tg life styles

[Lynn-D]

Neithan,
“Although, from what I’ve read, Klinefelter’s Syndrome produces male offspring, not intersexed.”]
In some quarters that is true but in others it seems to provide additional indications of a base link to other genetic anomalies that need be addressed by further research. With all the bigots out there holding back the funding I see no way we can get to that any time soon.
“Gender identity disorder exists in a much higher rate amongst this group (as would be expected) due to the effect on hormones, but that doesn’t mean that they are actually the 'wrong sex.”]
Let me clarify that GID is a social construct and I truly feel transsexuals are wrongly included in that formula since it clearly is applied to a mental disorder and evidence shows that a large majority of post-op transsexuals are fairly free of any similar disorders as would be applied to those under that construct not TS. To mix TS’s in that disorder as if we are mental cases is contrary to the information already in links already provided to you here. GID suicide rates are very high and much more so than the national societal average whereas the rate for post-ops usually fall well below even the average applied to the whole of society. What might that say?
“…your body cannot be the ‘wrong sex,’ it is what it is (hermaphrodites obviously are an exception),”]
Now you seem to allow that there are exceptions. Ok, where might you see no exception. Perhaps if an intersexed person identifies as female but can perform in limited ways sexually as a male how far can we go with this? Hrrrmmmm!
“To distinguish between gender and sex as if they are entirely different or can sometimes be ‘missaligned’ is a confusing and dangerous game of semantics.”]
Sorry, but gender and sex ARE DIFFERENT. Gender is between the ears and sex is below the waist. Simple but to the point. BTW, no such think as ‘transgender’ surgery. That is ignorance roaring its ugly head. It is sex reassignment surgery (SRS), some prefer genital reassignment surgery (GRS), but in both only transsexuals actually have it performed, - not done on the transgender element whomever they might be that you are referring to and obviously many of the misinformed are getting their negative info from. Think I already expained the difference between TS and TG earlier as does the link I just recently posted.
I must admit to confusion here. If God is not as one with nature then who might I ask might be responsible to address the errors of nature, man? I will leave those like you to answer that.
I do not accept nature as diseased but as just what it has been given to us as by God Almighty, - with faults and perils that we are to address as best we can with His help when He pleases to do so.
I never became anything but a woman in appearance and actions so how would I be seen as ‘something I am not’. That might be taken by some as an insult but I am forgiving and will ignore that supposition on your part. To be linked with being somehow ‘paganism’ is taking this a bit far. Might I just chalk that up to the influence of Halloween perhaps?
Have a good day. I tire with the attempt to open closed eyes. Unless you can show me actual condemnation from the bible for what I am or show me the results of valid medical research, (not hokey pokey psychiatric maybe this or maybe that), I doubt we can ever arrive at a common understanding.
Lynn-D

 

[fix]

the Church teaches, “Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law” (Catechism, No. 2297)…

Nevertheless, individuals suffering from gender dysphoria syndrome must be treated with compassion. They need spiritual counseling which will help them realize the great love of God who loves them as individuals who have been created in His image and likeness. They need proper psychotherapy which will help them to face realistically their human situation and the world, and the consequences of their actions on themselves and their relationships with family and friends. Such counseling will also direct them to spiritual, intellectual and social pursuits to realize their self-worth and divert their preoccupation with sexual identity…

catholicherald.com/saunders/05ws/ws051020.htm

As with several other emotional and psychiatric disorders our popular culture has left those in true need to suffer. It must be hard to find an authentic Catholic therapist who can give proper care to such folks.

I am saddened that so many have fallen into the mindless acceptence of agit prop disguised as science.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I never thought this thread I started would last this long. Ive created a monster it looks like. this does prove one thing for sure. The Vatican needs to come out with a definative official document stating what the offical stand of the Catholic church is on this issue along with all the side and perifrial issues that go with it. I know the Vatican has many fish to fry, but this one is getting bigger, and wont go away. But Im not holding my breath.

