly using definitions and recommendations from the Standards of Care, combined with what I have read in scientific literature, and what I know to be common views among therapists and doctors who are specialized in this.

The DSM is useful as a tool in research, differential diagnosis and not least to aid insurers, welfare providers and so on in management of patients. However, it is hardly exhaustive. No responsible doctor would prescribe HRT based on the criteria in the DSM alone; at the very least, the SoC would have to be consulted. Similarly, few psychiatrists specialized in any field would use the DSM as their only diagnostic tool; you can’t simply treat it as a check list. Take autistic spectrum disorder (which I think it is called now) as an example; the DMS checklist does not even come close to the testing required for a proper diagnosis.

To be honest, I am not interested in further debating this with you. Your ideas are clearly not based on empiric studies, but on ideological bias and anecdotal evidence from your own life. The same bias is clearly visible in how you interpret my posts. I cannot know whether your history is truly as exceptional as you say, however I proposed that maybe your issues were different in nature, based on your description. If not, consider yourself extremely lucku

It is well established that HRT truly helps sufferers of gender dysphoria. It is well established that “reparative” therapy has detrimental effects. It is just as well established that forcing children to repress their gender identity has detrimental effects. It destroys lives.

It is also well established that transgender individuals have neurological differences that set them apart from the cisgender population. There are observable differences between androphilic and gynephilic transwomen neurologically, but there is no reasonable doubt that the condition is caused by neurological differences, which are too significant to be anything but congenital, in both cases.

So I’m afraid I won’t accept your reasoning, lest you have anything other than personal anecdotes and ideologically biased speeches to bring to the table. And that you don’t have, simply because such scientific evidence does not exist - all empiric evidence to date points towards a neurological, congenital cause, and all evidence to date points towards HRT being the only universally effective treatment. I’m not saying all problems magically go away with HRT, but the dysphoria is significantly alleviated for sure. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt about this.

Additionally, there is no Catholic doctrine about this. What provokes me is not that people disagree with my choices - they aree

.

,

Here is Fray Serpa 's statement:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=566074

While is true that there is no explicit pronouncement of the church, mist theologian will agree with fray serpa. Also pope Benedict made very clear statements that your sex does not change.

Second I think is interesting you dismiss the DSM. Do you think the same as to for example the current DSM not considering homosexuality disordered? I think is very interesting that on these particular issues the DSM is seen as the bible since it took homosexuality out from the list of disorders but all of a sudden is not the bible when the shoe doesn’t fit. Interesting.

I don’t think you don’t want to keep discussing the issue because my ideas are not basedbon research. I think you don’t want to discuss it because you don’t want to believe that there is a possibility that you can successfully treat GD in a different way than through living a lie. No Again the problem is that the solution entails not going with “this I what I want” and because it forces the person to sacrifice what they want for what should be done, people including you don’t like it. That is the same reason why hormonal treatments and sex surgery are being sold as the only treatments. Because they want people to think exactly like you and if anyone has a different idea or experience the solution is oh then it is not really GD.

Also I don’t think you like the fact that I am pointing at you the reality of GD, that it is rooted in self hatred. People with GD have a massive hate against their own bodies and that is what causes all the depression and suicidal issues. Do you want to explain to me how eliminating the self hatred is detrimental? It makes absolutely no sense. The hate is what is detrimental. But again it would mean to go against you and is not easy and that is why the first reaction is discomfort despite knowing that the real problem here is self hate.

 

[Rau]

InSearchofGrace:

The teleology of organ donation is not mutilation along the Principle of Totality, therefore, but one of charity.

Yes, that is the point I made. Moral Theologians at large believed otherwise originally, because they extrapolated from existing teaching, but the Church came to a fuller understanding subsequently, recognising organ donation as not the moral evil of mutilation. The Church did not need to change anything - the proper assignment of particular Acts (uncontemplated when the teaching was developed) to a particular good or evil simply became clearer. I don’t assert that treatments for dysphoria will go the same way- I have no idea. The lesson is not about that - it’s about recognising that our understanding is at an early stage and a too rapid and determined application of longstanding, valid teaching to circumstances so new and poorly understood can produce conclusions which, in time, are found to be wrong.

 

[Rin]

Here is Fray Serpa 's statement:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=566074

While is true that there is no explicit pronouncement of the church, mist theologian will agree with fray serpa. Also pope Benedict made very clear statements that your sex does not change.

