Gender dysphoria?

[Rau]

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.

The “problem” is that the problem has no treatment! There is no pill.

 

[Rin]

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."
,

I’ve read this now as you asked.

With all due respect, this advice is similar to recommending homeopathy to a cancer patient (while discouraging medical treatment). “Reparative” psychotherapy has been shown to have absolutely no beneficial effects on gender dysphoric patients. Actually, it is worse than homeopathy on cancer patients, since “reparative” therapy demonstrably has detrimental effects, while homeopathy can actually have *beneficial *effects in the form of placebo…

So I’m sorry, but this does not fly. It sounds pretty, but it is not helpful. You may close your eyes and ears and continue insisting that psychotherapy will help, but it won’t - the psychotherapists disagree with you…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I’ve read this now as you asked.

With all due respect, this advice is similar to recommending homeopathy to a cancer patient (while discouraging medical treatment). “Reparative” psychotherapy has been shown to have absolutely no beneficial effects on gender dysphoric patients. Actually, it is worse than homeopathy on cancer patients, since “reparative” therapy demonstrably has detrimental effects, while homeopathy can actually have *beneficial *effects in the form of placebo…

So I’m sorry, but this does not fly. It sounds pretty, but it is not helpful. You may close your eyes and ears and continue insisting that psychotherapy will help, but it won’t - the psychotherapists disagree with you…

First of all, my post #52, which highlighted the counsel of Fr. Saunders, did not suggest reparative psychotherapy for those saddled by the trans condition looking to SRS as a solution. He suggested “proper psychotherapy” to help face realistically their human situation and the world and the consequences of SRS on themselves and their relationships with family and friends.

You ignored the main part of his advice for “pastoral counseling” which will help those seeking sex change surgery realize the great love of God who loves them as individuals who have been created in His image and likeness. That such counseling will also direct them to spiritual, intellectual and social pursuits to realize their self-worth and divert their preoccupation with sexual identity

I said you seem vested on HRT/SRS, which is not an accusation that any plan or decision for SRS that you may have is irreversible. Of course, even if you were already targeting a surgery date, or a surgery date is set, you can turn around and change your mind. So your own doctor (endocrinologist managing your hormone treatment?) has discouraged SRS for you? Then listen to him as he must know it is not in your best interest!

You commented more than once that the Church is in error in her understanding of science, and that, paraphrasing now, the Church hierarchy is wrong, the NCBC is not enlightened, etc., specifically on the subject of SRS.

Science, a proper understanding of it, has a place in reaching the Truth, and all Truth lead to God. It so happens that with the Creator endowed intelligence and the gift of free will to man, applied science and technology as developed by man can lead him away from Him.

SRS has profound consequences not just to one’s body but also to the soul, not unlike abortion, in that respect. Abortion is rationalized by women seeking it, justified by medical providers in the abortion industry, and legal and judicial authorities accommodating the demand.

At any rate, you can treat my reply above as the same to the question you posed in your previous post, how I can then apparently care (for people in your situation) while still insisting on the immorality of treatment, other than through some kind of cognitive dissonance. HRT is one thing (I have not come across any Church objection to it) and SRS is another (to which the Church has clearly objected on moral grounds).

Lastly, as you hang your hat on the exception on the moral licitness of SRS, you are also doing the same on the idea of the trans brain-sex theory (or your insistence on CNS – the brain is central station in the nervous system). Contrary to your belief, the theory is by no means settled. It is refuted by members of the medical health profession such as Dr. Anne Lawrence, an anesthesiologist, gender therapist and activist, who is, interestingly, an MtF transsexual, in her critique here for instance, with the following conclusion:

The brain-sex theory was never helpful in explaining clinical observations; now it has become irrelevant to explaining neuroanatomical observations. It is time to abandon the brain-sex theory of transsexualism and to adopt a more plausible and clinically relevant theory in its place.

Of course, Dr. Lawrence and Dr. Ray Blanchard, with whom she is associated, have controversial views in the trans world, *as many professional views are on the trans condition. *

Thanks for the exchange. I think we are done, Rin.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The “problem” is that the problem has no treatment! There is no pill.