 

[bones_IV]

Neithan:
I know I’m no medical expert! Even if I was, genetics is still a developing field. Although, from what I’ve read, Klinefelter’s Syndrome produces male offspring, not intersexed. This has to do with the way the genes are organized on each chromatid. Gender identity disorder exists in a much higher rate amongst this group (as would be expected) due to the effect on hormones, but that doesn’t mean that they are actually the ‘wrong sex.’

What I was trying to aim at above, is basically that in Catholic teaching (or my understanding of it) your body cannot be the ‘wrong sex,’ it is what it is (hermaphrodites obviously are an exception), and the virtuous path would be to accept it, to synchronize our mind with the bodies they inhabit, not try to force them to look like something they are not. To distinguish between gender and sex as if they are entirely different or can sometimes be ‘missaligned’ is a confusing and dangerous game of semantics. Our minds do not dictate our bodies like mere ‘ghosts in the machine,’ much of our identity is meant to be physically defined. If we want to have any solid and meaningful idea of our sex (and thus, our gender), we look to our bodies, not how we think or feel about them. I suppose only hermaphrodites could really ‘choose’ their sex, or even remain sexless. That is their unique cross. Men and women both exhibit masculine and feminine qualities, and there are many men who are more feminine, and vice versa, but that does not mean that people should try to ‘correct’ their bodies because they don’t think they suit their personalities or (disordered) desires!

The OP made a comment about the Church putting ‘so much emphasis on the physical,’ but that is really our strength, the fact that we do not internalize everything, that we recognize the true union of spirit with body in human beings, and the importance of the latter on shaping our existential identities.

Just a quick thought: it’s important to keep in mind that Judeo/Christianity firmly separates God from Nature. God created Nature, but He is not one with it–that’s paganism. God created Nature perfectly, but since the Fall she is subject to discord and decay (Romans 8: 20-22). Although it always operates according to definite laws (scientific laws I mean, **not **Natural Law, which is moral and eternal), Nature does not operate fully according to the original plan of God in relation to humans, as a consequence of our banishment from Eden (when Man and Nature were in perfect harmony).

This is why we have disease, natural disasters, and birth defects (such as hermaphrodites), and also why we are not in harmony with our own natures, i.e. our spirits and bodies rebel against one another which is powerfully exemplified in this thread. Our great Christian hope is to look to the Resurrection, when our bodies will be made perfect, and the ‘New Earth’ (Rev. 21:1) which will restore the lost Eden, our perfect harmony with Nature, which is so obviously missing in our world today.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Science is purely a method of observing phenomena and collecting raw data; any conclusions drawn therefrom is philosophy.

I was saying that when God creates things he doesn’t error, and God controls nature.

 

[fix]

I wanted to see whether male infants with ambiguous genitalia who were being surgically transformed into females and raised as girls did, as the theory (again from Hopkins) claimed, settle easily into the sexual identity that was chosen for them. These claims had generated the opinion in psychiatric circles that one’s “sex” and one’s “gender” were distinct matters, sex being genetically and hormonally determined from conception, while gender was culturally shaped by the actions of family and others during childhood…

Most of the cases fell into one of two quite different groups. One group consisted of conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men who saw a sex-change as a way to resolve their conflicts over homosexuality by allowing them to behave sexually as females with men. The other group, mostly older men, consisted of heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females. As they had grown older, they had become eager to add more verisimilitude to their costumes and either sought or had suggested to them a surgical transformation that would include breast implants, penile amputation, and pelvic reconstruction to resemble a woman…

We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand 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…

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0411/articles/mchugh.htm

A very interesting read.

 

[Guar_Fan]

fix:

Fr. William P. Saunders:

Such counseling will also direct them to spiritual, intellectual and social pursuits to realize their self-worth and divert their preoccupation with sexual identity.

Fr. Saunders really should learn more about a topic before he allows his opinion to be published. Transsexualism is not about sex. It does not compare to homosexuality which is about sexual identity.

fix:

I am saddened that so many have fallen into the mindless acceptence of agit prop disguised as science.

