Gender dysphoria?

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Ewww! That’s ever worse!

Yeah, it is so much worse that when done by a skilled surgeon most gynecologists wont notice much difference between them and a woman who had a hysterectomy

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yeah, it is so much worse that when done by a skilled surgeon most gynecologists wont notice much difference between them and a woman who had a hysterectomy

So?

A surgeon, even a skilled one, can’t do much about large hands and feet, narrow hips which generally are characteristics of a male body compared to a female’s. Not to mention the laryngeal prominence which is a dead give away. While this can be solved by a tracheal shave, it leaves an undeniable scar. And the voice remains deep, although there is, accordingly, a procedure to raise deep male voice up to 100 Hz, called laser assisted voice adjustment; however said procedure is fraught with complications.

Sure, hormones which have to be taken always to maintain softer skin and to encourage growth of breasts (inserting saline prosthesis is an option, of course), as is routine electrolysis for facial and body hair, can do the trick on gross appearance, in addition to a neovagina. With a staged or decidedly feminine affect, it is true the undiscerning including gynecologists may not be able to tell a natal from a trans female.

The bottom line is SRS does not change the DNA. XY remains XY. (Let’s exclude the rare XXY or Klinefleter syndrome and other permutations.)
,

 

[LucyEm]

The bottom line is SRS does not change the DNA. XY remains XY. (Let’s exclude the rare XXY or Klinefleter syndrome and other permutations.)
,

I had a friend who suffered from gender dysphoria. The anguish was terrible. They weren’t in denial about the reality of their body or their DNA. Their brain and their mind was just “someone else”. They just want a way to resolve it. And like the other poster said, if a Pill would fix their brain, they’d take it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I had a friend who suffered from gender dysphoria. The anguish was terrible. They weren’t in denial about the reality of their body or their DNA. Their brain and their mind was just “someone else”. They just want a way to resolve it. And like the other poster said, if a Pill would fix their brain, they’d take it.

I don’t doubt the anguish is terrible. But a surgical solution is not the way to resolve a mental condition. Along that line, what is society to do with species dysphoria, open the door to trans species?
,

 

[Rau]

I don’t doubt the anguish is terrible. But a surgical solution is not the way to resolve a mental condition.

I suppose a solution focussed on the brain would be “the way” - but we don’t have one! I read the Church can accept these kinds of surgeries in really bad cases.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I suppose a solution focussed on the brain would be “the way” - but we don’t have one! I read the Church can accept these kinds of surgeries in really bad cases.

You read something based on a sub secretum document that supposedly indicated that

“-- An analysis of the moral licitness of “sex-change” operations. It
concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain
extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will “cure” the
patient’s internal turmoil.”

But also indicated that

“-- A source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence
suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the
likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.”

At any rate, according to a study, Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden, the conclusion reached is as follows:
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

Now, of course, there are SRS advocates and pre and post SRS candidates who come on this board absolutely rejecting the conclusion.
,

 

[Rau]

You read something based on a sub secretum document that supposedly indicated that

“-- An analysis of the moral licitness of “sex-change” operations. It
concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain
extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will “cure” the
patient’s internal turmoil.”

But also indicated that

“-- A source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence
suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the
likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.”

At any rate, according to a study, Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden, the conclusion reached is as follows:
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

,

Are you arguing the surgery is always immoral, or that it may not help everyone achieve the level of comfort with self that most of us enjoy? The latter would hardly be a surprise.

That last paragraph above sounds pretty right.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Are you arguing the surgery is always immoral, or that it may not help everyone achieve the level of comfort with self that most of us enjoy? The latter would hardly be a surprise.

That last paragraph above sounds pretty right.

Not sure if I will go so far to say it is always immoral.

This articulates what is immoral about sex change operations. However, it says too that the moral judgment that genital-changing operations are immoral does not entail that people cannot have false beliefs, or that their feelings and attitudes cannot be irrational or not in conformity with reality.

I would also question the use of SRS if it does not eliminate and still renders a lifelong need for psychotherapy and hormone treatment. With or without surgery, therefore, the person needs to undergo said palliative treatment without which there would ever be a feeling of relief or comfort level. Why go under the knife in the most drastic, irreversible way? In fact, there are so many accounts of regret after SRS on record.
,

 

[Rau]

Not sure if I will go so far to say it is always immoral.