There are a number of medical and mental conditions that can only be managed, at best, not completely treated, like acute myelogenous leukemia, pica, schizophrenia, and Parkinson’s.
,

 

[Rin]

(…)Fr. Saunders, did not suggest reparative(…)

If such “proper psychotherapy” is aimed at avoiding HRT/SRS at any cost, while identifying and living as their assigned-at-birth sex, then I’m afraid it classifies as “reparative” therapy.

Additionally, while psychotherapy is useful to address depression, trauma, social challenges and so on, it does not alleviate dysphoria. It is not a solution. There is more than a century of clinical experience to confirm this.

You ignored the main part of his advice for “pastoral counseling”(…)

Pastoral counseling is indeed beneficial. However, lest a miracle occurs, it won’t alleviate dysphoria.

and divert their preoccupation with sexual identity

Nope. Perhaps temporarily in some cases, but it will resurface. The exception would again be a miracle. And yes, miracles occur, but like I would not count on them for a cancer patient, I would not count on them for a gender dysphoric patient.

(…)not an accusation that any plan or decision for SRS that you may have is irreversible.(…)

Your exact words were:

“The poster [from context, me], 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(…)”

So your own doctor (endocrinologist managing your hormone treatment?) has discouraged SRS for you? Then listen to him

You’re twisting my words. I said my doctor discourages SRS except in cases where it’s the absolutely last resort (and that implies the discouragement is on a general basis), not that they have “discouraged SRS for me”. They have done no such thing; it will take at least a year on full-dose HRT to reach a point where they will be able to give personalized advice.

You commented more than once that the Church is in error in her understanding of science

Not necessarily. I said the Church has been in error regarding science previously, and probably will later. This is uncontroversial.

The remarks about causes and effects in the sub secretum documents most certainly were in error, but that is in retrospect - at the time of writing, there was limited evidence. However, applying those remarks to the subject today would be erroneous.

and that, paraphrasing now, the Church hierarchy is wrong

The Hierarchy (as in, the Magisterium) is not wrong, since they have proclaimed no doctrine on the subject. The discipline currently in force is neither right nor wrong, it is simply discipline.

the NCBC is not enlightened, etc., specifically on the subject of SRS.

To my knowledge I never said anything about enlightenment, but I do indeed hold that the NCBC on this matter seems to be speaking from ideology rather than science. And in any case, their opinion is exactly that - an opinion.

Science, a proper understanding of it, has a place in reaching the Truth, and all Truth lead to God. It so(…)

Indeed, I’m not sure why you’d expect me to disagree with this.

SRS has profound consequences not just to one’s body but also to the soul,

I’m sorry, this is quite an extraordinary (and dare I say grave) claim, as I have never seen the Church say any such thing. Magisterial sources (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic Magisterium, not some apologist, commitee, moral theologian or even random priest or bishop), please?

not unlike abortion, in that respect. Abortion is rationalized(…)

I am sorry, but there is absolutely no similarity to abortion here. Zero. Nil. Zip. You’re losing contact with reality on this.

Abortion is intrisically evil, by its very nature. Plastic surgery, and even amputations, are according to the Catechism only evil when it is not done for strictly therapeutic purposes. And again, SRS is only done for strictly therapeutic purposes.

(…)how I can then apparently care(…)cognitive dissonance

Yes, I do wonder this. As someone who tried all the solutions you have posted - for more than fifteen years - and almost ended up dead because of it, I do wonder this.

HRT is one thing (I have not come across any Church objection to it)

I’m glad you at least acknowledge that.

and SRS is another (to which the Church has clearly objected on moral grounds).

No, She has not. Some moral theologians have. A committee subject to a Bishops’ Conference has. But the Church has not. I have yet to see justification for that claim.

(…)brain-sex theory(…)Contrary to your belief, the theory is by no means settled.

A neurological cause is settled, period - it has been observed in multiple studies.

It is refuted by members of the medical health profession such as Dr. Anne Lawrence(…)

Most of the findings confirming a neurological cause (including the one you posted a few days back) happened after the article you link to was published…

Of course, Dr. Lawrence and Dr. Ray Blanchard, with whom she is associated, have controversial views(…)

As I said, I too have problems with Blanchard, but I never saw his typology as the big problem; the main issue is his description of gynephilic trans women as by default autogynephilic. This is ridiculous, as extremely few lesbian trans women report any such thing. However, the fact that there are neurological differences between gynephilic and androphilic trans women, does not surprise me.