I agree wholeheartedly. This thread shows how good people willingly substitute rhetoric for reason. Fr. Saunders talk about “mutilation” is just one more example. The Paul McHugh article you cite is another example, but I will respond to that when I have a bit more time.

 

[fix]

Guar Fan:

Fr. Saunders really should learn more about a topic before he allows his opinion to be published. Transsexualism is not about sex. It does not compare to homosexuality which is about sexual identity.

I agree that the etiology is not about “sex”. It is about a psychological illness.

I agree wholeheartedly. This thread shows how good people willingly substitute rhetoric for reason. Fr. Saunders talk about “mutilation” is just one more example. The Paul McHugh article you cite is another example, but I will respond to that when I have a bit more time.

Reason is that which is in accord with truth. It is unreasonable to assume changing one’s gentialia changes one’s “gender”.

 

[aspawloski4th]

for those who say " God doesnt make mistakes" which is an over simplefication of the issue. I ask, what about hermaphrodites then?, what about albinos? what about one of my deceased siblings being born asiamtopic? ( brain stem only) what about a ceartain part of my mother’s family lacking the enzyme to control cholesterol to any extent? are these God’s fault ? no, but it does show nature isnt perfect. sounds like the human body isnt always what it should be to me. The reason why most use the " what you are physically born as is what you are" arguement is the age old simple reason, that people want there to be no issue, and not have to think any further, in other words being simpletons. which doesnt help those going thru gender identity problems. God gave us a brain, with the ability to reason byond one demension, lets use it!

 

[fix]

The “transgender” activists (now often allied with gay liberation movements) still argue that their members are entitled to whatever surgery they want, and they still claim that their sexual dysphoria represents a true conception of their sexual identity. They have made some protests against the diagnosis of autogynephilia as a mechanism to generate demands for sex-change operations, but they have offered little evidence to refute the diagnosis. Psychiatrists are taking better sexual histories from those requesting sex-change and are discovering more examples of this strange male exhibitionist proclivity…

But I have learned from the experience that the toughest challenge is trying to gain agreement to seek empirical evidence for opinions about sex and sexual behavior, even when the opinions seem on their face unreasonable. One might expect that those who claim that sexual identity has no biological or physical basis would bring forth more evidence to persuade others. But as I’ve learned, there is a deep prejudice in favor of the idea that nature is totally malleable.

Without any fixed position on what is given in human nature, any manipulation of it can be defended as legitimate. A practice that appears to give people what they want—and what some of them are prepared to clamor for—turns out to be difficult to combat with ordinary professional experience and wisdom. Even controlled trials or careful follow-up studies to ensure that the practice itself is not damaging are often resisted and the results rejected…

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. Paul McHugh *is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.
*

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0411/articles/mchugh.htm

 

[fix]

aspawloski4th:

for those who say " God doesnt make mistakes" which is an over simplefication of the issue. I ask, what about hermaphrodites then?, what about albinos? what about one of my deceased siblings being born asiamtopic? ( brain stem only) what about a ceartain part of my mother’s family lacking the enzyme to control cholesterol to any extent? are these God’s fault ? no, but it does show nature isnt perfect. sounds like the human body isnt always what it should be to me. The reason why most use the " what you are physically born as is what you are" arguement is the age old simple reason, that people want there to be no issue, and not have to think any further, in other words being simpletons. which doesnt help those going thru gender identity problems. God gave us a brain, with the ability to reason byond one demension, lets use it!

In all respect, I find that whenever there is a controversial moral issue in our society and one wants to claim something contrary to the natural moral law one usually claims the argument is overly complex and the Catholic solution is simple minded.

Why is it that we claim simple mindedness when we want to act contrary to God’s law?

 

[aspawloski4th]

what makes your arguement the Catholic arguement? there is no official stand by the Vatican, thus no Catholic arguement. If one is going to be intellectually and ethically honest, with putting fourth what you call “the Catholic arguement” you have to have an answer to the other question like the ones I put fourth so as not to have a double standard. Because double standards are never right. Sounds like you are trying to dodge the questions of the issue to me.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Oh by the way to clear up any misconceptions. I am not in any agreement with the gay movement! politics wise Im ultra conservative. This issue should never be jumbled up with the gay movement.