This articulates what is immoral about sex change operations. However, it says too that the moral judgment that genital-changing operations are immoral does not entail that people cannot have false beliefs, or that their feelings and attitudes cannot be irrational or not in conformity with reality.

I would also question the use of SRS if it does not eliminate and still renders a lifelong need for psychotherapy and hormone treatment. With or without surgery, therefore, the person needs to undergo said palliative treatment without which there would ever be a feeling of relief or comfort level. Why go under the knife in the most drastic, irreversible way? In fact, there are so many accounts of regret after SRS on record.
,

OK. I’d question just about anything on this topic because it is so utterly foreign to me!

Not sure what you mean by reality. The reality of DNA and body is not questioned by sufferers. It’s the “reality” of what’s going on in their head, and for which there seems to be no treatment, that is the problem. [Whether this “reality” is like the reality of schizophrenia - for which drugs can be an effective treatment, or a different kind of reality, I don’t know.]

I cannot imagine anyone chooses the knife recklessly, and those who do choose it would I hope be informed about the data on both effective and ineffective surgeries.

 

[Rin]

Hello everyone, I happened to be lurking today, and I think some clarifications are in order:

• It is correct that most trans people, including myself, at some desperate point would have taken “the pill” if it was available. However, I’m worried by seeing people so unquestioningly asserting such a solution as the preferred one. Is really a complete brain rewrite (which is what would be needed, since gender identity is demonstrated to be structural, not just some part of the brain being different) preferable/less problematic than replacing hormones and/or genitals? Are we as Catholics really so obsessed about preserving genital tissue, that completely altering a brain suddenly becomes unproblematic? It was attitudes like these (removing conditions that are seen as taboo or “embarrassing”) that sparked the lobotomy travesty of the 20th century.
• People need to realize that the brain is very physical, very real, and it is a far greater part of our being than our genitals are. The smug references to “physical reality” only demonstrate ignorance on behalf of the poster - about transgenderism as well as the human body.
• I’ve been over this before at length, but the way Mr. Paul McHugh interprets research is manipulative and intellectually dishonest. His claim that the treatments currently in use are ineffective does not follow from the research he cites. This is easily available for anyone to investigate - actually the researchers point this out in the reports themselves! Reality is that HRT/SRS saves lives. There is consensus about this; McHugh has been weighed and found wanting. The current consensus will only change with new, convincing data that contradict older evidence. This is how science works. Rehashing the same, old, fallacious claims by a self-admitted ideologue will not change the mind of anyone with an ounce of knowledge within this field.
• However, many trans people suffer other ailments, most commonly PTSD, depressions, dissociative disorders and so on as a consequence of being physically and emotionally abused throughout their childhoods. These conditions will often require separate treatment, and they explain why the suicide rate remains higher than the normal population even after surgery. However there is definite consensus that HRT/SRS alleviates gender dysphoria (and sometimes also comorbid conditions!), and compared to the untreated, gender dysphoric population, the suicide rate is significantly lower. If you add reported quality of life into the picture, there is even less doubt about efficiency. The fact that people will still, to varying degrees, need therapeutic support, does not invalidate this. It’s like saying heart medication is useless since you may still need a new stent from time to time…

Lastly, those who receive treatment early (as in puberty blockers) seem to have even less problems - they live normal lives, and they’re indistinguishable from the cis female population, since they were never virilized. Obviously this also reduces stress. Similarly, those who transition as adults but were not fully virilized due to conditions like PAIS/MAIS, Klinefelters etc. (and this is more common than people think - often these conditions are not diagnosed until problems like infertility are made manifest), also often experience less post-treatment stress, since they have an easier time fitting in.

That’s it for now - I wish you all a blessed weekend, and I may or may not decide to return later.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

OK. I’d question just about anything on this topic because it is so utterly foreign to me!

Not sure what you mean by reality. The reality of DNA and body is not questioned by sufferers. It’s the “reality” of what’s going on in their head, and for which there seems to be no treatment, that is the problem. [Whether this “reality” is like the reality of schizophrenia - for which drugs can be an effective treatment, or a different kind of reality, I don’t know.]

I cannot imagine anyone chooses the knife recklessly, and those who do choose it would I hope be informed about the data on both effective and ineffective surgeries.