As for professionals with controversial views, of course they exist. They exist in every scientific field. That does not mean there is no consensus in those fields.

Thanks for the exchange. I think we are done, Rin.

Likewise. And yes, I think we are.

 

[Rau]

There are a number of medical and mental conditions that can only be managed, at best, not completely treated, like acute myelogenous leukemia, pica, schizophrenia, and Parkinson’s.
,

Sure, but in each of those cases, we deploy effective treatments to the extent they exist. We do our best to help the patient live with a degree of comfort.

 

[Cricket2]

It is one thing to sympathize with a person going through struggle. It is another to encourage them in unreality.

What unreality? People do have conditions that cause “gender dysphoria.” There are people born with both sexual organs and genitals. There are those who from “toddlerhood” act, play and believe they are the opposite gender than that which is apparent. Perhaps the “unreality” is believing it is all in their heads and they need to be cured to fit the standard views of male/female.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

They can actually practice to have a higher voice in the feminine range. Also I’m sure they’d pretty much all liked to have transitioned before puberty hit.

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.

Many just go for laser/electrolysis for the face and simply shave the rest.

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’ve never heard anyone claim it changes DNA.

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

Most don’t go for surgery, HRT and passing usually suffices.

I
Along that line, what is society to do with species dysphoria, open the door to trans species?
,

There is a bit of a difference between a human psychologically being female and a human thinking they are a different species, for one being female or male is a very common human experience, about half of the human population for each.

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.”

Said medical evidence has been shown to be rather dubious.

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.
,

Actually they aren’t rejecting the study, they are rejecting misinterpretations of it. If transgender people who didn’t have SRS were 8x as likely to commit suicide and SRS reduced it bby 75% they’d be a massive improvement however some people would intepret that data and say “well people who have SRS are 2x as likely to commit suicide, clearly to be compassionate we should ban it”. SRS doesn’t make trauma people suffered previously unhappen; if you are distressed because you’ve been disowned, SRS isn’t going to fix that.

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.

There are also gate keeping mechanisms in place preventing people from recklessly choosing it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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,

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.

McHugh unabashedly warps data to fit his ideology, most people consider that “manipulative and dishonest”.

Actually, that doesn’t disprove it, if one went with the idea of brain sex and sexuality affecting it, they would be unsurprised to find that the brain of gynephilic transwomen had a brain similar to cis lesbian.

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.

It does indeed appear to be far worse than same sex attraction.

First of all, my post #52, which highlighted the counsel of Fr. Saunders, did not suggest reparative psychotherapy for those saddled by the trans condition looking to SRS as a solution. He suggested “proper psychotherapy” to help face realistically their human situation and the world and the consequences of SRS on themselves and their relationships with family and friends.

You ignored the main part of his advice for “pastoral counseling” which will help those seeking sex change surgery realize the great love of God who loves them as individuals who have been created in His image and likeness. That such counseling will also direct them to spiritual, intellectual and social pursuits to realize their self-worth and divert their preoccupation with sexual identity

I said you seem vested on HRT/SRS, which is not an accusation that any plan or decision for SRS that you may have is irreversible. Of course, even if you were already targeting a surgery date, or a surgery date is set, you can turn around and change your mind. So your own doctor (endocrinologist managing your hormone treatment?) has discouraged SRS for you? Then listen to him as he must know it is not in your best interest!

You commented more than once that the Church is in error in her understanding of science, and that, paraphrasing now, the Church hierarchy is wrong, the NCBC is not enlightened, etc., specifically on the subject of SRS.

Science, a proper understanding of it, has a place in reaching the Truth, and all Truth lead to God. It so happens that with the Creator endowed intelligence and the gift of free will to man, applied science and technology as developed by man can lead him away from Him.

SRS has profound consequences not just to one’s body but also to the soul, not unlike abortion, in that respect. Abortion is rationalized by women seeking it, justified by medical providers in the abortion industry, and legal and judicial authorities accommodating the demand.

At any rate, you can treat my reply above as the same to the question you posed in your previous post, how I can then apparently care (for people in your situation) while still insisting on the immorality of treatment, other than through some kind of cognitive dissonance. HRT is one thing (I have not come across any Church objection to it) and SRS is another (to which the Church has clearly objected on moral grounds).

