Must Catholics deny Transsexuals Human Rights?

[Holly3278]

Holly… I changed sex without trying. That happens to some people. Usually from Female to Male, but not always.

Please look at usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html

Here’s a quote, as I’ve found many people don’t bother following URLs in areas where their preconceived notions may be challenged:

Maybe, just maybe… the Almighty might be TRYING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING???

Does he have to shout? That perhaps the shape of our bodies at birth isn’t a completely reliable indicator of our sex?

Holly, I’m one of the few female pseudohermaphrodites on the planet. Born looking male (mostly), changing to look female (mostly).

I’ll try once more, by quoting the abstract of one of the hundreds of papers on the subject:
Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

The sound byte? Transsexuals have mixed anatomy, some parts male, others female. Trans women have feminised brains. Anatomically, not spiritually or psychologically, but physically feminised. And you would deny them the opportunity to have a body that was as consistent, whole and healthy as we could make it because… why exactly? Because the concept makes you feel uncomfortable? Because you feel - without any scriptural basis - that it must be wrong somehow, since it’s so embarrassing?

One final quote, from Prof Sid Ecker, a Urologist:

You do know that having a masculinised body and a feminised brain causes immense psychic anguish, don’t you? Utter and complete misery? So much so that about half suicide without treatment, and the rest tend to die premature deaths, which is a blessed relief for them.

And you’d oppose them getting treatment for this, the only treatment that has ever been found to work? (98% success rate - 2% die anyway).

Because why exactly? You must have a very, very good reason for saying this. You must have researched the matter extensively, and come to such a conclusion only after a lot of soul-searching. Please could you elucidate?

Ummm, if you are some sort of hermaphrodite or something like that, that is not a thing you can change and I can’t judge.

Also, God has a right to yell at me, you don’t, so please stop it.

Cross dress. Are you saying ( other than obvious indecent exposure) we should have a public dress code? I should be able to wear What I want. As I proposed in an earlier post I have a friend who is a female to male transsexual and looks very naturally male. If you were to force him to use the woman’s room you’d scare the women out, because he doesn’t look or sound even remotely female. What gives your the right to determine sexchange surgery is a right or needed or not? Some of us believe NATURE makes mistakes from time to time. With your line of thinking if someone is born with a heart defect that would have to be left alone, because after all God made them that way. American Medical Society happens to consider sexual reassignment surgery a need. You shouldn’t play excutive doctor.

Yeah, a public dress code would be nice. Because quite frankly, if I ever have children, I don’t want them to have to see a man in a dress on the street some day and have them ask, “Mommy, why’s that man wearing a dress?” Also, I don’t want to see it myself.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Ummm, if you are some sort of hermaphrodite or something like that, that is not a thing you can change and I can’t judge.

Also, God has a right to yell at me, you don’t, so please stop it.

Yeah, a public dress code would be nice. Because quite frankly, if I ever have children, I don’t want them to have to see a man in a dress on the street some day and have them ask, “Mommy, why’s that man wearing a dress?” Also, I don’t want to see it myself.

Who died and left you boss! this a free society. If you don’t like to see it, look away.

 

[royal_archer]

Who died and left you boss! this a free society. If you don’t like to see it, look away.

If it were a free society we wouldn’t have socialized health care or many other infringement on our rights. It is now majority rule and the majority still find those acts offensive.

 

[aspawloski4th]

If it were a free society we wouldn’t have socialized health care or many other infringement on our rights. It is now majority rule and the majority still find those acts offensive.

There you go on economics again. Save your economics for economic threads. This thread has noithing to do with economics. In a truely free society a family wouldn’t loose theur home over the father having an anurysm.I don’t define freedom in terms of economics anywhere near the extent you do. Being forced to conform is close to the ultimate opression.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

If you want to engage in body modification surgery, that is your choice. Not a moral choice but your choice none the less. Just don’t steal from others to pay for it and do not use it to mislead others. (For instance, perverted men who try to look like women so they can get access to women’s locker rooms)

Um… can you name a single case where a pervert has had hormones and surgery to have “access to women’s rooms”? You do know what effect the hormones have? It’s called “Chemical Castration”

And you’re accusing trans people of theft now. And deception.