Theologians, even Popes, agreed on limbo for centuries. Yet, it was never truly Catholic teaching, and today, few if any theologians see limbo as sound theology.

And for the umphteenth time, no one claims that sex can change. This is a misrepresentation of transgender treatment, perpetuated by tabloid media and theoconservatives. I agree with every single word of Pope Benedict’s speech.

Second I think is interesting you dismiss the DSM.

I did not dismiss the DSM. Read what I actually wrote, in its entirety, not twisting single words or sentences to fit your preconceptions, then try again.

As for what you think I think and other mind-reading abilities (you’re the second poster in a week to try that, I’m impressed), I do not care. However, there are reasons beyond your complete lack of scientific basis to support your ideas, among them feeling fatigued after returning to CAF for a week. Unlike many forum users, I do not delight in repeating the same, predictable, fruitless debates time after time after time. It exhausts me. However, I find it important that lurkers be aware that Catholic doctrine is not as clear cut as most people (conservatives and liberals alike) believe. That is why I’m here - for now. So time, energy and my own mental and spiritual wellbeing is a big part of not wishing to keep this debate going.

 

[Rau]

Here is Fray Serpa 's statement:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=566074

While is true that there is no explicit pronouncement of the church, mist theologian will agree with fray serpa. Also pope Benedict made very clear statements that your sex does not change.

I believe everyone here agrees with the last sentence.

But I just point out that Fr. Serpa, were he asked a question about organ donation many years ago, would have also concluded it was the evil of mutilation. At the time, organ donation was new and not fully understood in the moral sense. It was certainly not mentioned in the Catechism as it is today! A new Act was just assumed to be of the species captured by an existing (valid) teaching, and so the Moral Theologians of the day condemned it.

I’m not predicting what the eventual outcome in respect of gender dysphoria treatments will be, just pointing out how we can reach wrong conclusions.

As with many medical conditions, it is appropriate to recognise that not all conditions given the same name, or having the same symptoms, are of the same genesis, or warrant the same treatments. If Mary’s treatment worked for Mary’s condition, then there is something to be learned from that too.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, that is the point I made. Moral Theologians at large believed otherwise originally, because they extrapolated from existing teaching, but the Church came to a fuller understanding subsequently, recognising organ donation as not the moral evil of mutilation. The Church did not need to change anything - the proper assignment of particular Acts (uncontemplated when the teaching was developed) to a particular good or evil simply became clearer. I don’t assert that treatments for dysphoria will go the same way- I have no idea. The lesson is not about that - it’s about recognising that our understanding is at an early stage and a too rapid and determined application of longstanding, valid teaching to circumstances so new and poorly understood can produce conclusions which, in time, are found to be wrong.

It seems I did not clearly state what I wanted to say. On review of Church deliberation on organ donation, it was not hard to reach agreement on organ removal from a dead or living person for donation to another human being, from a moral and rational standpoint. It would be hard to project that the Church would view the same for SRS as the organ removal involved could not be easily disassociated from an act of mutilation, which is the point of my post in reply to yours. There is no division in the Catholic Church hierarchy or among moral theologians that I came across on the licitness of SRS.

The position of the Catholic Church on organ donation has been that any removal of an organ or tissue from a living person should not cause anatomical and functional integrity in the body of said person. It is also considered a noble act, an act of charity, instead of mutilation because it helps another human being.

Whereas in MtF sex reassignment surgery, anatomical and functional integrity is sacrificed with orchiectomy (production of sperm is no longer possible with removal of the testes), and penile inversion to create a vagina (penile erection would no longer possible). I don’t see how this can ever be considered not mutilation by the Church, people of science, and lay people. It serves perhaps to accommodate a transgender’s strong desire to have surgery to change his male genitals to female but it does not serve a social purpose, that is, of helping another human being. There is nothing noble about it.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…Also pope Benedict made clear statements that your sex does does not change.

I believe everyone here agrees with the last sentence.

