Your case, Pathia, calls for a serious study. You do not call yourself a male; not a female; not a gay. You have no womb; but you do not have a penis, and do not have a vagina. It is almost unbelievable, but I must believe you.I was not born with both, that is a misnomer and when it does happen it occurs only 1 in a million. I was born with neither, in between, something that is much more common. What I have is a blending of the two, neither male, nor female. I can neither father a child, nor birth a child as a mother. I have no womb, and I have no functional way to beget a child.
Huh? Sorry for butting in, but how can any record be dispositive on a biological issue? How can the first impression matter? Impressions are often wrong. Records are often wrong. Not all people fit neatly into categories. Trying to make them do so can be very hurtful, even if hurting was not the intent.Pathia,
I reviewed your previous post in another thread.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2957165#post2957165
You said that your baptismal records have you identified as male. But in state records you were female. The baptismal record must have probably come first.And it was most probably your parents who had you registered as such during the time that you were not aware of it. It was not without sufficient reason that they had your recorded as such. From their first impression of you when you were an infant, they knew that you were a male. Hence they had you recorded as male.So, from the beginning you were a male. Therefore, from the definition I previously presented, there is no doubt that you are a male.
In the rule of evidence, public records, Church records included, are admissible. Our parents have us recorded in the Church according to the sex that they saw of us at the time of recording. I am sure that the Church would not consent to a false recording. If the Church accepted him to be recorded as male, surely that was because the Church affirmed the fact that he was male.Huh? Sorry for butting in, but how can any record be dispositive on a biological issue? How can the first impression matter? Impressions are often wrong. Records are often wrong. Not all people fit neatly into categories. Trying to make them do so can be very hurtful, even if hurting was not the intent.
Hi, Laurence!I’ll be perfectly honest. I’m just disillusioned with these forums, frustrated with this issue, and nothing more. Heck, when you can refute practically any argument from both sides without having a conclusive answer yourself, to say the least it is frustrating, and then on top of it all the threads I myself have tried to start on it have been inconclusive…So, I guess I’m just at the point where I want to make absolute sure that all other human beings have the anatomical capacity to read the few posts I make.
How you’re supposed to help? How you’re supposed to respond? I’ll admit: I actually don’t know, I’m frustrated, I’m tired, I wanna to go sleep, where’s my pillow?
Yes, I agree. But when you have documentary evidence of one thing, and actual physical evidence of something else, which one controls? Documents have evidentiary value because they are assumed to be the reflection of the truth as it was understood by the person who created the document. They can not rebut actual truth as revealed by physical evidence. On the other hand, doucments can be rebutted by a showing that the recorder was mistaken on the facts at the time the document was created. Both seem to apply here.In the rule of evidence, public records, Church records included, are admissible. Our parents have us recorded in the Church according to the sex that they saw of us at the time of recording. I am sure that the Church would not consent to a false recording. If the Church accepted him to be recorded as male, surely that was because the Church affirmed the fact that he was male.
That would be true if the document is not itself a statement of a fact. But when the document is a statement of a fact, it means that that statement was based on the physical evidence then at hand. The subsequent change, if any, of the physical evidence does not alter the truth of the previous fact.Yes, I agree. But when you have documentary evidence of one thing, and actual physical evidence of something else, which one controls? Documents have evidentiary value because they are assumed to be the reflection of the truth as it was understood by the person who created the document. They can not rebut actual truth as revealed by physical evidence. On the other hand, doucments can be rebutted by a showing that the recorder was mistaken on the facts at the time the document was created. Both seem to apply here.
Actually birth certificates come first. When I was born, the doctor went “You have a perfectly healthy…pause…baby!” Then leaned down and told my parents that they would discuss it later.Pathia,
I reviewed your previous post in another thread.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2957165#post2957165
You said that your baptismal records have you identified as male. But in state records you were female. The baptismal record must have probably come first.And it was most probably your parents who had you registered as such during the time that you were not aware of it. It was not without sufficient reason that they had your recorded as such. From their first impression of you when you were an infant, they knew that you were a male. Hence they had you recorded as male.So, from the beginning you were a male. Therefore, from the definition I previously presented, there is no doubt that you are a male.