 

[fix]

I have listed three Catholic sources that claim such surgery is not consistent with Catholic thought. Do you have references to discount them?

I am not sure what questions you refer to that would put me as defending a double standard.

 

[Guar_Fan]

Okay, its time to deal with the Paul McHugh article. Since McHugh is drawing upon his experience in the 1970s as the basis for his opinions, I decided to consult a history book. I will be quoting from that book, as I compare the author’s account with McHugh’s.

How Sex Changed : A History of Transsexuality in the United States. Joanne Meyerowitz. Harvard University Press, 2002.

When Fix used the term “agit prop” he very well could have been describing the opening paragraphs of McHugh’s article. McHugh disdainfully describes the patients he met in the early 1970s, and criticizes them for not meeting his standards of how women should behave. For example, he was appalled that they might not be heterosexual after surgery and disbelieving that they weren’t all googly-eyed about children.

McHugh’s attitudes were clearly shared by other men of his, pre-women’s liberation, generation.

Some of the doctors actually required their patients undergo training in conventional gender stereotypes. At the Stanford clinic, for example, the screening process included a “rehabilitation” period with workshops on appropriate grooming. Along the same lines, the doctors also expected their patients to live as heterosexuals, and better yet, to marry after surgery.

p.225

McHugh complains that the transsexual patients he met seemed to show exaggerated femininity. But if that was the case, it may have been because that is what the Stanford program rewarded.

In the early 1970’s, Norman Fisk, a doctor at Stanford, admitted that he and his colleagues had devised their criteria to screen candidates “so that the overall program could or would be continued.” That is, they tailored their medical model to enhance the public image of the program. They chose patients who would best exemplify success and rejected patients who did not fit neatly into the categories that they devised. But the doctors soon learned that transsexuals had “a very effective grapevine.” The patients coached one another on what they needed to say and do to qualify for operations. The doctors discovered that their patients “were carefully preparing and rehearsing” for what amounted to auditions for surgery.

p. 226

Okay, McHugh eventually took a job at Johns Hopkins. He cites a study by Meyer (from the 1970s) which indicates that transsexuals were happy they had SRS, but that they continued to have the same emotional problems that they had before surgery. But Meyers methodology skewed the results. He did a followup study in 1979 with a colleague:

To assess adjustment objectively, Meyers and Reter assigned each subject a score. They added points for improvements in job level and “gender-appropriate” marriage or co-habitation, by which they referred to an MTF who “live[d] with, or marrie[d], a man as a female” or by implication an FTM who lived with or married a woman as a male, and they subtracted points for arrests or jail sentences. psychiatric treatment, decline in job level, and “nongender appropriate” cohabitation or marriage. The scoring itself suggested that Meyers and Reter themselves valued upward mobility, heterosexuality, and patients who didn’t ask for psychiatric help. But that isn’t the point they hoped to make.

pp. 267-8

I won’t comment on Meyer’s psychoanalytic views of transsexuals, other than to say that Freud doesn’t enjoy much prestige these days. Not even in Woody Allen movies.

McHugh surprisingly cites the same study that I referred to earlier in this thread: Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth This study suggests that gender identity is formed in the womb and is not shaped by childhood.

McHugh then states a paragraph with which I think every person who is informed about transsexualism will agree. I will conclude with that paragraph.​

Proper care, including good parenting, means helping the child through the medical and social difficulties presented by the genital anatomy but in the process protecting what tissues can be retained, in particular the gonads. This effort must continue to the point where the child can see the problem of a life role more clearly as a sexually differentiated individual emerges from within. Then as the young person gains a sense of responsibility for the result, he or she can be helped through any surgical constructions that are desired.** Genuine informed consent derives only from the person who is going to live with the outcome and cannot rest upon the decisions of others who believe they “know best.”**

 

[aspawloski4th]

Fix: before I respond to you further, even if you may have stated it womewhere already. what is your solution on how to deal with people that feel like they are in the incorrect body, or something relalted? you debunk and say no no no, but give no solution. telling these people simply no, isnt going to work worht a hill of beans. many have gone as far as suicide because of feeling like these. Im listening! with me if one offers no solution, all the debunking in the world is a waste of time.I want to hear a well thought out, not simplistic way of handling these people in question, that is charitable, and not just sour grapes. Im listening.