Lastly, as you hang your hat on the exception on the moral licitness of SRS, you are also doing the same on the idea of the trans brain-sex theory (or your insistence on CNS – the brain is central station in the nervous system). Contrary to your belief, the theory is by no means settled. It is refuted by members of the medical health profession such as Dr. Anne Lawrence, an anesthesiologist, gender therapist and activist, who is, interestingly, an MtF transsexual, in her critique here for instance, with the following conclusion:

Of course, Dr. Lawrence and Dr. Ray Blanchard, with whom she is associated, have controversial views in the trans world, *as many professional views are on the trans condition. *

Thanks for the exchange. I think we are done, Rin.
,

If only that worked anywhere near as well as HRT and transitioning.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

As the trans argument goes in this thread, nobody who advances SRS as a treatment is claiming surgery changes DNA, the blueprint of life.

It needs to be said, though, that those who oppose SRS do not always lack understanding that gender dysphoria is a significant persistent burden to persons of this real condition, regardless of etiology, leading to serious depression and suicidal thoughts. It obviously has a profound effect to such persons, their families and people around.

Hostility and harm towards transgenders are NOT being defended. It would be unfair to conclude that opponents to SRS as a treatment are necessarily coming from a place of ignorance or cognitive dissonance, or at worst, from a position of discrimination or bigotry.

Whether it is accepted or not by proponents of SRS, the Catholic position is unequivocal on the issue that surgery does not change one’s sex / gender, that no alteration can be made on the baptismal record, and that surgically changed persons may not be a candidate for marriage and priest ordination in the CC.

To say that the CC does not have a definitive doctrine in gender reassignment is simply false. Pope Benedict addressed this clearly in his address to the Roman Curia on December 21, 2012.

“The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that, made up of father, mother, and child, goes much deeper. While up to now we regarded a false understanding of the nature of human freedom as one cause of the crisis of the family, it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question.”

The Pope quoted the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society.

The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God.

This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.

Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain.

When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man."

 

[Rin]

It seems we’re not done after all, since your post contains clear references to my argumentation.

(…)those who oppose SRS do not always lack understanding that gender dysphoria is a significant persistent burden(…)

The problem with this is that your sympathy has zero value when you advocate a “treatment” that does not work, and will often end in suicide.

This is where my mention of cognitive dissonance comes from - I believe your sympathy is emotionally genuine, but you fool yourself into believing that your advice is not harmful. The alternative would be that you know the consequences of your advice very well, but don’t care about them. In that case, there would be no cognitive dissonance, but false sympathy. As a matter of charity, I choose to believe in the first explanation instead.

Hostility and harm towards transgenders are NOT being defended.

Yet, I would prefer being dragged from a car over being denied treatment.

You may say you do not wish to deny me treatment, but yet, conservative organizations in the States do lobby against covering such treatment through Medicare and the like. When news comes of some university covering it through their insurance policy, conservatives speak as if the sky were falling.

Similarly, your claims that such treatment is authoratively judged immoral by the Church, is tantamount to such a denial. While I in either case will have to offer all my decisions to judgement by God and hope He looks upon me with mercy (as will you), obviously for someone who strives to be faithful to the Church, such doctrine would most definitely increase the agony behind such a decision. By claiming there is such a doctrine, you are coming dangerously close to placing burdens on people, burdens that are not of the Church. Our Lord spoke very harshly against such activity - as a matter of fact, more harshly than He did against fornication, theft or almost any other sin.

That said, you are theologically free to hold your opinion. As am I. However, you are not free to speak as if your opinion is binding on other Catholics. There is no doctrine on this. Period.

It would be unfair to conclude that opponents to SRS (…)

The problem here is that your arguments demonstrate some kind of error of thought.

For once, you keep posting the same studies, despite being made aware that your conclusion does not follow from them. The Swedish outcome study does in no way prove that SRS is “ineffective”, as the controls were not untreated transgender, but cis people with no gender identity issues. Here, your argument is like saying “people who received cancer treatment have a higher mortality rate than the general population, so cancer treatment is ineffective”. This is obviously wrong, since the treatment may have extended their lives significantly.

