The Theology of Changing Apparent Sex

[Zoe_Brain]

There are good reasons from a highly technical scientific view for saying that sex changes are impossible. That the sex one is is the one that formed around the 26th week after conception.

As far as I understand it, the current view of the Church is that one’s sex is set at birth (a subtle difference).

Where the two views differ, is in one area: the medical view is that one’s sex is determined by neuro-anatomy, the configuration of the brain. The theological view is that one’s sex is determined by the external appearance at birth. What sex you most look like then - and that may be difficult to determine with some medical conditions - is the sex that you are, regardless of how your appearance might change, or be artificially changed, later.

The first view allows for changes to the body to match the sex determined by the brain; the second only allows such changes for humanitarian reasons in extreme cases, and regards those so changed as forever being of the original sex arbitrarily assigned at birth, as I understand it. Moreover, it regards such people as mentally unstable, and thus unable to partake of certain religious responsibilities - such as administering sacraments, getting married etc. Unlike, say, paedophiles, who are regarded as mentally stable, merely sinners. (see below for source)

With that as preamble - my question is about the Morality from the Theological viewpoint of cases such as this:

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/index.html

Please view this video before expressing an opinion. Sometime pictures really are worth a thousand words.

Such Individuals with either 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) - as in this example - are often raised as girls. While their puberty is in all other respects male, it takes a sex-change operation to transform an apparently female genitalia into a male one, using the organs that are hidden in the abdomen.

Note that should any of the four people with this condition not have such an operation, they would be deemed by the Church to be mentally stable women, and thus able to marry men, join a convent, partake of religious life as Nuns etc.

Apart from the obvious (pray for guidance etc etc), what in a practical sense is the moral thing for such people to do? Is it reasonable to consider them by definition “mentally unstable” and thus not competent should they get a surgical procedure to complete a natural physical change? If such surgery was performed within the womb, before the moment of birth (when sex is determined from a theological viewpoint) would that change the situation, and why, or why not? If the surgery was performed without their knowledge or consent, as it often is when they’re only 18 months old, does that automatically mean that they are “mentally unstable”?

Source:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – After years of study, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that “sex-change” procedures do not change a person’s gender in the eyes of the church.
Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone “sex-change” procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a
source familiar with the text.
The document was completed in 2000 and sent “sub secretum” (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops’ conferences as well.
“The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female,” said the source.
Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, sent a brief letter to U.S. bishops in October informing them of the Vatican document and highlighting its instruction not to alter parish baptismal records, except to make a notation in the margin when deemed necessary.
*“The altered condition of a member of the faithful under civil law does not change one’s canonical condition, which is male or female as determined at the moment of birth,” *Bishop Gregory wrote.
…
The Vatican document’s specific points include:

– An analysis of the moral licitness of “sex-change” operations. It
concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain
extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will “cure” the
patient’s internal turmoil.
…
– A conclusion that those who undergo sex-change operations are
unsuitable candidates for priesthood and religious life because of
mental instability.

– A conclusion that people who have undergone a sex-change operation
cannot enter into a valid marriage, either because they would be
marrying someone of the same sex in the eyes of the church or because
their mental state casts doubt on their ability to make and uphold
their marriage vows.

• “Vatican says ‘sex-change’ operation does not change person’s gender” - Catholic News Service 2003

Please note that this is not a hypothetical situation for me.

 

[centurionguard]

By Zoe Brain;

**Please note that this is not a hypothetical situation for me. **

Technically; true human Hermaphrodites are born inter-sexed with both sexual organs fully intact which is a birth defect by nature. Sadly this birth defect occurs all around the world.
It’s strange though that even in the biological world between animal and plant species that Hermaphrodites also exists. If there was a Catholic person born with this birth defect it would be difficult to note the Churches views as to whether they would permit the sex change to fit the psychological mindset of the individual or require that person to bear their cross as difficult as it would be. I don’t think the Church would dismiss the important concerns of such a situation from the moral and psychological well-being of the individual.
I surely would not want such a cross.

