Hermaphodites transexuals and gays unknown

[InSearchofGrace]

No it isn’t, I am going off of what is in the catechism.

Yes, some theologians have said it is immoral, and?

Indeed, man is hylomorphic. Is he obligated to regard his body as entirely good even the imperfections such as when someone is born with both sets of gonads? I imagine they do think and care about their body at the resurrection, from what I have gathered they believe that their body will be raised as their gender. SRS is intended for therapeutic medical reasons. The fact that an intelligent woman such as you would equate SRS which is voluntary and the patients plead access for with torture is utterly bizarre.

She takes the estrogen via patch so after SRS she can discontinue the pills as the spironolactone will no longer be necessary.

I have the feeling that your and my read of Catechism are also at odds.

I do not doubt you are well intentioned and are advocating for your transgender friend(s). We simply disagree that SRS is the answer. I admit that HRT may be a palliative, that is, if the medical contra-indications are addressed in going into said therapy. The problem is if it is just the beginning or part of a decision to transition, with SRS as the goal.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Although off topic, I just want a quick qu to this, what about body piercings? Would this be considered a type of mutilation. I have heard many Christians say that with Tatoos but there are many with earrings. But I have also hear that Godly tats are ok.

Do tattoos and body piercings harm our bodies and health? Taken to extreme, as some do in this crazy world of ours, they are not just unsightly, but also come with health risks and complications. Body piercings can be considered mutilation and tattoos a form of defacing our human bodies created by God.

,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Although off topic, I just want a quick qu to this, what about body piercings? Would this be considered a type of mutilation. I have heard many Christians say that with Tatoos but there are many with earrings. But I have also hear that Godly tats are ok.

It is only mutilation if real Christians don’t do it.

AFAIK, chemotherapy does not resolve cancer. * Neither do the drugs managing the signs and symptoms of Parkinson’s, a condition with no known cure, a condition that punished and ravaged my mother’s body for twenty five years. She passed last year, all 85 pounds of her at the end.

The question you pose has many arms, it seems, and I sense an arm twisting element there. But to the best of my ability I will give you my honest answer.

I believe that SRS is not acceptable from a moral standpoint*, the reasoning in the links I already provided in my previous posts. In addition, this from the National Catholic Bioethics Institute

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1287

explains it:

Psychotherapy and medications have always been used to palliate the mental suffering of transgender patients, which, by the way, do not cease with SRS.

SRS for “strictly therapeutic reasons” should not be based on face value of assertions by pro-SRS trans activists and their supporters. The “science” on transgenderism or gender dysphoria is far from settled, but proponents of SRS are grabbing as proof a lot of theorizing and studies that have not established biological cause of gender dysphoria. To this day, it is regarded as a psychiatric or psychological disorder. If you doubt this, check the current DSM.

Now if you or Joie will accuse me of being insensitive or dismissive of the mental anguish of a transgender patient because I am against SRS, please stop right there.

I think affirming medical and mental health professionals are taking the easier approach in giving in to demand for a surgical solution to a psychological disorder. It can be fatiguing of course for a medical provider or a therapist to a transgender patient who says each time that he or she would rather die than live in the body in which he or she was born. Likely this is a factor why many medical providers do not like dealing with, even discriminate against, transgender patients. They forget why they are in the healing arts: to cure sometimes, treat often, and comfort always.
,
Chemotherapy can sometimes cure cancer or at least force it into remission. Nice emotional appeal though.

I don’t care for the NCB’s clinging to outdated and debunked science.

The problem is that the conversion therapy doesn’t work, it just increases collateral damage. The sufferings of transgender people usually decrease after SRS by a substantial amount and SRS doesn’t magically cure all the psychological damage suffered pre-transition.

Notice how that piece of the Catechism is buried in the section against torture; do you think that SRS is in any way a form of torture? Also understand that the current discussion about whether or not to remove it is strongly affected by the fear that if it is removed then insurance companies won’t cover treatment at all and then transgender people who are already substantially poorer than average will have to deal with far more expenses.

As far as I know most transgender people don’t do that to their health care providers.
InSearchofGrace;12929286:

I have the feeling that your and my read of Catechism are also at odds.

Indeed we have readings at odds.

I do not doubt you are well intentioned and are advocating for your transgender friend(s). We simply disagree that SRS is the answer. I admit that HRT may be a palliative, that is, if the medical contra-indications are addressed in going into said therapy. The problem is if it is just the beginning or part of a decision to transition, with SRS as the goal.
,

SRS isn’t a goal, it can be a step towards the goal of living authentically as their gender.