As for “physical reality” which you and the poster who just joined the thread raised, the National Catholic Bioethics Center as cited addresses this directly,

Does not the position put too much emphasis on the body and not on the person’s mind – i.e., on what the person believes and feels? Some may think that when the state of one’s mind does not match up with one’s body, why defer to the body? Why let the body dictate what one’s sexual identity is and not one’s mind?

These questions are important and bring us to the heart of the issue. It is granted and well accepted that a person’s self – the constellation of beliefs, desires, emotional dispositions and character traits – constitute someone’s self-image and self-understanding. But it should also be granted that not all of our beliefs, desires, and self-understanding conform to the truth. Our reasoning capabilities, memory and even basic sensation such as visual perception can err and give rise to false beliefs. The response we take in those cases is to correct the false beliefs. When our self understands something false about us, this needs to be corrected as well, not acceded to.

To answer the questions directly, those who hold this position assume a dualism between mind and body. Properly understood, persons are either male or female. The body (of the person) is a fundamental indication of what sex we belong to. It is a physical, empirically verifiable reality that does not change simply because our beliefs or desires do. Once the dualism behind the question is rejected, and one recognizes that our sex is indicated by our bodies, we can see that sexual identity is an objective, readily discernible fact about us. As some philosophers put it, we are bodies.

What seems to happen in these cases of mutilating surgeries is that the individual attempts to capitulate to the emotional disorder through surgical means rather than addressing it as what it truly is, a psychological disorder.

The poster, understandably, would not be in agreement. Those who have decided to undergo SRS for themselves have to continue with the insistence that surgery is the answer, and would lash out, branding the naysayers in the mental science field like Dr. McHugh as manipulative and dishonest, and call those who would rather take the NCBC’s well reasoned position over their justification for a mistaken belief as ignorant.

As a matter of fact, contrary to the claim of “trans brain structure,” purportedly explaining sex dimorphism in the brain, the Stockholm Brain Institute study by Savic and Arver, appears to disprove said claim.

**Gender dysphoria is suggested to be a consequence of sex atypical cerebral differentiation. **We tested this hypothesis in a magnetic resonance study of voxel-based morphometry and structural volumetry in 48 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW) and 24 gynephillic male to female transsexuals (MtF-TR). Specific interest was paid to gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM) fraction, hemispheric asymmetry, and volumes of the hippocampus, thalamus, caudate, and putamen. Like HeM, MtF-TR displayed larger GM volumes than HeW in the cerebellum and lingual gyrus and smaller GM and WM volumes in the precentral gyrus. Both male groups had smaller hippocampal volumes than HeW. As in HeM, but not HeW, the right cerebral hemisphere and thalamus volume was in MtF-TR lager than the left. None of these measures differed between HeM and MtF-TR. MtF-TR displayed also singular features and differed from both control groups by having reduced thalamus and putamen volumes and elevated GM volumes in the right insular and inferior frontal cortex and an area covering the right angular gyrus.**The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR are feminized. **The observed changes in MtF-TR bring attention to the networks inferred in processing of body perception.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The Catholic position on gender dysphoria and sex change operations is truthful and yet not devoid of compassion.

Fr. Williams Saunders said it best:

"To destroy organs purposefully that are healthy and functioning, and to try to create imitation organs which will never have the genuineness and functioning of authentic organs is gross and lacks charity. Such surgery which purposefully destroys the bodily integrity of the person must be condemned.

Nevertheless, individuals suffering from gender dysphoria syndrome must be treated with compassion. They should be encouraged to pursue proper psychotherapy which will help them to face realistically their human situation and the world, and the consequences of their actions on themselves and their relationships with family and friends. Moreover, they need pastoral counseling which will help them realize the great love of God who loves them as individuals who have been created in His image and likeness. Such counseling will also direct them to spiritual, intellectual and social pursuits to realize their self-worth and divert their preoccupation with sexual identity."
,

 

[Rau]

To repeat earlier comments, the person suffering does not dispute the state of their body. They are not disputing what is indisputable.

There is a cause for their condition, and it is not transitory, like the flu, nor like a bout of depression triggered by some tough times. The cause is not known.

I personally find the idea of cutting off organs and forming others appalling, but I cannot understand fully the experience of these people. It would seem to be far worse than same sex attraction.

I don’t think the moral position on the appropriateness of surgery to improve quality of life is entirely clear, so I have an open mind on that, but the obligations of chastity remain.