 

[fix]

aspawloski4th:

Fix: before I respond to you further, even if you may have stated it womewhere already. what is your solution on how to deal with people that feel like they are in the incorrect body, or something relalted? you debunk and say no no no, but give no solution. telling these people simply no, isnt going to work worht a hill of beans. many have gone as far as suicide because of feeling like these. Im listening! with me if one offers no solution, all the debunking in the world is a waste of time.I want to hear a well thought out, not simplistic way of handling these people in question, that is charitable, and not just sour grapes. Im listening.

I think the main point of all this is these poor folks have a mental illness that requires therapy. Not all illnesses are “curable”, but they deserve proper research and proper care. Such care should include spiritual and medical therapy. Mutilation surgery is not the answer. There is dispute about the etiology of these disorders and just what the disorders really are. What I will not accept is uncritical, sycophantic, hyper obedience to the god of secular psychiatry as opposed to right reason, an intellect enlightened by faith and unbiased scientific data.

What some find so disappointing is that the psychiatric community is seen as all knowing and infallible. I am all for research, but like all these psycho-sexual issues we must weed out the agenda.

 

[fix]

Guar Fan:

McHugh surprisingly cites the same study that I referred to earlier in this thread: Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth This study suggests that gender identity is formed in the womb and is not shaped by childhood.

You have not proven what the transgenderists claim. In fact, the above article suports McHugh’s assertions. Chromosomes determine whether we are male or female. Other influencing factors exist for sure, but we are either male or female. These issues revolove around psychiatric problems that need to addressed. Other congenital anonmalies exist, but I can’t see how they prove your position?

 

[Lynn-D]

In this thread I find absent the mention of what might Jesus have said if asked the question, “Do you condemn transsexuals?”
I honestly think He would have taken us into His heart much the same as He did with the lepers and the prostitute about to be stoned and even when he forgave those who crucified Him. I also expect He would have made provisions for us as he did for those on the mount when he fed them and for those who were sick, blind and even dead. Last thing He might have done was initiate laws denying those He wanted close to His heart so that they would be excluded from his houses of worship.
Before my srs I was angry and resentful. Not only because of the mistake I felt imposed upon me at birth but because of all of those who condemned me for something even I did not understand myself. Think some of that still prevails and I feel I can look and see it not only in the hirirarchy of the church but in the pews seating those who are supposed to be praying and even looking for comfort for themselves and family.
No matter what some may think or say I honestly feel that I am closer to God today than I was before my surgery. I actually feel blessed by Him and know without doubt I will share heaven with Him. None can take that away from me no matter what they might say. Now I can easily pray and talk with Him and anger has disappeared from my heart. How might that be so bad for some to understand I must wonder?
How might we be an open and welcoming church when so much of our attention is directed at the negative and exclusionary policies and doctrines driven by prejudice and ignorance I further wonder? Policies and doctrines imposed by man but seem to have no direct connection to the bible as far as I can find. It was not always that way so why has it become so?
I am a bit frustrated so please forgive my bluntness.
Lynn-D
In Christ I am blessed.

 

[fix]

No one is condemning anyone. We can’t judge anyone’s culpability. This discussion is about the merits of a surgical procedure and the science, or lack of science, behind it along with all the political issues that influence it.

This controversial issue is like many others we face as a culture today. Do Catholics have to accept every scientific opinion as fact? I read all types of charges that folks are not thinking or refusing to accept the theories of some scientists as if they offer proof every single scientist accepts them and can be proven like a math equation. We are dealing with multiple opinions, highly charged emotions, sophisticated medical concepts and theological issues.