 

[Bookcat]

“The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, 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. He quotes 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.”

~ Pope Benedict XVI

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

Chemotherapy can sometimes cure cancer or at least force it into remission. Nice emotional appeal though.

What is the transgender drumbeat, “give me SRS or I will be driven to suicide” or “let the transgender person have surgery, else he / she will commit suicide” about? It can be argued that it is a form of coercion with heavy emotional appeal, no?
,

 

[Bookcat]

From Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the Roman Curia which covered various current topics -so it is not a pastoral document addressed to persons who have this painful difficulty - he would have addressed them in a different way - but he does though address here the problematic nature of such a theory of gender:

"The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, 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. He quotes 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."

~ Pope Benedict XVI

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Joie de Vivre;12931857:

…

Chemotherapy can sometimes cure cancer or at least force it into remission. **Nice emotional appeal though.
**

What is the transgender drumbeat, “give me SRS or I will be driven to suicide” or “let the transgender person have surgery, else he / she will commit suicide” about? It can be argued that it is a form of coercion with heavy emotional appeal, no?
,

Funny, I have never actually heard that from transgender people.

 

[Rau]

…Without minimizing the acute mental anguish of transgender / transsexual people, I think I articulated the reasoning behind my position.

And when you do so without reference to “trans activists and sympathizes” and the “SRS drumbeat”, your position sounds so much more reasonable!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Funny, I have never actually heard that from transgender people.

Maybe not in those words, but is it not the message being driven?
,

 

[Bookcat]

From Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the Roman Curia which covered various current topics -so it is not a pastoral document addressed to persons who have this painful difficulty - he would have addressed them in a different way - but he does though address here the problematic nature of such a theory of gender:

"The Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, has shown in a very detailed and profoundly moving study that the attack we are currently experiencing on the true structure of the family, 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. He quotes 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."

~ Pope Benedict XVI

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121221_auguri-curia.html

 

[Rau]

Bookcat, can you explain the connection betwee your last post, quoting Benedict, and treatment of sufferers of gender dysphoria?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Maybe not in those words, but is it not the message being driven?
,

@Joie

From Danielle Sainte Marie, transgender writer of Pride! I am Self Identified

“…
Breaking right the f— o—
This is the only way
SRS or suicide
This is the only way
SRS or lies
…”
,

,

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, can you explain

I think the text speaks for itself (sometimes such texts though need a few readings).

I can do no better then Pope Benedict XVI in expressing what he there notes.

 

[Bookcat]

Also of interest from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/man-i-feel-like-a-woman

 

[Rau]

I think the text speaks for itself (sometimes such texts though need a few readings).

I can do no better then Pope Benedict XVI in expressing what he there notes.

It was not the text of which I sought explanation, but its application to the recent debate in this thread about treatments for gender dysphoria.

 

[Bookcat]

It was not the text of which I sought explanation, but its application to the recent debate in this thread about treatments for gender dysphoria.

I am not part of any debate on this thread. I am providing the text on a thread where such can shed light.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

And when you do so without reference to “trans activists and sympathizes” and the “SRS drumbeat”, your position sounds so much more reasonable!

And when you don’t editorialize my post, I think we would communicate better!

That said, I enjoy reading your posts like when you nailed the meaning of “procreative” in reply to a poster in an unrelated thread, as below

You misunderstand the word procreative. The word does NOT mean “had with the intention of having a baby”. It just means it is done in a manner consistent with procreation - ie. Not taking steps to impede conception. Sex in menopause is still procreative.

I love that one, which would be a good rebuttal to a long time CAF member who keeps arguing that sterile homosexual acts are no different to sexual acts between opposite sexes couples where the male is sterile or the female is post menopausal or has had a hysterectomy. His defense of homosexual acts and gay marriage.
,

 

[Rau]

I am not part of any debate on this thread. I am providing the text on a thread where such can shed light.

The question I was asking is how does that quote shed light on the subject in question. I for one am not clear that it does. I would appreciate you explaining how it does, if you would be happy to do so.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

The 6th commandment applies to everyone regardless of their physical deformities.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Maybe not in those words, but is it not the message being driven?
,

I have seen it about transitioning, but never SRS.

@Joie

From Danielle Sainte Marie, transgender writer of Pride! I am Self Identified

“…
Breaking right the f— o—
This is the only way
SRS or suicide
This is the only way
SRS or lies
…”
,

,

I haven’t the foggiest idea who that is and neither do the transgender people I know.