My definition can be found in Post#48 of this thread.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=196279&page=4What is your definition of a male? Is it XY chromosomes? Is it the one that has a penis? Is it the one with testicles? I have NONE of those qualities. There is absolutely no way I can have sex as a man, I don’t have the biological equipment to do it, I don’t have sperm, and no viable way to even attempt ‘begetting a child’. (I’m trying to not get too graphic here, but this is hard to do…)
That gets us nowhere. As I’ve stated before, I have no womb, and I have no penis. Your definition does not cover me. This definition is exceedingly broad too. By this definition anyone who is sterile due to lack of womb, which is more common than my condition, is sexless.My definition can be found in Post#48 of this thread.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=196279&page=4
As indicated in Genesis, female is one who from the beginning has the natural structure designed to bear a child, while male is one who from the beginning has the natural structure to beget a child.
Pathia,Actually birth certificates come first. When I was born, the doctor went “You have a perfectly healthy…pause…baby!” Then leaned down and told my parents that they would discuss it later.
Um…because it was so shocking my parents remembered everything? Certainly you would remember something like that if a doctor said it about your children! It is also a matter of medical record. I have copies of the fact that the doctors disagreed on what sex to assign me when I was born. Everything like this is written down in the USA.Pathia,
How I wish we have heard the subsequent discussion that the doctor and your parents had. But forgive me of my curiosity: How did you know that the doctor went, “You have a perfectly healthy…pause…baby!” then leaned down…?
Yes, as of this time, that somewhere seems still misty. But I am trying my best to understand your case because it is very very rare. So please bear with me if you still can.Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
My definition can be found in Post#48 of this thread.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthrea…=196279&page=4
As indicated in Genesis, female is one who from the beginning has the natural structure designed to bear a child, while male is one who from the beginning has the natural structure to beget a child.
That gets us nowhere. As I’ve stated before, I have no womb, and I have no penis. Your definition does not cover me. This definition is exceedingly broad too. By this definition anyone who is sterile due to lack of womb, which is more common than my condition, is sexless.
We either have a different definition of the word “fact” or of “evidence” and perhaps of both. But I suspect we digress too far from the topic of this thread.That would be true if the document is not itself a statement of a fact. But when the document is a statement of a fact, it means that that statement was based on the physical evidence then at hand. The subsequent change, if any, of the physical evidence does not alter the truth of the previous fact.
Yes, please. This thread has shifted to talking about my genitalia…We either have a different definition of the word “fact” or of “evidence” and perhaps of both. But I suspect we digress too far from the topic of this thread.
Now I see. There was a mutilation done with your genitals! They mutilated that important part of your sex organ and then have you recorded as a female. That makes sense now. It was your penis that they mutilated. No wonder you have no womb because you were male right from the beginning.My parents and the doctor talked for hours, they sent my parents to specialists, several of them, and the specialists all disagreed on what to do. There was no consensus and no way to make a consensus. They took a risk and just sort of guessed. Then they mutilated what genitals I had to make things look physically more correct. However, it did not make anything functional, it merely made it look more normal.
No…that is not what happened. sigh Since you just won’t stop asking, here is what they did.Now I see. There was a mutilation done with your genitals! They mutilated that important part of your sex organ and then have you recorded as a female. That makes sense now. It was your penis that they mutilated. No wonder you have no womb because you were male right from the beginning.
Thank you , Pathia.
I am very sorry, Pathia, for dragging you into my curiosity. This will be my last post regarding your case…Yes, please. This thread has shifted to talking about my genitalia…
To say that I am embarrassed and somewhat flustered would be putting it…lightly.
OK…I am leaving out from the discussion on “facts” and “evidence”.We either have a different definition of the word “fact” or of “evidence” and perhaps of both. But I suspect we digress too far from the topic of this thread.
Well Laurence, I read it too.Originally Posted by whatevergirl
I read it…I didn’t know you wanted a reply.
You seem overly proud of this emission, which I find incredibly sad.
Maybe you want a world where everything is black or white, good or evil, right or wrong.
The world is not like that.
It is something to do with free-will.
Every decision is a shade of grey. Sometimes a decision which would be evil in one context is necessary in another.
To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born,
and a time to die;
a time to plant,
and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
A time to kill,
and a time to heal;
a time to break down,
and a time to build up;
A time to weep,
and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn,
and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones,
and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace,
and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get,
and a time to lose;
a time to keep,
and a time to cast away;
A time to rend,
and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence,
and a time to speak;
A time to love,
and a time to hate;
a time of war,
and a time of peace.
Any fool can follow a book of rules.
To discern which shade of grey is the most appropriate requires wisdom.