The premise of the trans argument being made in this thread, it seems, is that sex resides in the physical brain, not on genitalia and DNA or clear karyotyping. So when an MtF trans person maintains she is a woman regardless that at birth her genitalia is unambiguously male and karyotyping is nothing else but XY, there is no disagreement with the statement of Pope Benedict and moral theologians that any cosmetic or plastic surgery does not change one’s sex. You see the framing of the trans argument?
,

 

[Rau]

The premise of the trans argument being made in this thread, it seems, is that sex resides in the physical brain, not on genitalia and DNA or clear karyotyping. So when an MtF trans person maintains she is a woman regardless that at birth her genitalia is unambiguously male and karyotyping is nothing else but XY, there is no disagreement with the statement of Pope Benedict and moral theologians that any cosmetic or plastic surgery does not change one’s sex. You see the framing of the trans argument?
,

The only arguments I am paying attention to are those expressed on this thread. If a poster said their sex is not in accord with unambiguous DNA and genitalia, that should be challenged.

Mind you (and somewhat tangentially), the more difficult problem should be what sex are those where ambiguity abounds? And since these grievous errors occur, it does not seem warranted to reject out of hand that something can also be amiss in brain development or chemistry. But that is to assert nothing about what might constitute appropriate treatment for someone suffering dysphoria.

 

[Rau]

Whereas in MtF sex reassignment surgery, anatomical and functional integrity is sacrificed with orchiectomy (production of sperm is no longer possible with removal of the testes), and penile inversion to create a vagina (penile erection would no longer possible). I don’t see how this can ever be considered not mutilation by the Church…
,

You may well be right. Perhaps one day the Catechism will put the matter beyond debate, as it did with organ donation.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The only arguments I am paying attention to are those expressed on this thread. If a poster said their sex is not in accord with unambiguous DNA and genitalia, that should be challenged.

Mind you (and somewhat tangentially), the more difficult problem should be what sex are those where ambiguity abounds? And since these grievous errors occur, it does not seem warranted to reject out of hand that something can also be amiss in brain development or chemistry. But that is to assert nothing about what might constitute appropriate treatment for someone suffering dysphoria.

Those with intersex conditions, which are very rare, where ambiguity is objective and undeniable, who choose to transition and undergo surgical correction, are seen with more understanding. It is when posters advance the idea that brain sex is already established, differences in so called neural structures or white matter in the brain trans people accordingly have in common with the sex they identify, not what their genitalia and DNA indicate, that challenge is being hereby made. I have seen it argued that this constitutes an intersex condition and SRS advocates run with it, sure that the Church will make a pronouncement that transitioning and SRS would be permissible.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Rau,

Let me say people with gender dysphoria need compassion, especially those with seemingly lifelong body-mind inconcongruence. They maintain psychotherapy and medications are not enough, threatening self harm or destruction most of the time. They come to reject that prayers are helpful. They really need help. I acknowledge there are no easy answers.
,

 

[marymary1975]

Theologians, even Popes, agreed on limbo for centuries. Yet, it was never truly Catholic teaching, and today, few if any theologians see limbo as sound theology.

And for the umphteenth time, no one claims that sex can change. This is a misrepresentation of transgender treatment, perpetuated by tabloid media and theoconservatives. I agree with every single word of Pope Benedict’s speech.

I did not dismiss the DSM. Read what I actually wrote, in its entirety, not twisting single words or sentences to fit your preconceptions, then try again.

As for what you think I think and other mind-reading abilities (you’re the second poster in a week to try that, I’m impressed), I do not care. However, there are reasons beyond your complete lack of scientific basis to support your ideas, among them feeling fatigued after returning to CAF for a week. Unlike many forum users, I do not delight in repeating the same, predictable, fruitless debates time after time after time. It exhausts me. However, I find it important that lurkers be aware that Catholic doctrine is not as clear cut as most people (conservatives and liberals alike) believe. That is why I’m here - for now. So time, energy and my own mental and spiritual wellbeing is a big part of not wishing to keep this debate going.

But is that you keep avoiding issues when the shoe doesn’t fit. You just avoid it by sayinh the ideas are not scientific. I havent gone to debate the actual scientific issuea because you kust keep avoiding points. Is not to be impressed that I’m the second poster, is the content if what you are writing. As to the DMS you say I am twisting your words. You literally said “the DMS is USEFUL…however it is hardly exhaustive”. What you are at minimum giving the understanding is that while the DMS is good you shouldn’t fully rely on it. I am not twisting anything. I am just mentioning that if that is the position we are going to hold as to DMS it should be hold on everything in the DMS including when it is not convenient for your position.

