People with gender identity issues and sex change surgeries!

[InSearchofGrace]

[con’t]

By and large, doctors genuinely wish to help alleviate the long suffering of patients, especially those diagnosed with the disorder to the point of self harm. Hence, there has been tremendous pressure on physicians who then take the path of giving the green light for sex reassignment surgery (SRS), the only solution burned in the minds of many individuals with said diagnosis.

It was interesting to come across a fairly recent paper titled ,The Psychopathology of “Sex Reassignment” Surgery, Assessing Its Medical, Psychological, and Ethical Appropriateness authored by Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D., Philip M. Sutton, PhD, and Dale O’Leary, author and lecturer, under the National Catholics Bioethics Center.

The paper posits that that the medical profession should not take part or continue to “take part in the madness.” The paper has compelling arguments, 28 pages long, with the conclusion (shortened and paraphrased in parts) as follows:

*SRS causes permanent sterility and carries health risks. It cannot change sex but only creates the illusion of change. Transsexualism represents a fundamental disorder in a person’s sense of self.

SRS does not treat this disorder, it surrenders to it. The desire for SRS is a symptom of a number of psychological disorders, which are admittedly difficult to treat.

Since these serious problems are difficult to treat in adolescents and adults, first priority should be given to prevention through education and early intervention. For the development of healthy masculinity and femininity, parents need to understand the critical importance of early secure attachment with each parent and siblings, positive support for sexual identity, encouragement for children with atypical talents and interests, and same-sex friendships in early childhood.

While the desire for SRS is presented as a problem of gender identity, there is substantial evidence that the defense mechanism of rationalization serves to cover up serious emotional and personality conflicts and the underlying sexual motivation, namely, the desire by some to live out their sexual fantasies.

Efforts should be directed toward the development of effective therapy for adolescents and adults. The fact that such therapy is not described extensively in the literature and therefore is not widely available, and that these patients resist therapeutic interventions, does not justify giving in to the demand for surgical mutilation.

If SRS is neither medically nor ethically justifiable for adults, then starting hormone treatments on adolescents with GID in order to suppress puberty, with the promise of later proceeding to SRS, is even less so.

Surgeons, mental health professionals, and those dealing with medical ethics would do well to follow the advice of Dr. PaulMcHugh: “I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”

He added,

“As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their ‘true’ sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex.

We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it."*

. . . . .

 

[StAnastasia]

Be careful here. The Church and the Bible does not tell us when the Garden existed, only that it was a real place and that Adam and Eve were our real first parents.

My point was that predation, disease, deformity and death, have existed for as long as life has existed, around 350 million years. If the “Garden of Eden” existed at the beginning of this time, when there were only single-celled organisms, then you might cogently argue that predation, disease, deformity and death were the result of the “Adamic sin.”

 

[StAnastasia]

[con’t]The paper posits that that the medical profession should not take part or continue to “take part in the madness.”

It seems childish and uncharitable to refer to it as “madness.”

 

[irishpatrick]

My point was that predation, disease, deformity and death, have existed for as long as life has existed, around 350 million years. If the “Garden of Eden” existed at the beginning of this time, when there were only single-celled organisms, then you might cogently argue that predation, disease, deformity and death were the result of the “Adamic sin.”

The point I am making is we do not know when the Garden existed. It might have thousands of years ago, it may veryy well have been millions. The spiritual truth we do know is that decay of God’s creation began with sin. Creation itself (everything we see) was subjected to that decay as a result of sin. When that took place is really a secondary question (interesting, but fully secondary).

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It seems childish and uncharitable to refer to it as “madness.”

Among other things on the 28 pages, the authors brought up the following arguments, proving medicine collaborates with madness by getting involved with SRS.

In pursuing a materialist ethic “If we can do something, we may do it,” SRS created a climate where people see nothing wrong with surgeons destroying healthy reproductive organs and creating artificial organs for those who want them. Those insisting on SRS to solve their transsexual anxiety say “It’s my body, so I can manipulate it however I like,” are offended if surgeons refuse to grant their demands. They want their body modified to fit the mind. Then someone like Thomas Beattie gets to change her/his mind again. Remember Thomas “the pregnant man” Beattie?

Men desiring SRS demonstrate a form of destructive masochism. In Thailand, where the sex change industry thrives (homosexual men from all over the world go there, seeking to undergo SRS with less pre-op work up and requirements), a Thai surgeon said that he liked to do SRS work because other patients complained about the pain related to surgery, but “the sexual reassignment surgery patients are always happy. They don’t complain! They say they are born again here in Thailand and they are happy.”

So, men seeking SRS are using the process to fulfill masochist desires and to try to resolve self-hatred. On the other hand, SRS patients frequently do complain about the cosmetic effects of the surgery and about the treatment they receive by those who do not, in their opinion, sufficiently accept them as women.