Your words are the equivalent of someone saying “It’s your choice to be a Catholic - just don’t go around molesting children, and engaging in cannibalism OK?”

Hopefully you can see that.

You didn’t actually read the quote, or visit the URL, did you? Because neither had anything to do with “body modification by choice”. Some people change sex without any medical intervention, through natural causes. That rather undermines your whole thesis. Explodes it in fact.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Ummm, if you are some sort of hermaphrodite or something like that, that is not a thing you can change and I can’t judge.

Why not? Everyone else seems to…

But seriously, yes, I am Intersexed. “Some kind of hermaphrodite” if you will. Born looking mostly male, naturally changing to look mostly female. I opted for a few extra non-essential bits of surgery in addition to that required to remove the cancer risk, just to look and function normally.

I’m “some kind of hermaphrodite” - but so are all transsexuals. They have parts of their physical anatomy male, other parts female, just like me. It’s just that for them, it’s not immediately obvious to the naked eye, whereas for me it is. For them, it needs MRI or PET scanning, perhaps a gene test, and an autopsy to confirm the exact extent. With me it was obvious and spectacular, not subtle at all.

I’ve given dozens of references in support of this fact. URLs, medical papers… it obviously hasn’t left an impression, you’ve ignored it as inconsistent with your world view. Perhaps if you asked me some questions, the answers I give might help.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I am not the one who is trying to take other people’s earnings.

Apologise for calling me a thief, please.

I’d really like to hear your reasoning for the accusation. You would deny self-funded life-saving medical treatment now on what grounds - that someone, at some time in the future, might possibly through an insurance policy or otherwise, force you to pay the 2c/month to cover it?

Especially since the tax-recovery by the government - if it’s a government system - from having a healthy, tax-paying contributor instead of a dysfunctional drain on health resources means that after 5 years, revenue is positive, an investment return rate of 20%?

Yes, as was shown in the recent court case over the treatment of trans inmates in Wisconsin’s prisons, it’s actually cheaper to pay for the treatment than to deal with the costs of the consequences of lack of treatment. California had the same experience, first raising rates by $1.85, then lowering them by $1.83 when they found what the costs actually were, then lowering them by the remaining 2c and still showing a profit after five years.

It’s the same argument some health insurance companies have accepted regarding early intervention in hip-replacements - which their policies in the past didn’t cover, as it was a) expensive and b) not immediately necessary. Because it hurt their bottom line, by saving $20,000 now, they cost themselves $4,000 a year in medications, wheelchairs etc which they did have to pay for, and in perpetuity. It hurt their bottom-line. Oh yes, it also improved quality of life for the patient, but this wasn’t a consideration, just the money.

 

[royal_archer]

Um… can you name a single case where a pervert has had hormones and surgery to have “access to women’s rooms”? You do know what effect the hormones have? It’s called “Chemical Castration”

And you’re accusing trans people of theft now. And deception.

Your words are the equivalent of someone saying “It’s your choice to be a Catholic - just don’t go around molesting children, and engaging in cannibalism OK?”

Hopefully you can see that.

You didn’t actually read the quote, or visit the URL, did you? Because neither had anything to do with “body modification by choice”. Some people change sex without any medical intervention, through natural causes. That rather undermines your whole thesis. Explodes it in fact.

I am not disputing the medical annomolies or other mutations. But it is up to you and those whom have similar conditions to accept the hand they have been dealt. No human body is perfect but we all need to accept the hand we were dealt.

 

[royal_archer]

Apologise for calling me a thief, please.

I’d really like to hear your reasoning for the accusation. You would deny self-funded life-saving medical treatment now on what grounds - that someone, at some time in the future, might possibly through an insurance policy or otherwise, force you to pay the 2c/month to cover it?

I have not said anything which requires an apology.

I have no problem with you or any other person doing body modification on your own nickel. I have a propblem with forcing others to pay for your medical or cosmetic surgeries/treatments. That is theft.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I have not said anything which requires an apology.

I have no problem with you or any other person doing body modification on your own nickel. I have a propblem with forcing others to pay for your medical or cosmetic surgeries/treatments. That is theft.

