Transgender and communion?

[Maximilian75]

In ancient Rome, it as considered emasculating for a Roman citizen to wear pants…

 

[PetraG]

Nope, not cleaning smegma can lead to some nasty infections.

Circumcision makes that a non-issue

I knew a guy who worked in an emergency department who favored circumcision because of how often he had intoxicated men (and a few little boys trying to look circumcised) who came in with very swollen members because they had retracted their foreskins and neglected to put them back. That and all the older men and men out in dirty conditions they treated with painful infections. This was a guy who was circumcised, though, and so from his point of view he viewed himself as fully functional.

In ancient Rome, it as considered emasculating for a Roman citizen to wear pants…

Probably in Washington’s time a gentleman–which back then was meant in the land-owning sense, not the “his mom taught him manners” sense–couldn’t go out to a formal event without some lace on.

 

[Maximilian75]

cringe and wincing intensifies

Hey, look at TLM priests haha

 

[meltzerboy2]

Technically, according to psychological perspective, cross-dressers are NOT transgender. Cross-dressers receive sexual gratification by so doing, and may be either straight or gay (as may transgenders). Although they are stimulated by wearing clothing of the opposite sex, they have no desire or drive to change their sex.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I also have two tattoos, both were done to aid depression/anxiety and have worked a charm

Tattoos to prevent scratching? OK, that’s a new one on me.

Worked well. The healing time kept the scratching from happening, the image on the skin altered the mental perception of it (I’d had annoying thoughts of scratching but once the area looked different it disrupted those unwanted thoughts), it covered old marks. I’ve had them for a year now and not scratched them once, not even in my sleep which was the real problem. I know a couple of people who have similar tattoos to help stop self-harm which is where I got the idea from.

On that parallel, it is one thing to remove a healthy organ if the patient has a condition where leaving it on poses a threat to the patient’s health. A patient could have gastric bypass surgery on a healthy stomach, because intention is to improve the health of the whole body. So–it is theoretically possible that a patient could have surgery to treat a psychological condition. The issue is that it takes a very serious reason indeed before it is OK to remove a healthy organ.

I’m having a mastectomy, removing healthy breast tissue, which has been deemed medically fine. They serve no purpose to me. In terms of gender affirmation surgery transmen can, and some do, choose to keep their womb and uterus; so I assume you’re fine with these?

Here is the problem: even if there is a moral reason, it is wrong to represent removing a healthy organ or receiving hormones as a sex change. The person’s sex does not change.

That’s why in the trans* community it’s usually called gender affirmation surgery.

Here is the problem: we are seeing a move to politically protect a false pretense–that is, the pretense that changing someone to look like the other sex in order to treat a serious dysphoria actually changes their sex–AND we are giving political enshrinement to the idea that a medical treatment is accomplishing something that it does not actually accomplish. People are being encouraged to create false personas; they distance themselves from their original persona as it that were a different person. The medical treatment is also being allowed to create a defended political class. How can you develop other treatments that relieve the dysphoria without the person changing into a person of the other sex if it is considered bigotry to imply that the change in persona is not in fact a real change in sex?

“create false personas”? Is someone creating a false persona when they take on their spouses name? Or change their name because it no longer suits? Or take up a new faith that has them change how they interact with people?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

usually for cosmetic purposes

Nope, not cleaning smegma can lead to some nasty infections.

Circumcision makes that a non-issue

Friend: you can just clean the penis. It’s really not difficult to keep it clean. Would you suggest removing a child’s fingernails to avoid them getting dirty and leading to infections? The ears are also terrible for that; if we just snip them off though they could be much easier to keep clean. As opposed to chopping pieces off an unconsenting child without anaesthetic. It’s not a cleanliness issue; the most common reason is that parents think the child should look like the father, tracing all the way back in the US to a time when circumcision was thought to prevent masturbation.

Alex337:

Also okay with parents deciding to allow female circumcision?

Absolutely not. It’s painful and inhibits multiple crucial bodily functions. (From what i’ve heard)

Male circumcision is painful. Male circumcision can inhibit bodily functions when it’s botched. Female circumcision comes in several varieties, several of them don’t inhibit function; are you okay with those?

 

[Maximilian75]

Female circumcision comes in several varieties, several of them don’t inhibit function; are you okay with those?