No one should think they are condemned. That is unfair and not true. This is a general discussion about a complicated topic.
God loves us all and wills we each are saved.

 

[Lynn-D]

I must express confusion as to why those like ‘Fix’ insist on including transsexuals in with the transgenderists when talking about sex reassignment. Transgendered are men who for the most part are heterosexual crossdressers with a smattering of gays mixed in the pot. But that seems to be the easy identity so most shrinks have decided to validate their social construct, - Gender Identity Dysphoria and add TS’s to the mix. Put all under one banner and then weed them out selectively puts a lot of money in the pot. With that attitude I am surprised that the homosexuals are not under that umbrella as well since they seem to have more of a problem with a supposed gender disorder than most; at least in regard to gender orientation dysphoria. I would not go that far but must wonder.
Let me discuss one point that I find made by Fix that needs some clarification. His quote, “…made some protests against the diagnosis of autogynephilia as a mechanism to generate demands for sex-change operations, but they have offered little evidence to refute the diagnosis,”] I do find the diagnosis somewhat valid. Bailey, who coined the term autogynephilia, (AG), by the way in his book, “The Man Who Would be Queen”, was not a psychiatric researcher who happened to come up with the term autogynephilia after deep and coordinated studies. Bailey in keeping with the earlier conclusions made by Blanchard and supported by Dr Ann Lawrence, also a post op-male to female, arrived at the convoluted findings that there were actually only two types of transsexuals: the homosexual transsexual and the autogynephilic transsexual. The former self explanatory and the later simply one who loved the female vagina so much that their fetishism carried them over to the point of mimicking a female by having their penis removed and replaced by a vagina, (fetish amputation is what Bailey’s latest term is). And to make matters even worse Bailey was later discredited after it was found that most of his research was done in gay bars and drag clubs. Guess who one might find in those venues, - gays for the most part; not true transsexuals for sure as I well know. But who now suffers by that false and discredited research,(sic)- the true transsexual who were neither homosexual nor fetishists. Let us separate the wannabee’s and the pseudo transsexuals from the mix please.
I do feel that the autogynephilia has some validity because I have run across a few of them who have admitted that was their reason for srs so I would not refute Fix’s quote. One of them was Lawrence and another was Arune a former Canadian lawyer who both seem to have quite a following of mostly self proclaimed pre and post-op lesbians and rarely if any heterosexual post-ops. In fact rarely does one who identifies as AG follow the Standard of Care Guidelines followed here in the states but instead they run over to another country to skirt the restrictions followed here and have srs there. Not all who do so are doing it for that reason though, - there are good surgeons overseas and not so true here and many after following the SOC decide to take their approval letter(s) to those shores.
The fallacy of any studies that adhere to Bailey’s thesis is that he left out the wide ranging majority of transsexuals who normally hide from public scrutiny in the hope of simply blending in. He took the gay drag queens who might have thought that by being female they would make themselves more attractive to men, to the opposite end of the spectrum of those who had surgery in the hope of formalizing their growing fetishism, the autogynephilics. What about those like me and others especially the young child of thirteen who was diagnosed at nine that I spoke with just the other day. Where do we fit in with the radicals like Blanchard, Bailey, Arune Lawrence, etc. who take a small fringe sample and apply it to all? Think Kinsey and Freud were guilty of just that same type of erroneous research.
Fix, you make it clear where your leanings are when you use terms like the transvestite, Charles ‘Virginia’ Prince’s coinage ‘Transgender’ and Bailey’s term ‘Autogynephilia’ and throw them into the mix with transsexuals who have no attachment to either. You declare me to be transgender, something I deeply deplore and I find your attempt to align me and other transsexuals, especially post-ops, to that transgender social construct extremely demeaning.
Fix, I and others have posted links to research that provides strong indications of a biological reason for transsexualism but you seem to ignore that and insist upon your debatable psychological inconsistencies as more stable avenues of truthful findings.Your bias is showing my dear sir.
Diane