Someone needs to read his dictionary. It isn’t theft. Go to a local jail and ask what theft is…

 

[aspawloski4th]

I am not disputing the medical annomolies or other mutations. But it is up to you and those whom have similar conditions to accept the hand they have been dealt. No human body is perfect but we all need to accept the hand we were dealt.

Have you ever heard the saying “walk a mile in annother’s shoes”?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

It looks like they must, according to The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston.

The proposed Transgender Rights Bill, which is being discussed by lawmakers on Beacon Hill, would add gender identity and expression to the state’s existing anti-discrimination and hate crimes statutes.

Proponents claim the bill is a necessary civil rights legislation due to perceived high rates of discrimination against and a lack of legal protection for the transgender community.
…
In legislative testimony on the bill in July 2009, Ed Saunders, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, said that the bill’s prohibitions against discrimination are too broadly defined to include all forms of gender expression, which are to be protected even when the identity does not correspond to one’s biological gender.
…
Saunders stated that the bill “seeks to impose a far-reaching and unfairly skewed remedy” to a problem that affects a small number of individuals with a medical condition that makes them experience “clinically significant” discomfort in certain settings by overriding the privacy interests of other persons.
…
Saunders also said that existing legal policies regarding biological differences between genders would be undermined by the bill.
…
In an interview with The Pilot, Saunders questioned the value of levying increased penalties against a person who attacks a transgender individual when crime laws already exist that forbid assault.

“Why should greater rights be given to a transgender individual over a non-transgender individual? If you give greater rights to the transgender individual, you’re discriminating against the non-transgender person,” Saunders said. “It’s almost like reverse discrimination.”

Of course, existing laws which enhance penalties if Catholics are attacked just for being Catholic should be retained. That situation is completely different, there’s no “special rights” there.

Sometimes… I get nauseated by this kind of thing. Catholics saying “oh, this doesn’t represent the Church’s official position… it’s just individuals… there’s been no official pronouncement on it…”. And the Pope’s opinion is just his personal opinion, the Magisterium hasn’t ruled on it. And no doubt, this will be justified as merely the opinion of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, not the Church as such.

Compare and contrast:

On April 30, Episcopal Bishops M. Thomas Shaw and Roy “Bud” Cederholm of the Diocese of Massachusetts sent letters to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo urging the lawmakers to pass the Transgender Rights Bill. Attached were resolutions stating the full support of both the Episcopal Diocese of Masschusetts and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

“As bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, our eyes are open to the realities of transgender people and their families,” Shaw and Cederholm wrote in the letter, which was subsequently printed by VirtueOnline.org. “Many of them serve faithfully in the congregations and ministries of our diocese, as lay people, as deacons, and as priests. They are dedicated and loving parents, children, siblings, friends, and community leaders.”

The letter encouraged lawmakers to act quickly in passing the bill. “Adding gender identity and expression to the state’s nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws is no isolated concern of a special interest group,” the letter read. “The disproportionate suffering of transgender people should grieve the hearts of all who love justice and liberty.”

I cannot imagine any Catholic Bishops saying that.

I made a vow at his Baptism to bring up my son in the Catholic Faith. You’re not making it any easier. He’s Intersexed too, you see. Had to have genital reconstruction before age 2 just so he could urinate properly.

What do I tell him? How do I explain?

And what have any of you done about it, if you don’t approve?

 

[Viceroy]

What Catholic would deny anyone’s Human rights? of course gays and transsexuals have their rights acknowledged, they have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else What this question is asking is if they should be denied extra gay rights. Than the answer is yes, being Gay doesn’t make you more human.

 

[Dale_M]

they should be denied extra gay rights.

What in the world are “extra gay rights”? And how do they relate to this thread?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

What Catholic would deny anyone’s Human rights?

The Archdiocese of Boston.

What this question is asking is if they should be denied extra gay rights.

The article says, and I quote again:

add gender identity and expression to the state’s existing anti-discrimination and hate crimes statutes.

Existing statutes that protect Catholics. And Blacks. And yes, Gays too, they’re already protected by existing laws in MA.

But Intersexed and Trans people are not. And the Archdiocese of Boston wants to keep things that way. Protection for Gays? Fine, that’s not being disputed. Exactly the same protection for the Intersexed as for Catholics - and Gays too for that matter? No Way.