 

[AndyF]

I could be wrong, but in each case I think the Church concurs with medical consensus on this.

Andy

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Technically; true human Hermaphrodites are born inter-sexed with both sexual organs fully intact which is a birth defect by nature.

Hermaphroditism is a very rare form of Intersex. It medical terms, it means that both ovarian and testicular tissue must be present, no matter how vestigial.

In almost no cases are both sets of sexual organs intact: usually both are partial, or one organ exists with characteristics of both. To have both sets fully intact is all but completely impossible. Not one in a million, one in a billion.

It’s possible that I was hermaphroditic, rather than a protandrous dichogamous pseudohermaphrodite - I have a scar from bikini-line to breastbone where “anomalous tissue” was removed when I was 20 - but that might have been merely cancerous rather than vestigial ovarian tissue from Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome. Whatever it was, it didn’t belong in an (apparently) male body. I was only adjudged female 27 years later, when I had my (partial, anomalous, but female) puberty. Nearly all cases of dichogamy are protogynous - looking female at birth, male later, and the syndromes responsible for going the other way are still not well understood. There’s too few cases to study properly.

I don’t think the Church would dismiss the important concerns of such a situation from the moral and psychological well-being of the individual.

My experience differs. They put it in the “too hard” basket, leaving individual priests and bishops to set policy. And my experience there has been less than wonderful. Biology is not many Bishops’ strong suit.

Ask a question like this, and you get silence, or a totally irrelevant canned answer about homosexuality being intrinsically disordered - because they don’t understand the question, and flatly refuse to acknowledge that such conditions exist.

I surely would not want such a cross.

I can understand that. But many have worse. Seriously. I don’t regard my unusual circumstances as particularly onerous. Embarassing, yes. Inconvenient, radically so. Hilarious in some ways, even if its gallows humour, the legal complications are truly bizarre.

The thing is… now I look normal. I can step out of the bath, look in a mirror, and not burst into tears. I have been given a gift, wholly undeserved. If I believed in miracles, I’d call it one.

 

[cjellis27]

As someone with a different cross to bear, young adult cancer, I understand how apparent silence on your life, your “burden,” would be so very hurtful. I believe in the mercy and love of our God. If your body was created in such a way that twenty or so years down the line your apparent gender changes, that is natural, God created you this way.
I admit I do not know the actual theology on this topic. But from my humble Catholic opinion… follow what you are called to do by God, pray about it. Sex surgery, is not something that should be ignored when biology lends itself to such a difficult choice for a personal mentally and physically.
I wish you luck in your search for answers, and am happy to hear you are able to look at yourself in the mirror with contentment.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

As someone with a different cross to bear, young adult cancer…

See what I mean about those with far worse crosses to bear?
And what do they do? Wish me well.

That gives me all the answers I need. The matters of great Theological worth and moment pale into insignificance in the face of that.

cjellis27, May you go into complete remission.

Hugs, Zoe

 

[StCsDavid]

It’s good to remember that the Church offers guidance in these matters, but not dogma. She does the best she can with what she has to work with which is primarily sacred scripture and sacred Tradition, both inspired by God. I would imagine that the Church’s position on sex changes primarily deals with folks who are born with the good plumbing, but for whatever reason decide they want a change. For people whose organs of generation are not clearly defined, the Church has no choice but to take each one on a case by case basis, in which case, it really gets pushed to a local level, i.e the Bishop.

Now if all of a sudden this condition changed from an extreme rarity to something that was common, the Church might delve into this in more detail. Let’s say all of a sudden one in three babies being born had this condition. That would be a crisis that would need to be addressed on a more universal scale.

From a more general point of view, this condition is one of the thousands of oddities that are germane to a fallen existence. Not that the person or their parents did anything wrong…it just is…and God only knows why. That being the case the person has to be treated with compassion, dignity, respect, and love. I believe that is what the Church attempts to do.

