MariaTSAngel, while I am deeply sympathetic to the plight of gender dysphoric people, I must say I don’t understand your position at all. The dysphorics I know are desperate to have gender reassignment surgery so that their bodies match who they know themselves to be. I respect your position, but it’s one I cannot fathom.I’m a heterosexual transgendered woman…Although I may be opposed to transgendered women getting genital realignment surgery, I do not think that the church should prohibit them from marrying a man or going into a religious vocation.
I hate have great sympathy for the hardships of people who face such trials in life, yet the Church ABSOLUTELY must speak in matters of faith and morals. It has every right to speak about marriage.The Catholic Church says that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it shouldn’t have a right to say which type of woman a man may marry or which type of man a woman may marry.
Gender Dysphoria is the current diagnosis, it simply means that an individuals gender does not match her or his sex. I know that I am a woman, that is why I know that it does not matter what genitals I have. Also, you should not call transgendered women or transgendered men dysphorics or gender dysphoric people as it has been deemed offensive. Also, the vast majority of doctors who study gender dysphoria call the individuals transgendered women or transgendered men. I’m not a dysphoric, I’m a transgendered woman. Also, dysphoria means does not match. I’m not a does not match or a gender does not match, that makes no grammatical sense, I’m a woman with a penis.MariaTSAngel, while I am deeply sympathetic to the plight of gender dysphoric people, I must say I don’t understand your position at all. The dysphorics I know are desperate to have gender reassignment surgery so that their bodies match who they know themselves to be. I respect your position, but it’s one I cannot fathom.
StAnastasia
If the Bible, the Church, and the Catechism each say that marriage is between a man and a woman then they should not present a double standard when a man wants to marry a woman with a penis and she wants to marry the man. The Church should at least stay consistent when it speaks on matters of faith. Also, nowhere in the Bible or the Catechism does it present any moral statement in regards to a woman with a penis.CORRECTION:
I have great sympathy for the hardships of people who face such trials in life, yet the Church ABSOLUTELY must speak in matters of faith and morals. It has every right to speak about marriage.
MariaTSAngel, thanks for enlightening me; I’ll avoid that term in the future.Also, you should not call transgendered women or transgendered men dysphorics or gender dysphoric people as it has been deemed offensive.
Here you’ve lost me. I can certainly understand a heterosexual man (who doesn’t care about having children of his own) being sexually attracted to and marrying a post-operative transgendered woman. I can’t understand a heterosexual man being sexually attracted to a “woman with a penis.” Perhaps I’ll never understand that. Can you shed any light on this? What do I need to understand about the guys who would fall for you?I’m a woman with a penis.
Why would you expect it to? Gender reassignment was probably unknown in biblical times.Also, nowhere in the Bible or the Catechism does it present any moral statement in regards to a woman with a penis.
Correct. The Indonesian Catholic Bishops have stated that anyone with 2 X chromosomes is female by definition this as far as I know is the only Church pronouncement on the subject and until the Magisterium says otherwise must stand.The problem still lies in how do we decide what is moral and what is immoral regarding this topic. Again, is it DNA, brain, body, or a combo deal…and how do we know? The Church has stated genetics is the way they determine gender.
He is a man as is his son because they do not have 2 X chromosomes, only one.A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.
Boy, I’m sure glad you’re not the dictator of the world!In order to protect the sanctity of marriage and to prevent people from inadvertently committing the grievous sin of homosexual conduct all catholic marriages should require a genetic test first to see how many X chromosomes each prospective partner has.
I assume this is a bit of comedy you wrote for The Onion. If it’s serious, I pity you and your world view!Those whose appearance does not match their true sex determined by their chromosomes must wear unisex clothing so they do not contravene the scriptural prohibition against one sex wearing the other sex’s clothing. If they wear male raiment because they appear male but have 2 X chromosomes they will actually be committing a son and if they wear female raiment they will cause public scandal as they appear to be committing a sin. Such people can never have sexual relations or engage in displays of affection with either sex as they will either be committing the terrible sin of homosexual conduct or encouraging it be appearing to even if not.
Are you for real?The Bishops know better than we do and it is our duty as Catholics to recognise their authority in these matters and obey without question until and unless the Magisterium makes a contrary ruling.
Sorry, scientists have no obligation to kneel obediently before theologians.Theology is the Queen of sciences and scientists would do well to remember that and stay silent until invited to speak by those who have access to the Truth.
Wrong again.When they affirm scripture they are speaking truthfully and when they do not they have been misled by Satan and his demons who are quite capable of making instruments give false readings.
The Church does not define gender.Genesis says man was created and woman with no third sex and the Church has determined what defines a woman so there is no room for debate end statement.
Because women do not have a penis. Men have a penis.If the Bible, the Church, and the Catechism each say that marriage is between a man and a woman then they should not present a double standard when a man wants to marry a woman with a penis and she wants to marry the man. The Church should at least stay consistent when it speaks on matters of faith. Also, nowhere in the Bible or the Catechism does it present any moral statement in regards to a woman with a penis.
I agree with this general principle.Because women do not have a penis. Men have a penis.
Imperfection was in the world for 350 million years before “Adam” and “Eve.” Human sin is not the cause of genetic imperfection and birth defects.Due to the fall (of Adam and Eve), sin and imperfection entered the world. That’s why my first son was born severely disabled.
