A
Aquinas11
Guest
I don’t think someone born without feet would agree that it’s a “minor functional/cosmetic anomaly” and not “deeply tied to one’s identity”
Resolving an intersex condition
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
O
OraLabora
Guest
You were talking about an extra digit and I replied to that context. Now you’re being disingenuous.
In any event I clearly said that not all defects are equal. Did you not read my last post? In case you missed it, I said
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Please see previous posts
O
OraLabora
Guest
I responded to a specific post.
And in any event I said that “not all anomalies are created equal”. Again, did you not read that statement? This is the third time I’ve repeated it!
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Yes and that context was in reference to my previous posts about people born with no feet, 11 fingers, 11 toes etc. Since you’re still making a baseless accusation of disingenuousness about discussing people born without feet I’ll move on.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Do they still teach in biology classes that humans have two sexes/genders? Scientists are probably moving away from a binary definition.Lea101:
Biology has anomalies and anomalies don’t change general biological definitions. Some people are born without feet. Some people born with 12 fingers and toes. But in biology class we still teach humans have 2 feet, 10 fingers, 10 toes. This is just another example of one more of long list anomalies we readily accept that don’t affect general biological definitions
H
Hope1960
Guest
I agree except what gender are hermaphrodites, then?
P
Pattylt
Guest
This discussion leads me to ask…if an AIS is genetically XY but is female in appearance and identity only later to discover that she is genetically male even though phenotypically female, is she required to only marry a female? Is she a lesbian? If she marries a male…which is much more likely if she thinks herself female, is she a homosexual?
If the Church is consistent and ones genetic sex is the definitive one, are they comfortable with two female appearing persons being married in the Church since one of them is AIS? Should the Church make a definitive statement on this or just consider it abnormal and rare and thus ignore it? I realize these are hard questions and even harder answers.
If the Church is consistent and ones genetic sex is the definitive one, are they comfortable with two female appearing persons being married in the Church since one of them is AIS? Should the Church make a definitive statement on this or just consider it abnormal and rare and thus ignore it? I realize these are hard questions and even harder answers.
P
Pattylt
Guest
They seem to have the chromosomes of both in many cases. Here’s a good article describing it.
www.britannica.com
Hermaphroditism | Definition, Types, & Effects
Hermaphroditism, the condition of having both male and female reproductive organs. In humans, conditions that involve discrepancies between external genitalia and internal reproductive organs are described by the term ‘intersex.’ Learn about different forms of hermaphroditism and their treatment.
www.britannica.com
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
This shows exactly the inadequacy of the Church assertion “man and woman He created them” as being the definitive basis on which to deal with these issues, just as creating the world in six days is inadequate to explain the creation of the Universe/Earth.
Both are allegories to describe creation in terms understood at the time. Fortunately the Church has moved away from requiring a literalist belief of creation in 6 days. But the notion of gender not always being clearly M or F remains in the Church’s mindset, to be polite, a work in progress.
Treatment AIS people, or any other intersex condition, should be based on the patient’s well-being before any outdated theological notions that fail to understand the science. So an AIS woman should be considered by her phenotype, not her genetic markers, if that indeed is the identity she prefers. She should be allowed, by the Church, to marry a man, and raise a family (by adoption), if she chooses.
Nor should we be surprised, or object, to someone intersex preferring to identify with the gender (s)he least resembles physically. The brain might have other ideas.
Black-and-white solutions to grey problems just leave a lot of heartache on all sides.
Both are allegories to describe creation in terms understood at the time. Fortunately the Church has moved away from requiring a literalist belief of creation in 6 days. But the notion of gender not always being clearly M or F remains in the Church’s mindset, to be polite, a work in progress.
Treatment AIS people, or any other intersex condition, should be based on the patient’s well-being before any outdated theological notions that fail to understand the science. So an AIS woman should be considered by her phenotype, not her genetic markers, if that indeed is the identity she prefers. She should be allowed, by the Church, to marry a man, and raise a family (by adoption), if she chooses.