. . . . .

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It seems childish and uncharitable to refer to it as “madness.”

Not only are the authors referring to SRS as collaborating with madness, they also say those involved with it become partners in deception as well. They so state with good basis. Consider the articulation provided why medical professionals would or should feel this way:

Those who undergo SRS want to be accepted as members of the other sex—legally, socially, and sexually—to “pass.” Surgery allays the fear of being exposed as a woman with a penis or a man without. The simplest form of passing is going out in public and having people assume that they are a person of the other sex. Some homosexual transsexual males, either before or after SRS, engage in sexual activity with a heterosexual male without informing him of their true sex. There have been tragic incidents in which their partners have reacted violently to the revelation.

Some persons who have undergone SRS have married a person of the same sex, in some cases even without informing that person of their SRS. Obviously, this involves a massive deception.

Such marriages are illegal in most states even if the partner is informed of the birth sex. Persons who have undergone SRS often try erasing their pre-SRS history by legally changing their names, cutting themselves off from those who knew them before, and creating a fictitious past.

Transsexual activists are working to change laws regarding sexual identity. They want persons who have undergone SRS to be able change their birth certificates and other records. Many states have allowed this. There is a push to allow persons who appear in public as the other sex, but have not had “bottom” surgery, to change their documents as well. Public officials object since this would affect, among other things, the placement in prisons. As one official pointed out, “How can you send a person with a penis to a women’s prison?”

Is it ethical for physicians to participate in a procedure when the clear purpose of it is to deceive people? Should surgeons perform an operation where the goal is to hide crucial “facts” from innocent third parties? Does a potential sexual partner or, more importantly, a possible marital partner have a right to know that the person with whom he or she is about to become intimate was not born the sex he or she appears to be, requires hormone treatments in order to sustain this appearance, and is not able to have children? The reaction of those who discover this fact after initiating a relationship strongly suggests that most people are not comfortable with engaging in what they perceive as a homosexual relationship.

. . . . . .

 

[StAnastasia]

The point I am making is we do not know when the Garden existed. It might have thousands of years ago, it may veryy well have been millions. The spiritual truth we do know is that decay of God’s creation began with sin. Creation itself (everything we see) was subjected to that decay as a result of sin. When that took place is really a secondary question (interesting, but fully secondary).

Yes, and what I am saying is that we know that decay began with the first life, 3.5 billion years ago. Predation and death are essential to energy transfer among living organisms. Without death there can be no release of elements for future life. Perhaps the “Garden of Eden” was on the molten, prebiotic surface of the Earth, before this energy transfer between organisms began to take place.

StAnastasia

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What would you say is the damage done to society by people who change sexes?

And by that I mean people who go “all the way,” conforming to the physical and social expectations of their new sex, who you wouldn’t realize had been born differently unless you did a chromosome check… not people who remain physically one sex, but “present” (dress) as the other.

My post above (#146) addresses this. SRS and the push by transsexual activists for it do have adverse effects on society.

. . . . .

 

[StAnastasia]

Men desiring SRS demonstrate a form of destructive masochism.

Not necessarily. Some people are born with part of their body formed by one genome, and part formed by a second genome. If their brain was formed by an XX genome and their genitals by an XY genome, who they are mentally and psychologically does not match who they are genitally. In these cases, sex change surgery allows them to appear outwardly as they know themselves to be inwardly.

 

[StAnastasia]

Is it ethical for physicians to participate in a procedure when the clear purpose of it is to deceive people?

Can you offer evidence that sex changes are done to deceive people?

Does a potential sexual partner or, more importantly, a possible marital partner have a right to know that the person with whom he or she is about to become intimate was not born the sex he or she appears to be, requires hormone treatments in order to sustain this appearance, and is not able to have children?

If the transsexual is not honest and open about his or her state, he or she could not contract a valid marriage.

The reaction of those who discover this fact after initiating a relationship strongly suggests that most people are not comfortable with engaging in what they perceive as a homosexual relationship.

You’re assuming that the genitals determine gender, whereas it might be the chromosomes.

 

[ManOnFire]

It seems that some boys have demanding, perfectionist mothers whose dream it is to provide an “ideal” life for their children. Part of their ideal dream is their belief that the mother’s role is to save the children from any and all discomfort and struggle, while being very rigid with rules and standards for behavior, in an attempt to FORM the child into this perfect little object, instilling confidence and ego, while shielding the child from struggle and conflict with the rest of the world. But, there’s plenty of conflict with the mother herself, because the mother is laying down the strict rules to FORM her ideal child. This ideal child, in effect, becomes a “princess.” The majority of this “princess’s” conflict has come from the mother, since the mother protected the child from most of the conflict with the outside world. The child might excell on many levels thanks to the mother’s strict standards, but if the child is a boy, he remembers all the criticism from his mother (remember, mother sheilded him and defended him from society’s criticisms). Naturally, he’s not very attracted to women, because his mother was his most common source of struggle and criticism, in her attempt to create her vision of the ideal childhood. Lots of love was also given, so there is likely to a love/hate relationship where he loves his mother, but he really can’t stand part of her. He might even despise women due to his lopsided experience perception of women: the nagging, demanding mother, who was the only real source of conflict in his life.