I’m out of my depth here, then.

But, looking at your bio (no offense) I don’t think a debate on the Internet will change your mind on this issue, so… agree to disagree, perhaps?

^^^^

I will take my underinformed self back to reading more and speaking less on this thread

 

[Alex337]

There are plenty of resources on the matter. I’ve had my mind changed many times on this forum, friend.

So; what would it take to convince you that male circumcision is a bad thing? Or at least something that a person should choose for themselves rather than have forced on them when they’re babies?

 

[Maximilian75]

There are plenty of resources on the matter. I’ve had my mind changed many times on this forum, friend.

Yeah, but I don’t want to go down a medical research rabbit hole at the present time. I certainly will make an effort to soon.

So; what would it take to convince you that male circumcision is a bad thing?

Not too entirely sure, to be honest…

 

[babochka]

I’d have been talking to the bishop the day that they required me to buy impractical clothes for a sacrament. We cannot hold a sacrament hostage over something that is an expense to the family.

As Confirmation teacher for years and years, we make the dress code known from day one. It says nothing about the color of the clothes, nothing that girls must wear dresses. To put a financial burden on families (seriously, spend hundreds of dollars on a white suit that will be worn exactly once?).

I could not have been confirmed there. I have physical deformities which make wearing a skirt a spectical. I would never be seen in public in a skirt. To force me to buy a white dress? No.

Our rules: No sleeveless, no spaghetti tops. No plunging neckline or backline, no high slits in skirts. No skin tight clothes, no bare midriff, no mini-skirts or shorts. No denim, no tennis shoes or flip flops. No T-shirts, no athletic wear.

This.

All other issues aside, I have a serious problem with the parish requiring expensive clothing that will only be worn one time. I know that’s not the point here and considering that the girl had her very own white suit, it would not appear to have been an issue for this family, but I’m glad somebody brought this up.

It isn’t a tradition in this part of the country to have little boys wear white suits for First Communion. I’ve never seen it in person; only in pictures. At least with a dark suit for a little boy, you can pick it up at a thrift store for 10 bucks. I don’t really see the point in having a “uniform” for First Communions. (I’m definitely in favor of a dress code, emphasizing respect.) It really seems like it makes it all about the pictures.

Since she was properly prepared and presumably properly disposed (although she might do well to examine her conscience regarding this situation), I’m not sure what the basis was for denying her Communion. I don’t think the parish was wise to choose this hill to die on and I’m not sure there was a canonically sound basis, either.

Having said that, I think this family was wrong to push this issue. I’m a rule follower, and while I might grumble a bit, I follow the rules. It would have been a good opportunity for her to practice a number of different virtues.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

So; what would it take to convince you that male circumcision is a bad thing?

Not too entirely sure, to be honest…

Okay. I’d suggest considering why you feel female circumcision is wrong (which yes, it is) and whether this applies to men too. The reasons I disagree with female circumcision is;

• It causes pain, which is not numbed with anaesthesia
• It is not chosen by the child, ignoring consent
• It was popularised in an effort to remove sexual pleasure
• It removes sensitivity from the sex organ, again without the consent of the person, which can harm that person’s ability to enjoy sex
• While it could be argued that it’s “cleaner” the organ can easily be washed, this argument is flawed

All of these also apply to male circumcision. If an adult wished to have that part removed then they would at least be able to give full consent to the procedure and the side effects. But we do it to babies.

 

[PetraG]

In terms of gender affirmation surgery transmen can, and some do, choose to keep their womb and uterus; so I assume you’re fine with these?

Why would they need to have healthy organs removed? They aren’t men.

“create false personas”? Is someone creating a false persona when they take on their spouses name? Or change their name because it no longer suits? Or take up a new faith that has them change how they interact with people?

When I took my spouse’s name, I didn’t start talking about myself under my maiden name in the 3rd person. I took on a new role; I didn’t become a totally different person.

Take this quote from Jenner:
“I liked Bruce. He was a good person. He did a lot in his life. Oh, ‘he didn’t even exist’. Yes he did exist! He worked his butt off. He won the [Olympic] Games. He raised amazing kids. He did a lot of very, very good things and it’s not like I just want to throw that away.”