Nor should we be surprised, or object, to someone intersex preferring to identify with the gender (s)he least resembles physically. The brain might have other ideas.
Black-and-white solutions to grey problems just leave a lot of heartache on all sides.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
I guess the next question is…will the Church recognize the scientific ambiguity of gender or remain dogmatic that He created them male and female? I merely watch and wait. 
O
OraLabora
Guest
Good luck, it took 40 years for the Church to produce a Gregorian chant antiphonary for the Liturgy of the Hours, that had been promised “soon” when the LOTH was promulgated in 1970I merely watch and wait.
I think the Church risks another “Galileo” moment (as a figure of speech).
As a scientist I do believe that the Church, and science, can coexist and complement each other. But every once in a while one side or the other oversteps the boundary between the two. I think on gender, this is one of those moments where the Church’s doctrine oversteps that boundary and is an inadequate basis on which to make moral diktats to the sufferers of intersex/transgender conditions.
Last edited:
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
At some point, an AIS person, looking and acting female, and functional will, upon discovering she is XY, discern the priesthood. That might require some discussions.
O
OraLabora
Guest
I’d like to be a fly in the wall when those discussions take place!
That is a brilliant observation. I wasn’t expecting that one! Thanks so much.
This is a very good discussion and I’m glad that so many different angles have been brought forth. Some of my thoughts, for what they’re worth:
- For situations where anatomy (at least outward appearance and reasonably unambiguous physical traits) militate in favor of one gender, but chromosomes and hidden traits (such as internal gonads) militate another way, common sense seems to indicate that anatomy trumps genetics. In other words, AIS women are women, in spite of DNA.
- For situations that are more ambiguous — true intersex or hermaphroditism — it may not be possible to say “they’re this gender” or “they’re that gender”. That is not the end of the world. They are still children of God created in His image and likeness. They are in no sense “less than”. Aside from having an ambiguous gender, it makes no difference. One of my grandfather’s farm hands was, as they said back in the day, a “morphodite” (dialect form of “hermaphrodite”). Everyone held him in high esteem and my mother tells me what a kind person he was. (That is actually pretty progressive for that part of the country in that era, 1930s and 1940s, but my mother’s family was very charitable and fair-minded for that age, or any age.) If he had no discernible gender, what of it? Scripture speaks of those born eunuchs, as well as those who have becomes eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps “male and female He created them” is not meant to be taken so literally as to say “everyone has to fit into one gender or the other, no exceptions”.
- Intersex and hermaphroditic people have always existed. It is nothing new. How did the Church view this in times past? It would be worth taking a look at.
- Years ago, when medical science had progressed to the point of making this possible, a child who was born with ambiguous genitalia was hurried into surgery, and was usually “made into a girl” because that is an easier operation. That was very wrong. The wisdom these days is to “leave well enough alone” and allow the person to choose, or not to choose, medical and surgical intervention when they are of age. I am not usually a fan of “progressive” social movements that seek to blur distinctions that nature has put into place, but this time, I’m on their side. I would like to see a society where people can be candid about being intersex, or having had an intersex child, and have it not be treated as a bad thing or a tragedy — just accepted for what it is.
- Athletes who are suspected of having ambiguous sexuality are usually women who are physically stronger and have more stamina than other women. It is seen as an unfair advantage. Testing is needed to see if they have been medically or surgically altered, or are in some other way camouflaging their true gender (passing as female, but actually male). AIS or intersex women are not “up to anything”, but they may have such an advantage. A decision has to be made — are they to be considered women, for purposes of competition, or are they not?
L
Lea101
Guest
OP is talking about the morality of it acc. to the church.
R
Rau
Guest
Did someone say to have 11 toes is not to be human? Or was their meaning that the blueprints for us humans have a particular set of features eg 10 toes. We know that individuals depart from the blueprints in various ways. The blueprints also specify two sexes.
R
Rau
Guest
In respect of intersex I thought the church had in fact little or nothing to say - which would be wise given the challenge. Even in the case of transgender, is not the church largely refraining from expressing moral diktats?
- Status