 

[987mk]

I think it’s a real disorder, but I disagree with the idea that treatment for it is to confuse the individual further by encouraging them in their delusion and demanding that all others participate in it.

How can you both claim it is real and a delusion?

 

[Rau]

How can you both claim it is real and a delusion?

I guess she means they are not pretending, or indulging some immature flight of fancy.

Delusion is the wrong word I think - afflicted women are not suffering the delusion of having a penis. That truly would be “delusional”.

 

[Rin]

The poster, understandably, would not be in agreement. Those who have decided to undergo SRS for themselves have to continue with the insistence (…)

I’d appreciate if you could stop with the assumptions about me (and others in my position/of my views) as a person; I’m afraid you miss badly.

Firstly, I have not yet even decided to undergo SRS - it is a choice I leave for the future. It will only happen as an absolute last resort - it is not something I would do lightheartedly. I actually hope I will not have to, since for many people, HRT is sufficient. I’ll just have to see how things unfold. As of today, all treatment I have received (low-effect hormonal intervention, hair removal) is more or less reversible; I have not made any choice that makes me “have to continue” insisting upon anything at all.

Secondly, we would actually have been in agreement less than two years ago! I had the (mistaken) idea that the Church condemns gender reassignment as such. I had the idea that transgenderism was a (at that time well-repressed, in my case…) delusion. I was completely invested in the conservative (which does not equal orthodox, by the way) party line. Admitting my mistake and “reverting” to my childhood identity has cost me a lot, socially as well as personally. For me, this is definitely not the easy way.

However, holding these views caused me to grow increasingly miserable; I’m amazed I even managed to insist on something contradicted by every fiber of my being (or, to be specific, CNS) for that long. It almost ended in suicide. However, even then, I would not change my mind; we can’t let feelings guide us, after all! It took significant amounts of evidence, and the realization that the medical field is in consensus that transgenderism is caused by structural differences in the brain, to change my mind. But even then, I would not change my mind until I realized that the Church actually does not condemn this. Many theologians may do, but they are far from infallible.

So no, my current views are not due to irreversable decisions, and they are not due to feelings. They’re due to evidence. And just to be clear, I was not gathering evidence to find a way “out” - it was to reassure myself that my former views were right. My confirmation bias was conservative.

As for McHugh, I do not “brand” him as manipulative, I simply point out that he manipulates research in his statements. If turning the conclusion of studies upside-down to further his own agenda (I will not give examples here, I’ve done that earlier) is not manipulative, then what is?

When it comes to people who would rather take NCBC’s position (though I would not necessarily agree it’s well reasoned) over the established scientific consensus within the field (namely, that there are observable neurological differences in transsexual individuals, and, actually more importantly, that HRT/SRS are the only known treatments that demonstrably work), I would not necessarily say they’re ignorant. They could just as well have a heavy confirmation bias.

(Note: I do greatly respect the NCBC on other areas, but they have this wrong. Period. Their position is also not binding on Catholics, may I add - even less so on non-American Catholics…)

As a matter of fact, contrary to the claim of “trans brain structure,” purportedly explaining sex dimorphism in the brain, the Stockholm Brain Institute study by Savic and Arver, appears to disprove said claim.

Thank you; this is the first time since I started posting on CAF that someone [edit: who is opposed to sex reassignment] actually managed to dig up an actual study that actually brings new data on the table.

It certainly nuances the picture. However, it does not overturn the existing research, as you believe.

Firstly, the study is only done on gynephilic patients. The earlier studies that clearly demonstrated the existence of feminized (or, rather, nonmasculinized, given how fetal development works) structures in the brain, were done on androphilic patients. Therefore, this study does not negate the earlier results.

However, this study seems to support Blanchard’s typology. Note that I do not admit this lightly; I have big issues with Blanchard. However, Blanchard did not deny the existence of feminized structures in the brain of transsexuals - on the contrary, he predicted such a discovery in androphilic patients, but not in gynephilic patients, due to his observation of behavioral traits in the two groups, in addition to differences in childhood. This fits perfectly with the studies to date. Now where that leaves bisexual trans people, like myself, is hard to say…

Additionally, to quote a commentary on the study:
James M. Cantor:

Also meriting emphasis is that—although these data disconfirm that the heterosexual type has a feminized brain pattern—the data nonetheless confirm that heterosexual transsexuals have a brain structure distinct from that of typical (nontranssexual) persons. Their gender identity is not a transient or ephemeral characteristic, but a likely innate and immutable characteristic, emerging from their particular brain structure.