People actually castigate him for naming the person he was for the first 65 years of his life! It isn’t just that they aren’t comfortable talking about their old name–Jenner is not supposed to use his male name even to refer to things done when that was the name he told everyone to call him!!

They say, “he didn’t even exist”!! No, they insist “he didn’t even exist,” and this is over someone else talking about their past! It is an Olympic gold medalist talking about the name under which he set an Olympic record and is still in the history books!

There are people who call this “dead naming.” They think it is shaming to call them by the name they were given by their parents. I don’t usually even correct people when they refer to me by my maiden name, but if I do, it is “well, actually, it is X now.”

This is the problem with “transitioning.” It requires the pretense of a new persona and the pretense that the person not only is not but has never been the opposite sex to any degree. The truth is that they are that sex and they always will be. I understand it is difficult to feel you are the wrong sex, but a “treatment” that just encourages the patient to embrace a pretense that is never going to be true has serious problems.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I don’t agree in cases when male circumcision is a sanctified religious ritual as in Judaism. Sometimes neither children nor parents call the shots, but G-d.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

In terms of gender affirmation surgery transmen can, and some do, choose to keep their womb and uterus; so I assume you’re fine with these?

Why would they need to have healthy organs removed? They aren’t men.

Firstly: they are men. Secondly there are a couple of reasons fire a hysterectomy but one is them is surgeons expecting it and misleading patients as to the necessity of it.

Alex337:

“create false personas”? Is someone creating a false persona when they take on their spouses name? Or change their name because it no longer suits? Or take up a new faith that has them change how they interact with people?

When I took my spouse’s name, I didn’t start talking about myself under my maiden name in the 3rd person. I took on a new role; I didn’t become a totally different person.

Take this quote from Jenner:
“I liked Bruce. He was a good person. He did a lot in his life. Oh, ‘he didn’t even exist’. Yes he did exist! He worked his butt off. He won the [Olympic] Games. He raised amazing kids. He did a lot of very, very good things and it’s not like I just want to throw that away.”

People actually castigate him for naming the person he was for the first 65 years of his life! It isn’t just that they aren’t comfortable talking about their old name–Jenner is not supposed to use his male name even to refer to things done when that was the name he told everyone to call him!!

There are people who call this “dead naming.” They think it is shaming to call them by the name they were given by their parents. I don’t usually even correct people when they refer to me by my maiden name, but if I do, it is “well, actually, it is X now.”

Indeed; some people don’t like what their old name represented and prefer to avoid it. Some don’t. It varies wildly and it’s best to ask how a person prefers to refer to the past.

Conversely I know a woman who changed her name as part of escaping an abusive relationship and refers to her past self by the name she went by then. It’s a pretty common way to signal that the past is not the present.

 

[Alex337]

I don’t agree in cases when male circumcision is a sanctified religious ritual as in Judaism. Sometimes neither children nor parents call the shots, but G-d.

You don’t agree with circumcision for religious purposes? Do you agree with it for aesthetic purposes then?

 

[meltzerboy2]

No, I meant I don’t agree with you that male circumcision is bad in cases of religious commandment and observance.

 

[PetraG]

Firstly: they are men.

Where did the uterus come from? Did they have a hormonal problem that cause a uterus to develop in a man?

Conversely I know a woman who changed her name as part of escaping an abusive relationship and refers to her past self by the name she went by then. It’s a pretty common way to signal that the past is not the present.

Who is she telling that they can’t refer to themselves by a past name?
People can’t go into the records and erase a failed marriage as if it never happened, but people want to change their birth certificates.

And, by the way, it is not a “common” way to signal that the past is not present. The common was is to use first person pronouns, relate conversations that used your name with the actual name you had, and put verbs that are in the past tense. Speaking about the past as if you are talking about events that did not include you is very atypical.

 

[Alex337]

No, I meant I don’t agree with you that male circumcision is bad in cases of religious commandment and observance.

Shouldn’t those children be able to make the choice themselves rather than have it forced on them before they can consent?

 

[meltzerboy2]

No, the Jewish ritual demands that the procedure be done on the eighth day, barring health reasons.

 

[Alex337]

No, the Jewish ritual demands that the procedure be done on the eighth day, barring health reasons.

Cool. What’s the excuse for all the gentiles doing it?
And do you support those who practise female circumcision for religious purposes?