If the child seems fragile, this makes sense because the mother tried to protect him from the “mean” society, so naturally, he has a low pain tolerance thanks to all the protectionism. The parent’s over-protectionism almost makes the child feel like a victim relative to the rest of society once the child grows older and must face the world. The child was raised center-of-the-universe style, so he believes that it’s the rest of society’s responsibility to conform to him, otherwise there is injustice. Does this sound even remotely familiar?

This is why truly poor countries don’t have this problem: they don’t have the luxury to shield a child this well during childhood.

Does this help SOME people with understanding??? I hope and pray for peace.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Can you offer evidence that sex changes are done to deceive people?

I don’t think there are statistics or data for what you wish to see as framed. But the claim being made by the three authors of Psychopathology of SRS, Assessing Its Medical, Psychological, Ethical Appropriateness is that medical professionals become partners in deception when they get involved with SRS.

These authors drew from the experience of Dr. Paul McHugh with the discontinued John Hopkins SRS program, which studied and tracked SRS patients. My post (# 146) reflects their verbatim explanation for the claim, listing the following sources to lend support to said claim:

68Dan Frosch, “Death of a Transgender Woman Is Called a Hate Crime,” New York Times, August 2, 2008.

69David Batty, “Mistaken Identity,” Guardian, July 31, 2004.

70 Daniel Trotta, “NY Rejects Transgender Birth Certificate Law,” Reuters, December 5, 2006.

You will note that I linked the sources directly to the article for facility.

Are you surprised that deception has been used in the past and continues to be an element in sex change surgeries? Consider the story of Michael Dillon where the patient and treating doctor collaborated in deception.

And the mere fact that there are current sites like The Stealthy Transsexual Woman (caution: this site has adult photos towards the end) with text content that reveal how transsexuals are negotiating how to live in the world, using dishonesty and concealment. It would be naïve of medical professionals involved with SRS not to realize that deception surrounds what has become specialized surgeries, in pre-op and post-op stages. And long after the post-op period.

NOTE: Before I respond to the rest of your questions, I would like to make clear that it is not my intent to add to discrimination of transsexuals and homosexuals. I grew up with a homosexual brother who lived the lifestyle for a decade, for whom I pray nightly and who needs prayers. I also have two brothers who are physicians (one is a psychiatrist, the other a family practitioner) who agree with me regarding the bioethics or its lack of, in SRS. There is much to understand about homosexuality and its subcategories. As you can glean from my posts, I am against the trend that physicians take in offering a radical surgical solution to transsexual anxiety disorder, which is a mental problem. Yes, it is taking part in a madness, in a great deception. Bishop Fulton Sheen was right: love is not tolerance.

. . . . . .

 

[jmcrae]

It seems childish and uncharitable to refer to it as “madness.”

I think they are using the term “madness” in its technical sense - that is to say, severe mental illness that exhibits persistent and permanent self-harm.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

If the transsexual is not honest and open about his or her state, he or she could not contract a valid marriage.

True, but it does not prevent transsexuals pre and post-SRS, from pushing and challenging existing family laws on marriage. Just google “Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States” on the list of cases.

You’re assuming that the genitals determine gender, whereas it might be the chromosomes.

I think I made clear in my first post on this thread I am talking about observable evidence of gender, not DNA or chromosome mismatch to external/internal sexual organs.

From page 100 of the linked paper on SRS, describing the patients in the John Hopkins program, leading to the conclusion by Dr. McHugh that SRS is not medically and ethically justifiable:

There are genetic and other abnormalities that can cause discordance between genetic sex, hormone receptivity, and external and internal sexual organs. These disorders of sexual development are very rare. While it is appropriate to test anyone desiring SRS in order to be sure that they do not suffer from one of these rare abnormalities, those who seek SRS are virtually always genetically normal men and women with intact sexual and reproductive organs and hormones levels proper to their sex.

 

[irishpatrick]

Yes, and what I am saying is that we know that decay began with the first life, 3.5 billion years ago. Predation and death are essential to energy transfer among living organisms. Without death there can be no release of elements for future life. Perhaps the “Garden of Eden” was on the molten, prebiotic surface of the Earth, before this energy transfer between organisms began to take place.