Lastly, it should be noted that Blanchard, despite distinguishing between androphilic and gynephilic trans women, still recommended hormonal and surgical treatment for both groups; it is still the only treatment shown to help.

In any case, I was not aware of this study, and it does add another piece to the puzzle. So again, thank you for posting it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

At least, I am hearing somewhat of a concession. From “smug references to ‘physical reality,’ which demonstrates ignorance about transgenderism as well as the human body,” clearly in my direction, to “when it comes to people who would rather take NCBC’s position … over the established scientific consensus within the field ( … that HRT/SRS are the only known treatments that demonstrably work),” they are NOT necessarily ignorant, that they may just be having a heavy confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, which you admit elsewhere to also have. The fact is established scientific consensus is arguable, with consensus reached more often than not on political considerations instead of scientific principles. Science on a so called transgender brain is far from settled.

Further, there is a wide variety of groups under the “T” umbrella (yet another classification under which you identify, bisexual trans), with a group that is obviously pushing to have the medical / surgical and mental health profession deign that sex resides in the mind or brain that has atypical structures, that one can insist that he or she is really of the opposite sex or gender, regardless that his genetic and all physical attributes are unambiguously male or female.

You may say you have not yet made the decision to undergo SRS; however, your postings on this and other threads indicate you earnestly wish or are near to opening that door. In fact, we have had a similar exchange in June 2014 in the thread “Transgender Rights is the “New Civil Rights Movement” - TIME magazine” whereby you did not deny you were on the HRT/SRS path.

As every trans seeking a dispensation from the Church, you wish to hang your hat on the statement from the purported sub secretum document: “Sex change procedures could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will ‘cure’ the patient’s internal turmoil.” As far as can be gleaned from many, well versed on the side of canon law and theology, said part of the purported document came with a caveat and very specific context.

I think you need to pause before you set aside the papal wisdom of Benedict VI (in his homily Dec. 12, 2012), the NCBC position on the issue, the counsel of Fr. Serpa and CAF apologists, etc.

Rin, I believe and don’t question that you and others like you have known suffering for many years. How to persuade you, who is surprised that someone in the forum who is opposed to SRS has “actually managed to dig up a study that actually brings new data on the table”?

Please read what I posted on #52.

May you reach the peace and reconciliation with yourself that you seek.
,

 

[marymary1975]

How can you both claim it is real and a delusion?

What she means is that the issue is real the solution proposed of treating the issue by living a lie is delusional. Basically the solution given by current society is convince yourself that you have a sex that you don’t have and tell everyone that that you are from a sex that you are not and that is going to cure the problem. It is a delusion because it is not treating the problem it is making you to live a lie to be happy and that is not a real solution.

 

[Rin]

At least, I am hearing somewhat of a concession. From "smug references to ‘physical reality,’ (…)

There is no contradiction, nor a concession here - the numerous smug references to “physical reality” (without further qualification) do indeed demonstrate ignorance. It is however also possible to be knowledgeable yet strongly biased, which is what I sometimes see in those who bring up the NCBC statement, which is mistaken in its very premises (hint: I do not, and medical science does not, assert a dualism between mind and soul. I see the mind as at the very least contingent on the body, while medical science in practice sees the mind as an epiphenomenon of the body. The dualism argument is misguided at best, and a straw man at worst).

Confirmation bias, which you admit elsewhere to also have.

Tu quoque.

But yes, I did indeed have a conservative confirmation bias. Thankfully I realized I was in error.

The fact is established scientific consensus is arguable, with consensus reached more often than not on political considerations instead of scientific principles.

A claim I often see being made, but rarely see being justified.

Additionally, there are hordes of politicians, insurance providers, and other people and institutions who lose money on covering gender reassignment, who would simply love to overthrow the current consensus. But yet, an increasing number of studies (including the one you posted) affirm a neurological cause. This is politically inconvenient, not the other way around.

Also, there’s a vast amount of therapists (as in, thousands the amount of SRS-specialized surgeons and HRT-specialized endocrinologists) who would benefit greatly if reparative therapy was believed to be efficient, yet therapists no longer recommend therapy (!) for gender dysphoria. That sounds like objectivity to me.

Science on a so called transgender brain is far from settled.

Obviously not.