Just to make things absolutely clear - this is about giving Trans and Intersexed people exactly, and in every way, the same rights as Gays do at the moment.

And the Church - or rather, the Archdiocese of Boston, objects to that. Strongly.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

of course gays and transsexuals have their rights acknowledged, they have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

No, I’m afraid they don’t.

In MA, you can’t fire a Catholic just for being Catholic.
In MA, you can’t fire a Gay, just for being Gay.
In MA, you can fire a Transsexual just for being Transsexual - and it happens all the time.

You can’t fire a Catholic just for being Catholic in any state of the Union.
You can fire a Gay just for being Gay in 29 states.
You can fire a Transsexual just for being Transsexual in 37 states, including MA.

A Federal law was passed by the House in 2007 that would have protected Gays - they had to drop the protections from Trans people to get it through. It never went to the floor on the Senate.

Currently, a Federal bill. ENDA, that would protect both Trans people and Gays as regards employment - but nothing else - is stuck in committee, and may never get to the floor. If it does, passing in the Senate without the provisions protecting Trans people is problematical. They’re OK about protecting Gays, but the opposition from the Church to protecting Trans people too is too strong.

Already, some Republican members who voted for the 2007 measure are saying they would not support the broader bill this year.

“It’s going to make it a lot more difficult for me to support it,” Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) told The Hill. “It’s a very touchy issue to most Americans.”
…
Those Democrats were loath to discuss the transgender issue this week. Several did not respond to queries about their position, while others said they were undecided.

“I don’t have anything to say on that,” replied Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), who voted for the 2007 version but has not signed on to the current bill.

“I’m still considering all of that,” said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), another supporter of the legislation in 2007.

 

[royal_archer]

The Archdiocese of Boston.

The article says, and I quote again:
Existing statutes that protect Catholics. And Blacks. And yes, Gays too, they’re already protected by existing laws in MA.

But Intersexed and Trans people are not. And the Archdiocese of Boston wants to keep things that way. Protection for Gays? Fine, that’s not being disputed. Exactly the same protection for the Intersexed as for Catholics - and Gays too for that matter? No Way.

Just to make things absolutely clear - this is about giving Trans and Intersexed people exactly, and in every way, the same rights as Gays do at the moment.

And the Church - or rather, the Archdiocese of Boston, objects to that. Strongly.

While we are all created equal, we are not created identical. Every single human being has some physical or mental annomoly that makes them self concious or draws the disaproval of some others.

We can either try to legislate every single potential physical or mental annomoly and attempt to regulate it, with the innevitable result of leaving people out who are treated as lesser people under the law. Or, we can just state that all people get equal protection under the law.

Any attempt to give special protection to one group or a hand full of groups, by default results in discrimination against other groups. The Catholic Bishops are right to be opposed to such discrimination.

 

[aspawloski4th]

While we are all created equal, we are not created identical. Every single human being has some physical or mental annomoly that makes them self concious or draws the disaproval of some others.

We can either try to legislate every single potential physical or mental annomoly and attempt to regulate it, with the innevitable result of leaving people out who are treated as lesser people under the law. Or, we can just state that all people get equal protection under the law.

Any attempt to give special protection to one group or a hand full of groups, by default results in discrimination against other groups. The Catholic Bishops are right to be opposed to such discrimination.

So would you get rid of the antidiscrimination clause for race , sex and religion too?

 

[royal_archer]

No, I’m afraid they don’t.

In MA, you can’t fire a Catholic just for being Catholic.
In MA, you can’t fire a Gay, just for being Gay.
In MA, you can fire a Transsexual just for being Transsexual - and it happens all the time.

You can’t fire a Catholic just for being Catholic in any state of the Union.

Please provide a reference to support your claim that Catholics are given more protection than those of other religions.

 

[aspawloski4th]

What Catholic would deny anyone’s Human rights? of course gays and transsexuals have their rights acknowledged, they have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else What this question is asking is if they should be denied extra gay rights. Than the answer is yes, being Gay doesn’t make you more human.

Please give a specific example of what you mean. Even if it is hypothetical.