 

[PaulinVA]

Zoe, your quoted section from the Vatican doesn’t seem to fit with the issues being discussed.

People with internal “turmoil” about their gender identity are totally different from people whose actual gender is ambiguous or was misinterpreted at birth or early childhood.

I think the main thing about the gender that was misinterpreted at birth is to “get it right” after the issue surfaces. There might not be a “right” answer, but striving for the “best” answer is all one can do when carrying such a cross.

 

[Fran65]

The first view allows for changes to the body to match the sex determined by the brain.

As a Psychologist I can tell you that it is not that simple. Some, including journalists have leapt on studies reporting sex differences in the brain as being evidence that one’s psychological sex is determined by the brain (in turn determined by the sex chromosomes).

Unfortunately what is ignored is the nature of this kind of research. Often, the findings depend upon the averages of many, many brain scans. This means that you scan 100 males and produce an average - e.g. the size of the LGN or the thickness of the Corpus Callosum and then compare this hypothetical average scan to a similar hypothetical scan of 100 women’s brains.

This means, of course, that any particular individual male brain may not be different to any particular individual female brain. There is no such thing as the ‘typical male’ brain - it does not exist other than as a theoretical construct. This also applies to the much trumpeted ‘evidence’ of neurological differences between hetereosexual male brains and homosexual male brains. You can’t tell from any single or longitudinal brain scan what the person’s sexuality or perceived sex role is.

In addition, there has not been shown to be any association of ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ with areas of the brain - it is not a localized function in the same way as speech perception is. This makes it even less likely that sex is determined in a simplistic, reductive sense by the brain.

As you know Zoe, one’s percieved sex role is a complex mix of biology and experience and it cannot be reduced to a single factor. The same applies to sexuality. As for the theology of sex in this area, I have not studied it as my crosses are different ones.

 

[Solo1959]

As far as I understand it, the current view of the Church is that one’s sex is set at birth (a subtle difference).

I think we might accept this… Although a person’s sex might be set at birth, the physical manifestation of that sex might not be evident. The person’s sex is not going to change later in life, just the recognition of it might be made clearer as the person develops.

“Vatican says ‘sex-change’ operation does not change person’s gender”

In the case of a person whose sex was not correctly defined at birth, and who later has a procedure which corrects this manifestation, that is not a sex change operation. It reveals the person’s true sex. The operation didn’t change anything except the incongruous outward appearance and any internal problems.

Please note that this is not a hypothetical situation for me.

Please don’t take personally what you read in the papers. In the scenario you described, there is no sex change.

 

[that_name]

The Church deals with Faith and Morals. When headlines read “secret Vatican document” insert “most likely made up sensationalism”.

When the Church needs to make a moral decision, she will. Until then, she leaves it in the hands of the doctors.

 

[StCsDavid]

When headlines read “secret Vatican document” insert “most likely made up sensationalism”.

It could also be an ad for an upcoming documentary on the History Channel featuring an elderly woman with British accent quoting scripture passages.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree that there is no sex-change going on in this case, as far as I can tell. The boys are chromosomally boys whose organs were unapparent at birth and thus they were mis-identified as girls. We can do nothing about the fact that their government refuses to accept their situation.

However, wrt to the Church, it seems that you are wondering about the stance they are taking. As I have mentioned before, little is known about these situations even medically, and esp among the general population. The Church is a huge institution which must deal with problems on a large scale, and the Church is charged with protecting the sacraments. Sometimes this means that a person will bear the *additional *cross of being unable to receive a sacrament, such as that of marriage or ordination. However, this is to protect the sacrament from any abuse, even unintentional. In a case of ambiguity such as we have here, the Church will err on the side of protecting the sacraments.

WRT the priesthood, many men are not permitted ordination. St Isaac Jogues, a Jesuit missionary priest whose hands were severely deformed by tortures the Mohawks he had come to minister to, had to receive special permission from the Vatican in order to be able to celebrate Mass after his injuries. So you can see that many men with physical imperfections are denied ordination. The priesthood is not where men with problems can go but a sacrifice of normal life and dedication of oneself to the service of God.