You also keep posting pp. Benedict XVI’s address on gender deconstructionism as if it targets transgenderism. However, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, I and most transgender people would agree to that speech. And wholeheartedly at that. If the Pope was wrong, I would not need treatment, since I could simply change who I am, change my gender, and live happily ever after. However, I can’t change my gender. I can’t self-define myself however I (or rather, conservative ideologues) wish. I also do not dispute the binary understanding of gender, I believe we are all either male or female. I may believe this identity is sometimes impossible to determine, mentally and/or physically, but I believe such individuals will have an unambiguous gender in their glorified bodies. To sum up, the homily confirms my position rather than challenge it.

Lastly, you keep referring to tropes like “changing one’s gender/sex” and so on. These are a misrepresentation of the principles of medical treatment of transgenderism, and as such uninformed at best.

But you are right, these things do not have to be from ignorance. They can also be from intellectual dishonesty. However, again in the name of charity, I generally prefer to assume the former.

To sum up, you can’t just say whatever you want and demand to be seen as well informed, charitable and sympathetic. If your argument demonstrates ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, then I will point that out. I will do the same for cognitive dissonance and so on.

Whether it is accepted or not by proponents of SRS, the Catholic position is unequivocal on the issue that surgery does not change one’s sex / gender

And here we go again. But you are right, in this case, Rome points this out, which is kind of superfluous, since this is why SRS is done. It is accepted by every “proponent” of SRS - have you ever considered why many transgender interest organizations want legislation where the legal gender marker can be changed without SRS? The change of gender marker in official documents reflects the gender of the person since birth. It is a reassignment, not a change.

that no alteration can be made on the baptismal record, and that surgically changed persons may not be a candidate for marriage and priest ordination in the CC.

You’re right on the first. On the second, however, a transgender person is by default barred from marriage and ordination, with or without SRS and HRT.

And again, these are disciplines, not doctrine. They have been different in the past, and they may change again.

To say that the CC does not have a definitive doctrine in gender reassignment is simply false. Pope Benedict addressed this clearly in his address(…)

I feel tempted to do a Fr. Z-style Emphasis and [Comments] exegesis here, but I sadly do not have the time, nor energy for it right now. I will refer to my general points above.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Rin, our exchange is done. It ended the same way as before, with you utilizing emotional blackmail, and now hinting at intellectual dishonesty. I am sorry for this. Forget a Fr-Z style continuation; Fr. Z would not feed into your regard of SRS as escape from the dilemma of body-mind incongruence. As you acknowledge, maybe grudgingly, hormone replacement and psychological counseling provide a relief to manage the sharp edge of trans anguish.

We are simply but greatly at odds on the issue of SRS, morally speaking. In the message I am conveying to others who may be following this discussion, you or others like you are NOT being denied treatment without SRS as the sine qua non or end-all of options.

Speaking as if it is, in clear text or subtext, adds to the danger in the spreading trans belief that, without it, the only recourse is the parallel to the Aiokigahara Forest among the Japanese who no longer see the value of life.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

As the trans argument goes in this thread, nobody who advances SRS as a treatment is claiming surgery changes DNA, the blueprint of life.

It is correct that transgender people do not claim that SRS changes DNA. Usually the claim that “SRS changes DNA” is something anti-transgender people claim transgender people believe.

It needs to be said, though, that those who oppose SRS do not always lack understanding that gender dysphoria is a significant persistent burden to persons of this real condition, regardless of etiology, leading to serious depression and suicidal thoughts. It obviously has a profound effect to such persons, their families and people around.

Hostility and harm towards transgenders are NOT being defended. It would be unfair to conclude that opponents to SRS as a treatment are necessarily coming from a place of ignorance or cognitive dissonance, or at worst, from a position of discrimination or bigotry.

Whether it is accepted or not by proponents of SRS, the Catholic position is unequivocal on the issue that surgery does not change one’s sex / gender, that no alteration can be made on the baptismal record, and that surgically changed persons may not be a candidate for marriage and priest ordination in the CC.

Most transgender people do not get SRS. For transgender people the bigger issues are actually access to HRT and being able to transition with regard to paperwork such as driver’s licenses without having to have already gone through SRS as SRS is unaffordable for most and many do not wish to pursue SRS for various reasons.

To say that the CC does not have a definitive doctrine in gender reassignment is simply false. Pope Benedict addressed this clearly in his address to the Roman Curia on December 21, 2012.

That is targeted at gender deconstructionism which is very much in opposition to Catholic belief.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It is correct that transgender people do not claim that SRS changes DNA. Usually the claim that “SRS changes DNA” is something anti-transgender people claim transgender people believe.