 

[marymary1975]

Oh and just really quick as to limbo, it is not correct that theologians always agreed to it. In the council of Trent there was already huge disagreements over the concept of limbo so that is not correct. In fact a good part of the reason why it was never a doctrine it was precisely the huge disagreement over it. So it is incorrect to say that it has been agreed for centuries.

 

[marymary1975]

The premise of the trans argument being made in this thread, it seems, is that sex resides in the physical brain, not on genitalia and DNA or clear karyotyping. So when an MtF trans person maintains she is a woman regardless that at birth her genitalia is unambiguously male and karyis nothing else but XY, there is no disagreement with XY e statement of Pope Benedict and moral theologians that any cosmetic or plastic surgery does not change one’s sex. You see the framing of the trans argument?
,

I agree with you on this In search of. There is obviously some particular cases of real intersex and hermaphroditism that are really complicated (though my understanding is also that it is a very small number), however in the vast majority of cases of GD we are speaking about situations where the genitalis is unambiguously male (or female), the chromosomes is unambiguously XY (or xx for women) and there is absolutely no genetic disorder. If a person is XY and his genitalia is unambiguously male but he asserts he is woman, grabbing that person and telling him OK let’s make everyone believe that you are woman and pretend to be a woman to make you happy and let’ s make believe people that sex does not exist and is just a brain creation so people can follow your lie, is a massive detriment to both the person itself and to society.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I agree with you on this In search of. There is obviously some particular cases of real intersex and hermaphroditism that are really complicated (though my understanding is also that it is a very small number), however in the vast majority of cases of GD we are speaking about situations where the genitalis is unambiguously male (or female), the chromosomes is unambiguously XY (or xx for women) and there is absolutely no genetic disorder. If a person is XY and his genitalia is unambiguously male but he asserts he is woman, grabbing that person and telling him OK let’s make everyone believe that you are woman and pretend to be a woman to make you happy and let’ s make believe people that sex does not exist and is just a brain creation so people can follow your lie, is a massive detriment to both the person itself and to society.

Thank you, marymary, for your witness to overcoming gender dysphoria yourself. You see how pro transitioning posters try to invalidate somebody else’s experience, only interested in advancing the track they are on. You must be bi, or you must not have true GD after all.

With the successes of gays and lesbians in their movement securing legal same sex “marriage” and gay parenting, profoundly and radically affecting ordered social and family formation and values, transgenders see an entry to now demand rights to freely crossdress (kids in school included, with the help of enabling parents) and tax paid SRS. It is really more than just trans women wanting to wear make up and heels, or a trans men’s wardrobe consisting of men’s trousers and shirts. Where does it lead, an intelligent and wise society should ask. What further social chaos is in store for our generation and the next ones?

Even now, pro trans rights advocates and defenders tell us, based on trans research on which they rely, there are different trans categories: there are transgenders that are autogynephile, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, the promiscuous and asexual type. So, why even transition and undergo sex change? Trans being the hybrid of sexual orientations, society better understand, make room and accommodate each sub-category? They want the freedom to change the “sex” on their bio-data record, based on what their brains tell them, to be able to travel as the opposite sex/gender, to obtain social benefits, to apply for certain kinds of work, profession, vocation, or sports team. To what end and where is the end? It is reason thrown out the window.
,
,

 

[marymary1975]

I believe everyone here agrees with the last sentence.

But I just point out that Fr. Serpa, were he asked a question about organ donation many years ago, would have also concluded it was the evil of mutilation. At the time, organ donation was new and not fully understood in the moral sense. It was certainly not mentioned in the Catechism as it is today! A new Act was just assumed to be of the species captured by an existing (valid) teaching, and so the Moral Theologians of the day condemned it.

I’m not predicting what the eventual outcome in respect of gender dysphoria treatments will be, just pointing out how we can reach wrong conclusions.

As with many medical conditions, it is appropriate to recognise that not all conditions given the same name, or having the same symptoms, are of the same genesis, or warrant the same treatments. If Mary’s treatment worked for Mary’s condition, then there is something to be learned from that too.