A woman cannot be ordained. In the same way, a woman cannot be a father, and a man cannot be a mother. It’s simply contrary to their nature. In the case of a sexual ambiguity, where the Church cannot be sure that a person has a female or male nature and thus cannot be sure that the sacrament is between two appropriate people.

When we see that the Church protects the sacraments, we see that they are important, and that the Church guards them, and we see that they are privileges rather than rights. This is hard for us because we live in a society of rights and of liberty and of lack of constraint. We Americans tend to think more of people having a right to marry than that marriage is a privilege.

But consider driving, which is obviously less important, but which is treated legally as a privilege rather than a right. I must prove my capacity to drive before I am permitted to do so, no? I have to prove that I know what I am doing by both a written and physical test; I must prove that I can see well enough to drive.

In the same way, a person must prove capable of the sacraments rather than having a right to them. Just as we would not like to see blind people handed out driver’s licenses, so we cannot permit just anybody under a variety of circumstances to marry or be ordained. I know someone who was denied a Catholic marriage because she could not show that she was a practicing Catholic–basically because she is *not *a practicing Catholic. But then why should the Church perform a rite which would put a sacramental seal on her marriage?

When my children were baptised, I had to attend classes so that the Church would be sure that I understood what was going on, because the sacrament of baptism puts a mark on the soul. The Church does not want this mark to be on the soul of a child who will not be raised Catholic, because in the eyes of God, more will be expected of the person than of an unbaptised person.

HTH!

 

[Zoe_Brain]

As a Psychologist I can tell you that it is not that simple. Some, including journalists have leapt on studies reporting sex differences in the brain as being evidence that one’s psychological sex is determined by the brain (in turn determined by the sex chromosomes).

I wasn’t referring to the many sensationalist journalistic reports: rather to the several hundred papers on the subject, dealing with both animal and human experimental subjects.

See for example seminar S10 given at the American Psychiatric Association’s Annual meeting.

S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism

1. Brain Gender Identity Sidney W. Ecker, M.D.
2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Milton Diamond, Ph.D.
3. Novel Approaches to Endocrine Treatment of Transgender Adolescents and Adults Norman Spack, M.D.

Here’s the abstract of the first of the presentations:
Abstract:
Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and “think” as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects.

Unfortunately what is ignored is the nature of this kind of research. Often, the findings depend upon the averages of many, many brain scans. This means that you scan 100 males and produce an average - e.g. the size of the LGN or the thickness of the Corpus Callosum and then compare this hypothetical average scan to a similar hypothetical scan of 100 women’s brains.

I completely agree. There is a large degree of overlap in many areas. Not all though… and samples are rather larger than 100, both in aggregate and in some individual experiments involving hundreds of intersexed people as well as rather more non-intersexed controls.

This means, of course, that any particular individual male brain may not be different to any particular individual female brain.

The evidence is to the contrary. We’ve not found any two brains the same, even with the coarse measures we use. The correct statement is that “except in a very few areas, an individual part of any individual male brain may not be different to the corresponding part of an individual female brain”. Even that is questionable, as one must first assume that the person concerned has been accurately assigned as “male” or “female”, respectively.

There is no such thing as the ‘typical male’ brain - it does not exist other than as a theoretical construct.

That though is correct in every respect.

Our problem is that Theologically, we have a strict binary gender model, but biologically, we have a multivariant continuous bimodal reality. Biologically, there are degrees of maleness and femaleness, and an individual may be somatically male in some respects, somatically female in others. This is true whether one is looking at neuro-anatomy, or genital configuration.

One can even go so far as to say that There is no such thing as a typical male - it does not exist other than as a theoretical construct.But this is theologically unsound, however much it might match biology.

This also applies to the much trumpeted ‘evidence’ of neurological differences between hetereosexual male brains and homosexual male brains. You can’t tell from any single or longitudinal brain scan what the person’s sexuality or perceived sex role is.