Most transgender people do not get SRS. For transgender people the bigger issues are actually access to HRT and being able to transition with regard to paperwork such as driver’s licenses without having to have already gone through SRS as SRS is unaffordable for most and many do not wish to pursue SRS for various reasons.

That’s good. I am anti-SRS, not anti-trans.

That is targeted at gender deconstructionism which is very much in opposition to Catholic belief.

… according to trans sites, yes.
,

 

[Rin]

ISoG:

Our exchange is done when there are no points that need to be addressed. However, I’m surprised if you honestly believed I would not respond to some of the things you wrote in your last post.

Firstly, being made aware of the consequences of your opinions is not “emotional blackmail”, but a reality check. What I say about outcomes is well documented by statistics, as well as my own experience.

I do however understand that being confronted with such consequences is unpleasant. I have been in your shoes. I preferred to live under the illusion that my opinions (which were exactly the same as yours, though with an added component of repressed gender dysphoria, making me lash out if people insisted on bringing up the subject) did not affect people negatively. I found being confronted about the consequences to be deeply unfair. But that did not mean it was unfair - on the contrary, it was ever the more important to be confronted. Sadly, it took years of misery and autophobia, not to speak of being inches from suicide, before I realized I was in error.

You may of course continue to believe I’m “emotionally blackmailing” you. In reality, I’m simply pointing out that opinions have consequences - you cannot expect to be treated as if your opinions have no effects on people.

Secondly, I do not lightheartedly bring intellectual dishonesty into a debate, however when a person repeatedly quotes the same material to support their conclusion when said conclusion does not follow from the material, despite having this pointed out to them, I will not ignore it just to appear nice.

This is not simply a matter of disagreeing on interpretation; in the case of the Swedish outcome study, even the researchers themselves point out that it cannot be used to assess the utility of the procedure, due to the selection of controls. The valid conclusion from this study is that SRS does not magically make all problems go away (which would be an absurd and illogical notion anyways, and most transsexuals would readily confirm this), and that most post-op transsexuals will need continued therapeutical support. This is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific methodology and logic. Continued misapplication is a matter of intellectual honesty.

As for SRS, i have never presented it as the sine qua non of transgender treatment. This is a straw man, and you know it. I have repeatedly pointed out that many (if not the majority of) transgender people only need HRT, and can perfectly live without SRS, depending on the level of genital dysphoria. I have repeatedly said that I only view SRS as an option, medically as well as morally, if it is the last resort. I have even said that I have not decided on getting it personally, and I wish to avoid it. However, I will not let conservative ideologues tell me it is sinful, when the Church does not. I hope to avoid it, but if I turn out to need it (as in, if the genital dysphoria still is an issue after a couple of years on HRT), then I will ask for it.

As for my reference to Fr. Z, there is no need to get riled up… I greatly admire his liturgical insight, and I was a daily reader of his blog while liturgy was his main preoccupation. However, I find his “coverage” of things related to transgenderism (and also LGB matters) discrespectful, rude, uncharitable and hyperbolic. The same goes for his political coverage, and mind you, I am definitely not an Obama fan. Sadly, most posts last I checked seem to be about these issues. For this reason, I’m afraid I rarely manage to build up the emotional strength to visit his blog anymore.

---

My message to those who may lurk this thread is that while conservative ideology may condemn SRS under any and all circumstances, orthodox Catholicism does not. The sub secretum document, as well as the Catechism, clearly establish that such a procedure is morally licit if done for strictly therapeutical reasons, which would in this context be when it is the last resort to alleviate dysphoria.

This is also the only circumstance under which most medical programs admit patients to the procedure; even surgeons in Thailand are required by authorities to demand two letters of referral confirming the medical necessity of the procedure, one of which has to be from a psychiatrist. If this requirement is not followed, their practices are promptly shut down.

That said, ISoG’s opinion is theologically legitimate. But so is mine. There is no binding doctrine on the matter. This is also why I respond the way I do to those who present their view as if it was Catholic doctrine - it is errouneous to believe so, and in the case of condemnation, it has real effects on real people. The Church is wise in Her decision to not pronounce anything authoratively yet, given the scientific discoveries on gender and sex in the last two decades (not to speak of the fact that SRS in its current form probably will be obsolete in a few decades, due to advances in medical science; it may become possible to grow the relevant organs from non-embryonic stem cells). A doctrinal declaration now might look like the heliocentrism affair in a century or two. I may be proved wrong in the future, but as of today, my opinion is the generally accepted opinion in medical science.