The Church may be relying on outdated or incomplete scientific knowledge. There are cases in which a part of a person’s body – including the brain – is formed by an XX genome, whereas the rest of the person’s body – including the genitals - are formed by an XY genome. In such cases, the person has a female brain and is absolutely positive that she is female, whereas the genital side is absolutely male. (The reverse may be true as well). This is called “tetragametism.”The Church is saying that you can mutilate your body (or not) but you can not change “who you are”. The Church is relying on the physical evidence to determine “who you are”. Transgendered people rely on who they feel they are to determine “who they are”. So, the Church is consistent.
mgreen77, I’m not sure whom you are addressing. And I’m not sure what you mean by “damage,” but I think the whole matter of sex changes must be handled with sensitivity and finesse on all sides. I had a master’s student a few years back who “made the transition” quite publicly. He left for Christmas vacation a man, and came back in spring semester as “April.” It was a huge shock to his wife and children, and to all of us in the university. I’m not judging him for doing what he did, but I believe he could have managed it with more finesse, such as after completing his degree and leaving the university community, and after long counseling with his spouse, etc.What would you say is the damage done to society by people who change sexes?
I’m just asking everyone in general.mgreen77, I’m not sure whom you are addressing. And I’m not sure what you mean by “damage,” but I think the whole matter of sex changes must be handled with sensitivity and finesse on all sides. I had a master’s student a few years back who “made the transition” quite publicly. He left for Christmas vacation a man, and came back in spring semester as “April.” It was a huge shock to his wife and children, and to all of us in the university. I’m not judging him for doing what he did, but I believe he could have managed it with more finesse, such as after completing his degree and leaving the university community, and after long counseling with his spouse, etc.
StAnastasia
Heterosexuality can cause death too, but that is not a reason to oppose it.Others say it does affect society, listing things like disease,
None of my gay friends were recruited by the gay community.Encouraging others to be be gay by normalizing it
By gay people creating families?Undermining the family.
I haven’t seen it.So I’m wondering, people who change sexes (and blend back in and don’t make waves) don’t seem to really affect society. But is there some larger picture, some adverse effect to society in general?
The “ick” factor can be overcome. To me personally, one of the most disgusting things on the planet is the practice of eating caviar or oysters – ti me it’s just plain revolting. But I would never want to outlaw the practice, of to argue that people’s eating of caviar and oysters undermines society, or the family, or public health.I get the personal “ick” factor some people have, and the religious objections, but are there any practical, damaging effects?
I think you’re right.As for the student you mention… that does seem to be the most common approach I’ve read and heard about, and of course they’re the ones who make the news and get noticed. I’m guessing there are others you don’t hear about who do it quietly, careful to pay attention to the considerations of their friends, coworkers and family to create as little disruption as possible.
That is because there is no such thing as a woman with a penis. At least the Church and the Bible do not make such distinctions…penis = male.If the Bible, the Church, and the Catechism each say that marriage is between a man and a woman then they should not present a double standard when a man wants to marry a woman with a penis and she wants to marry the man. The Church should at least stay consistent when it speaks on matters of faith. Also, nowhere in the Bible or the Catechism does it present any moral statement in regards to a woman with a penis.
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.I agree with this general principle.
Imperfection was in the world for 350 million years before “Adam” and “Eve.” Human sin is not the cause of genetic imperfection and birth defects.
StAnastasia
Yes.This thread was sparked by some questions I asked on a different thread and since there seems to be no real interest there, I thought I would give them their own thread (I rarely get headaches regardng moral and faith issues, but these issues are not easy to answer). Here goes:
Say a physical man chooses–after decades of torment–to get surgery to become a physical female. That person would still have the DNA of a man, so I assume the new “female” would still be a male in the eyes of the Church/faith. Is that right?
Yes. He would be considered to have mutilated himself for no good reason - this falls under the fifth commandment, in the area of self-harm, in the St. Joseph Examination of Conscience.Is it therefore a sin for that man to get the surgery?
It would not be considered to be natural sex, and would be of the same order of things as homosexuality, bestiality, paedophilia, and masturbation - ie: “not good.”Let us say that newly formed “female” marries a biological male. Are they in fact engaging in homosexual activity when they have sex (they both have male DNA)?
Biologically this would be considered a natural marriage, and I suppose there must be couples who make this kind of thing work - but the man himself might be considered to be not suitable for marriage. If the couple were to divorce and his gender confusion came to light, it could very easily be grounds for a Declaration of Nullity, especially if he deceived his wife about it prior to the wedding, and it were subsequently a root cause of the divorce.Now, let us flip this situation. Say the man who wants the surgey and has faced personal torment his entire life cannot stop thinking of himself as a woman, he cannot escape it no matter what he does. Say he decides (rather then opting for a sex change surgery) to make a complete commitment to his physical gender and chooses to get married to a biological woman. Since that man always mentally feels like a woman, does that make their marriage a quasi lesbian relationship?
It would not be considered a valid marriage, for the reasons stated above.Further, what happens to the souls of people who do get the sugery, and then marry their new “opposite” sex? Are they then fornicating because two people with the same gender DNA cannot be sacramentally married?
We live in very confused times.The gender indentity issues are for more difficult to discern morally imo.
I could not agree with you more.Yes.
Yes. He would be considered to have mutilated himself for no good reason - this falls under the fifth commandment, in the area of self-harm, in the St. Joseph Examination of Conscience.
. . .
We live in very confused times.