Actually, it appears you can - over 50% of the papers on the subject have been published in the last 5 years though, so only specialists in the area are aware of this. See Dr Veronica Drantz’s excellent set of presentations, which are perfect for the psychologically educated non-specialist.
(cont’d)

 

[Zoe_Brain]

In addition, there has not been shown to be any association of ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ with areas of the brain - it is not a localized function in the same way as speech perception is. This makes it even less likely that sex is determined in a simplistic, reductive sense by the brain.

You are aware that speech perception is sexually differentiated? As is the sense of smell. You’re correct that there is no ‘localisation’, that multiple parts of the brain are affected to various degrees, and some may be cross-sexed compared with the rest.

The key appears to be in the hypothalamus, and the lymbic system. If that conforms, by and large, to the “typical female” pattern, so the rest tends to.

The unfortunate fact is that many intersexed people have been arbitrarily assigned as either male or female, sometimes literally based in a coin-toss, at other times based on which techniques the available surgeons are most skilled in, and even at other times based upon parental desires for a male or female child regardless of their anatomy at birth.

As you know Zoe, one’s percieved sex role is a complex mix of biology and experience and it cannot be reduced to a single factor. The same applies to sexuality. As for the theology of sex in this area, I have not studied it as my crosses are different ones.

I think that much of our apparent disagreement is based on the lack of a consistent terminology.
Can you please rephrase that using the following definitions?
Sex Identity - the knowledge of whether one is male or female (usually called “Gender Identity”
Gender Role - the largely sociologically constructed expected behaviour patterns deemed appropriate by society for that sex - thus, “pink is for girls, blue is for boys”, but which has some biological basis in a few respects - such as “typically gendered” play when young.
Sexual Orientation - which sex(es) one is physically attracted to.

Please bear in mind that I have no formal training in psychology: but have been called upon by various professors of both medicine and psychology to lecture to their students on this particular area, as I have some specialist knowledge. And then, as a separate issue (and sometimes at a separate lecture) to drive the point home, to reveal that I myself am Intersexed. That “we walk among you”. The equivalent of the Zen technique of shocking the student with a physical blow. It’s something few forget.

I’ve also been called upon to perform peer-review on various articles about this subject. So while I have little knowledge of Psychology generally, in this very specialised and specific area, I’m viewed by “real” qualified and credentialled experts as having rather more knowledge than most. Unfortunately, it’s very much a case of the Country of the Blind. Most psychologists know very little, and much of what they know is either incorrect, or at best obsolete. There’s been an awful lot of Bad Science in this area, starting with Money’s fraudulent accounts in the David Reimer case.

My own knowledge is certainly scant, uncertain, possibly inaccurate, but at least is current.

May I recommend the following URLs:
Brain Gender Identity - a presentation by Dr Sidney Ecker, MD FACS
BiGender and the Brain (which has appeared in various peer-reviewed collections of medical and neuroanatomical articles) This has some links to a good bibliography on the many animal experiments on the subject, and the rather fewer ones on Intersexed humans.
Science and Sexuality: The Biology of Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, and Intersexuality by Dr Veronica Drantz

 

[Zoe_Brain]

However, wrt to the Church, it seems that you are wondering about the stance they are taking. As I have mentioned before, little is known about these situations even medically, and esp among the general population. The Church is a huge institution which must deal with problems on a large scale, and the Church is charged with protecting the sacraments. Sometimes this means that a person will bear the *additional *cross of being unable to receive a sacrament, such as that of marriage or ordination. However, this is to protect the sacrament from any abuse, even unintentional. In a case of ambiguity such as we have here, the Church will err on the side of protecting the sacraments.

Not always - see the many cases of paedophillic priests.
Sigh Isaiah 56:3-5 tells us we should “shut up and soldier” like this, though. I can’t contest your thesis on scriptural grounds.

In the same way, a woman cannot be a father, and a man cannot be a mother. It’s simply contrary to their nature.!