Joie de Vivre:

That is targeted at gender deconstructionism which is very much in opposition to Catholic belief.

… according to trans sites, yes.
,

Just to make sure I got you right, you mean gender deconstructionism is not contrary to Catholic belief?

 

[Rin]

Just to make sure I got you right, you mean gender deconstructionism is not contrary to Catholic belief?

I just realized that I misread your statement, and that you referred to the claim about the speech being aimed at gender deconstructionism. My apologies.

However, it is not “according to trans websites” (which I rarely visit, and when I have done so, I’ve never seen mention of this speech) that the speech is not aimed at transgenderism. It is according to the speech itself. The ideas that are described, and criticized, in the speech, are those of gender deconstructionism. It is as easy as that - if the Pope wanted to criticize the medical condition called transgenderism, and the treatment thereof, he would have to describe that condition.

So until I see a pope address the treatment of transgenderism, I’ll stick with what the Pope really says, not what people think the Pope says. And by that, I hope to be finished with this thread.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Rin:

Pardon me, if you do not come across as credible when you say you only view SRS as an option, … as last resort, because not too long ago, you said this in a thread also on SRS,

When I finally heard about SR(S), though, after wishing for years for something like that to be possible, it felt like… delivery.

Sure you repressed the wish before but have been moving towards SRS since. I think your mind is set on it and you are just playing coy. Of course, choosing SRS is your choice, as it is your choosing to believe an alternate meaning to the Pope BVI’s homily in 2012, to disbelieve studies in opposition to the unproven brain structure based etiology of transgenderism, and what the research really say, versus alleged consensus of so called professionals.

It has become easier to ride the headline grabbing transgender culture war, and so called transgender rights, which include the cry for tax payer funded SRS. I oppose it, just like Fr. Z is opposed to tax payers paying for SRS. Fr. Z is not rude and disrespectful. He speaks the truth and those who don’t like the truth can make unfounded claims. If that makes him and me “Christian ideologues” in your view, so be it.

You see how this exchange is futile, our views diametrically opposed on several levels. Yes, I believe we are finished.
,

 

[Rau]

Sure you repressed the wish before but have been moving towards SRS since. I think your mind is set on it and you are just playing coy…
,

InSearch - reading your posts, I get the sense you have a “need” to believe ill of those suffering dysphoria and considering SR(S). Do you have a “need” to reject the idea that brain structure may play some part in transgenderism? If the theory pans out, would it dull the evil you perceive in these people or in their search for relief?

 

[Rau]

I just realized that I misread your statement, and that you referred to the claim about the speech being aimed at gender deconstructionism. My apologies.

However, it is not “according to trans websites” (which I rarely visit, and when I have done so, I’ve never seen mention of this speech) that the speech is not aimed at transgenderism. It is according to the speech itself. The ideas that are described, and criticized, in the speech, are those of gender deconstructionism. It is as easy as that - if the Pope wanted to criticize the medical condition called transgenderism, and the treatment thereof, he would have to describe that condition.

So until I see a pope address the treatment of transgenderism, I’ll stick with what the Pope really says, not what people think the Pope says. And by that, I hope to be finished with this thread.

Rin, one can easily find material that points to transgenderism as a kind of example of gender deconstructionism at work. Can you explain the distinction as you see it. What tangible actions in the world motivated the Pope’s statement?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

InSearch - reading your posts, I get the sense you have a “need” to believe ill of those suffering dysphoria and considering SR(S). Do you have a “need” to reject the idea that brain structure may play some part in transgenderism? If the theory pans out, would it dull the evil you perceive in these people or in their search for relief?

It strongly remind me of the people who cling ever tighter to the belief that sexuality is a choice.

Rin, one can easily find material that points to transgenderism as a kind of example of gender deconstructionism at work. Can you explain the distinction as you see it. What tangible actions in the world motivated the Pope’s statement?

If you are referring to that citizenlink article that has massive issues with it from claiming that transgender activists believe gender is fluid and changeable to cross-dressers are transgender. The vast majority of transgender people think that gender is immutable and that it very much does matter.