You are right as to the mutilation but let’s not forget pope Benedict’s statement. The majority of cases we are talking about someone with no genetic diseases who is clearly X X and whose genitals are fully and undoubtly feminine or someone whose chromosome is XY wand his gemitals are clearly and undoubtly masculine. Pope Benedict was clear that the sex does not change. Also the secular idea of “gender” that biological sex does not really exists instead is a construction of the mind is not accepted by the church.

 

[Rin]

But is that you keep avoiding issues when the shoe doesn’t fit. You just avoid it by sayinh the ideas are not scientific. I havent gone to debate the actual scientific issuea because you kust keep avoiding points.

No, I do not avoid issues. On the contrary, I make sure to consider and reply to every new argument people make, sometimes adjusting my views if the new information is sound (this happened less than two weeks ago - and I did not like having to make that adjustment. However, when presented with sound evidence, it is the only rational response), and sometimes concluding the argument is logically fallacious or out of touch with reality.

However, I am tired of explaining the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. For that reason, yes, I will simply say that some ideas and claims lack scientific legitimacy. In those cases, I will earlier in my thread history have made a more exhaustive response to the same claim - not necessarily from the same person, though. Given how many people simply copy McHugh’s arguments, replying in full to everyone would be a full time job. But rest assured, I have seriously considered every point you have made, at one point or another. Some of them ad nauseam. And I have also believed in most of them; I used to have the same convictions as you do. However, when presented with new, sound evidence, I adjusted my views. Just as I will in the future.

Is not to be impressed that I’m the second poster, is the content if what you are writing. As to the DMS you say I am twisting your words. You literally said “the DMS is USEFUL…however it is hardly exhaustive”. What you are at minimum giving the understanding is that while the DMS is good you shouldn’t fully rely on it. I am not twisting anything. I am just mentioning that if that is the position we are going to hold as to DMS it should be hold on everything in the DMS including when it is not convenient for your position.

Actually, you did just admit to twisting my words.

Yes, I said that the DSM is hardly exhaustive, and that it is not sufficient as the sole diagnostic tool. Based on that, you claimed that I “dismiss the DSM”.

However, pointing out that the DSM cannot stand on its own as a diagnostic tool (which is entirely uncontroversial - any licensed therapist would agree), is not to “dismiss” it. Such is a misrepresentation, a twisting, of my words.

That said, I am getting the sense that many of these understanding is caused by having completely different modes of thought. You seem to see things in binaries, as if every opinion has to be categorical. Thus, when I point out that the DSM is not sufficient as a diagnostic tool, you think I dismissed it, as if there is nothing in between full approval and complete dismissal.

Of course, I cannot know whether you truly think in binaries this way. Your thoughts are not accessible to me. However, based on your writing and your responses, and not least your understanding of what I write, I am beginning to suspect that this may be a factor. If so, continuing this will be futile, as our modes of thought are completely different.

Oh and just really quick as to limbo, it is not correct that theologians always agreed to it. In the council of Trent there was already huge disagreements over the concept of limbo so that is not correct. In fact a good part of the reason why it was never a doctrine it was precisely the huge disagreement over it. So it is incorrect to say that it has been agreed for centuries.

Again, saying something was agreed on by the vast majority of theologians and even popes for centuries, is not the same as saying they always agreed to it. Again you understand me in binaries. I am aware that it was disagreed on throughout the history of the Church, but so were many teachings - including the Immaculate Conception. Ask any Dominican about that.

That something is held as infallible doctrine, does not mean there has been no disagreement. On the contrary; doctrine is rarely defined as dogma unless there has been great disagreement! Note also that those who disagreed with the Immaculate Conception before the dogma was declared, were not deemed heretics; however, they would have become so if they refused to accept the teaching after its elevation to dogma.

Similarly, that something is commonly agreed on (even throughout the history of the Church), does not necessarily mean it is infallible doctrine. Limbo has been agreed on for centuries, and the automatic damnation of suicides has been agreed on virtually throughout the entire history of the Church, up until the advent of modern psychologi.

As for limbo, here is what the Baltimore Catechism has to say:
Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Limbo is, to be fair, described as “common belief”, not doctrine. However, it is presented as a certainty that unbaptized infants cannot enter heaven. This is an example of broad agreement between theologians, which has later changed.

(And yes, I’m fully aware that the Baltimore Catechism was not authoritative in the same sense as the Roman Catechism, however I’d dare say the Baltimore Catechism is a rather good source for what teachings where generally accepted at the time.)