However, the existence of a neurological cause, which at least in a significant amount of cases has to do with gendered differentiation of the brain, is settled. Overthrowing those studies would be very difficult, and not least very improbable.

Further, there is (…) that one can insist that he or she is really of the opposite sex or gender, regardless that his genetic and all physical attributes are unambiguously male or female.

And again, the central nervous system is a physical attribute.

However, in my specific case, I’m not even unambiguously male if we left out the CNS. My puberty was late, and virilization happened slowly. My hips are broader than those of many cis women I know, and my shoulders are narrow. Generally my features are feminine or at worst not very masculine, to the point of people often believing me to be up to a decade younger than I actually am. Yet I did not really think much about this (other than thinking it was fortunate) until my pre-HRT blood samples were done. And surprise, my hormone levels are not those of a typical male; actually, they’re the weirdest my very experienced doctor has ever seen. There is a big chance I’m sterile (so there went the “fully functional” argument) and I am probably intersexed in some way. Sadly, getting it confirmed would not be covered where I live, since I’m not trying to get children, and it won’t change the treatment plan significantly.

Now you can of course say I’m probably an exception, however according to my doctor I’m not (except for the weird hormone levels). They see mild intersex conditions, or at least suspect them, in a surprisingly high amount of gender dysphoric patients. How can you then be so sure these people are “unambiguously” male or female?

(I have to split this post - my apologies.)

 

[Rin]

You may say you have not yet made the decision to undergo SRS; however, your postings on this and other threads indicate you earnestly wish(…)

Oh, I am most certainly on the HRT path, and I’ve also not denied I’m strongly considering SRS, though I will not decide in at least a few years yet. My doctor discourages SRS (and there went another myth out the window) except in cases where it’s the absolutely last resort, and I agree with them.

My point was simply that your poorly hidden accusation about me saying what I say because I can’t revert on my choices, is groundless. I have not made any irreversible decisions, and still won’t have a year from now (even full dosage hormonal intervention is reversible for quite some time).

As every trans seeking a dispensation from the Church, you wish to hang your hat on the statement from the purported sub secretum (…) said part of the purported document came with a caveat and very specific context.

That caveat (presuming you’re thinking of the one about causes and efficiency of treatment) is not within the domain of faith and morals, and it was inspired by McHugh. It has since been proved improbable by research. Sadly, the Church can, has and may also in the future make errors in Her understanding of science.

I think you need to pause before you set aside the papal wisdom of Benedict VI (in his homily Dec. 12, 2012)

I agree with every word of the Holy Father’s speech, and most trans people would. It does not address transgenderism, but gender deconstructionism - an ideology which is as opposed to the transgender phenomenon as it is to Catholic teaching.

the NCBC position on the issue

I’ve already indicated one of the many reasons I do not place much faith in the NCBC on this matter.

the counsel of Fr. Serpa and CAF apologists, etc.

…and my issue would be similar here. As with NCBC, I highly respect CA in other areas of discourse (especially the articles regarding Protestantism and anti-Catholicism are excellent, if I may say so), but on this, their argumentation falls short.

Rin, I believe and don’t question that you and others like you have known suffering for many years.

Thank you, and I believe you.

However, since you’re so staunchly opposed to the only working treatment there is, then what is your solution? I remember you (forgive me if I’m mixing you up with someone else) reacting strongly to me pointing out that not receiving any treatment would with high probability end in suicide. However, this is supported by statistics as well as anecdotes and my own experience - I have been extremely close. It is not a threat, but a fact - one I’m doing everything in my power to evade, but which still looms over me more often than I like to admit. How can you then apparently care, while still insisting on the immorality of treatment, other than through some kind of cognitive dissonance?

How to persuade you, who is surprised that someone in the forum who is opposed to SRS has “actually managed to dig up a study that actually brings new data on the table”?

To make myself clear: I’m not surprised in the sense that I thought it impossible - I’m surprised since I haven’t seen it in the more than a year I’ve been lurking (and later writing) on CAF.

How to persuade me? You can’t. I take my advice from professionals with relevant qualifications, and who follow generally accepted guidelines. I base my knowledge on scientific consensus, especially in a field in which I have no formal education. Were the consensus to change (which is, however, improbable), I would adjust my views with it. Anything else would be irrational.

Please read what I posted on #52.

I will, but later. It’s nearing bed time here.

May you reach the peace and reconciliation with yourself that you seek.

Thank you.