StAnastasia

Going back that far we can only guess. It might be what we feel is an educated guess, but still a guess. We have no way to know when or how God created everything. It is easy for us to fall under the spell of thinking we have a firm grasp on such things, yet chances are good we do not even have the remotest clue. I suspect God’s methods for invoking His Creation is hidden behind quite a deep cloud of mystery and only time will tell if God will allows to see how He did this.

 

[StAnastasia]

Going back that far we can only guess. It might be what we feel is an educated guess, but still a guess. We have no way to know when or how God created everything. It is easy for us to fall under the spell of thinking we have a firm grasp on such things, yet chances are good we do not even have the remotest clue. I suspect God’s methods for invoking His Creation is hidden behind quite a deep cloud of mystery and only time will tell if God will allows to see how He did this.

Sorry, but it’'s not an “educated guess.” The earliest known fossils of stromatolites are dated at 3.45 billion years ago, and come from Western Australia. We have way more than the “remotest clue.”

Photosynthetic bacteria live on thin mats in shallow water. As they become covered in clay and particles, these bacteria move upwards toward the light they require. This movement leaves behind dead layers, much in the same way that trees leave behind inner wood as they grow. Stromatolites are recognizable because of the “tree ring” structure that records the movement of bacteria.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think they are using the term “madness” in its technical sense - that is to say, severe mental illness that exhibits persistent and permanent self-harm.

But it may not be mental illness if the brain and genitals do not match genetically.

 

[irishpatrick]

Sorry, but it’'s not an “educated guess.” The earliest known fossils of stromatolites are dated at 3.45 billion years ago, and come from Western Australia. We have way more than the “remotest clue.”

Photosynthetic bacteria live on thin mats in shallow water. As they become covered in clay and particles, these bacteria move upwards toward the light they require. This movement leaves behind dead layers, much in the same way that trees leave behind inner wood as they grow. Stromatolites are recognizable because of the “tree ring” structure that records the movement of bacteria.

Still just a guess because we have no way to verfiy that our dating methods are good to such ancient dates. It also a guess because we tend to look at those fossils from our view today, yet we do not really know what creative actions God has taken throughout the years that might have positioned those fossils in strata that appears to be so very old. Beyond that, it is still just a guess because we do not know what God put in place before or after the Garden. We just do not know. But, we can guess and we can think we know, but we really do NOT know. Finally, it is a guess because we cannot say with any true certainty when God created the Garden and Adam and Even…it could have been millions of years ago or merely thousands. Some even go far as to theorize that God created the world with age on purpose…we just do not know.

However, we have strayed quite far from the OP, so I think we should at least try to get back on topic.

 

[StAnastasia]

Still just a guess because we have no way to verfiy that our dating methods are good to such ancient dates.

I agree we should get back to the topic at hand, judging people who seek surgery to render their bodies in accordance with their brains.

But one last point: I see that you are aligned with creationism in the “young earth sense,” so this will probably make no sense to you. But let me assure you that the scientists with whom I work are confident in the accuracy of rock dating methods.

It also a guess because we tend to look at those fossils from our view today, yet we do not really know what creative actions God has taken throughout the years that might have positioned those fossils in strata that appears to be so very old.

Are you are invoking a “trickster God” who buries fossils in unnatural positions in the rock just to fool sinful scientists? That is not my God.

Beyond that, it is still just a guess because we do not know what God put in place before or after the Garden.

Trickster God again.

We just do not know. But, we can guess and we can think we know, but we really do NOT know.

Sorry, but we do know. Go visit a college some day. Interview a Catholic biologist or paleontologist at a Catholic university. Ask her or him why she or he believes in the soundness of science.

Finally, it is a guess because we cannot say with any true certainty when God created the Garden and Adam and Even…it could have been millions of years ago or merely thousands.

If you want to interpret Genesis literally, the “Garden of Eden” has to be dated to within a few hundred years of 4,000 BCE. If you don’t place it there, you are no longer interpreting Genesis literally.

Some even go far as to theorize that God created the world with age on purpose…we just do not know.

Ah - the trickster God again. That God has no place in Catholicism.

However, we have strayed quite far from the OP, so I think we should at least try to get back on topic.

Yes, let’s get back on topic!

StAnastasia

 

[irishpatrick]

StAnastasia;

I agree we should get back to the topic at hand, judging people who seek surgery to render their bodies in accordance with their brains. But one last point: I see that you are aligned with creationism in the “young earth sense,”

==> I take no issue with a very old earth or with evolution. I never said I did.

Trickster God again.

**==> In the spirit of the Advent Season I will cease conversing with you at this point because I fear our discourse has somehow taken a more insulting tone, which is most inappropriate for this Season.

I wish you all Lord’s blessings and I thank you for the chat. **