Um. I know of a few cases where someone has managed both, in a strictly biological sense. None where the children have come to term, when carried by the person concerned. The medics classify such partially-reabsorbed foetuses as unusual forms of “teratoma”.

There are rather more severely intersexed women who have contributed male gametes though. I think you under-estimate the maternal instinct in some (not all) women. They will do anything, walk over hot coals, have gametes surgically extracted from barely functional glands, anything, to have children who are their own “flesh and blood”.

Some justify this by saying that they’re obeying the command to “be fruitful and multiply” the only way physically possible to them.

They then arrange for a brother, uncle, or grandfather to provide the adequate male role-model required for the child, so in that sense, are not fathers, nor mothers, merely parents.

 

[Fran65]

Hi Zoe,

Thank you for your response. You certainly know your stuff in this area and I will follow up some of the information that you provide.

Fran

 

[victorthomas]

I agree with PaulinVA (above) that the * sub secretum* Vatican document might not really apply here, since the cases cited here are intersex conditions. My understanding of that document is that it’s intended for people whose gender identity doesn’t match their physical sex and there is no apparent physical explanation (as opposed to one that is there but may not be evident at birth).

I think the most unfortunate thing about that document is the reasons for the restrictions that the church imposes on trans people. If the Church decides that trans people, because of their lot in life, should not be able to receive the sacrament of marriage or holy orders (as a man cannot be a nun because of his lot in life), that’s one thing – but to say that trans people are necessarily mentally unstable, and therefore essentially psychologically unfit to receive these sacraments (basically, to enter into these contracts with God) is misguided and by no means conclusively backed up by scientific evidence. I find it interesting, though, that the document so blatantly opens itself to becoming obsolete (or in serious need of revision, if the Church wants to keep denying the legitimacy of sex reassignment surgery) if the medical community concludes that transitioning actually does assuage “inner turmoil” in most cases, as many studies have found.

And I think the most amusing thing about this document (because I can’t help looking for irony when things make me sad) is the headline: “Vatican says ‘sex change’ operation does not change person’s gender” – because I don’t think anyone argues that it does. What sex change surgery does, in fact, is to bring the physical body into line with the person’s gender identity, which is the same before and after surgery

What they want to say is that “’'sex change operation does not change person’s SEX,” but since they treat “sex” and “gender” as synonyms, they end up saying something that no one would argue with.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I agree with PaulinVA (above) that the * sub secretum* Vatican document might not really apply here, since the cases cited here are intersex conditions. My understanding of that document is that it’s intended for people whose gender identity doesn’t match their physical sex and there is no apparent physical explanation (as opposed to one that is there but may not be evident at birth).

The problem is that while such people exist, they don’t seek out sex reassignment surgery.

Every transsexual person ever examined has shown cross-sexed neurology, regardless of whether they’ve been on homones or not. No cissexual (ie not trans) person has ever shown cross-sexed neurology even if they’ve been on hormones as part of cancer treatment.

Numbers examined are too small to be absolutely sure; there may be rare exceptions. We just haven’t found any yet.

The Vatican document states that all transsexuals who seek surgery are like that, when the evidence is that none are. The Vatican’s was an iffy thesis even in the late 90’s, when the policy was formulated. By 2009,.it had been completely refuted.

Great post, by the way. You covered all the essentials, clearly and concisely.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Hi Zoe,

Thank you for your response. You certainly know your stuff in this area and I will follow up some of the information that you provide.

Fran

Hi Fran!

Just remember that I may be a Rocket Scientist, but that just means I’m bright, not qualified to speak on subjects other than apogees and perigees, orbotal mechanics and telemetry.

I’m no Psychologist, and my knowledge is very specialised. My conclusions should be viewed sceptically - it’s the peer-reviewed evidence I’ve collected by the credentialled experts that’s the important thing.

Feel free to contact me off-list if you have any questions. I can recommend the Praeger Handbook of Transsexuality by Prof Rachel Ann Heath as a good textbook on the subject.

All the best, Zoe