Transgender and communion?

[PetraG]

I am so glad the Church and our Holy Father are, in actuality, more charitable than that!

I’m sorry, but you are mistaken. It might be sinful if one were not afflicted with a genuine disorder that causes immense psychological pain because then it would be lying. But it is not in the slightest sinful to seek treatment for gender dysphoria, and those who do are not sinning any more than someone with diabetes or depression is sinning when he or she seeks treatment.

I did not say it was sinful to seek treatment. The implication I meant to make was that seeking treatment such as surgery removing healthy sexual organs for the incorrect purpose of a gender change that is impossible isn’t permissible. A patient capable of understanding the teaching cannot get a “sex change” operation for the purpose of changing sex any more than another patient could morally seek a sterilisation procedure for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

 

[ConstantLearner]

That depends on how gender is defined. It’s far more than just one’s genitals.

 

[PetraG]

That depends on how gender is defined. It’s far more than just one’s genitals.

Far more than genitals? Tell me how it is not being considered to have nothing to do with the genitals whatsoever, if it is the interior self-concept that is “correct” and the genitalia that are “right” or “wrong,” depending on whether they conform to the self-concept.

If the view of the mind always wins, then how can it be argued that the physical aspect is included in “how gender is defined” at all? If physical attributes that do not conform to one’s self-concept can be eliminated or not, at the individual’s discretion, without making a bit of difference in the “real” gender, how is it that genitalia are anything but a substance on which other people base their “gender stereotypes” about the individual?

Gender is a quality of the body, not a dimension of the person discernible only in the mind of the individual.
This is only the same as other aspects of identity. One does not belong to the race or ethnic group one feels most deeply-connected to, no matter how indisputible the connection between mind and a racial identity that has no part in one’s body, DNA or family history. Neither surgery nor cosmetics nor clothing nor any other aspect of behavior or appearance or even deep-seated self-concept change that, either. This is also a thing that is written in the genes. Although physical ambiguity is biologically possible, bodily gender is rarely ambiguous. When the genitalia correspond to the DNA of the person, the physical gender is clear. There may be a distressing confusion in which the self-concept seated in the brain does not match one’s physical body, but that doesn’t make the physical body wrong.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Far more than genitals? Tell me how it is not being considered to have nothing to do with the genitals whatsoever, if it is the interior self-concept that is “correct” and the genitalia that are “right” or “wrong,” depending on whether they conform to the self-concept.

I did not say gender had nothing to do with the genitals, but they are not the be-all and end-all of gender. The person’s brain “tells” them to respond as either a male or female. The brain has been called the largest sex organ. It lets us know if we truly love. It tells us if we’re male or female.

The physical body is wrong if it doesn’t match what the brain tells the person.

 

[PetraG]

I did not say gender had nothing to do with the genitals, but they are not the be-all and end-all of gender. The person’s brain “tells” them to respond as either a male or female. The brain has been called the largest sex organ. It lets us know if we truly love. It tells us if we’re male or female.

Well, we know that when it comes to sexuality, the brain can make a lot of mistakes, including very grave errors, particularly when under the influence of hormones. It can tell us we “truly love” when in fact we are committing adultery or fornication, for instance. It can tell us that little children “want” to be molested. It can tell us that we have no attachment to the rest of the human race and others are there for us to use and manipulate.

There are many people tragically afflicted in their minds with sexual and social confusions that they never asked for, but that doesn’t mean that they ought to feel they can act on whatever sexual self-identification they have carried around ever since they can remember. That is a terrible premise on which to build any kind of understanding of human sexuality.

 

[ConstantLearner]

There are many people tragically afflicted in their minds with sexual and social confusions that they never asked for, but that doesn’t mean that they ought to feel they can act on whatever sexual self-identification they have carried around ever since they can remember. That is a terrible premise on which to build any kind of understanding of human sexuality.

This isn’t about sexual orientation or any social construct. It’s about gender dysphoria, a condition in which the brain says, “My brain says I am one sex, but my genitals say another.”

They have to be free to be who they are.

You obviously don’t understand the condition.

Some people are born with the genitals of both sexes, you know. I suppose you recommend keeping both.

 

[PetraG]

This isn’t about sexual orientation or any social construct. It’s about gender dysphoria, a condition in which the brain says, “My brain says I am one sex, but my genitals say another.”

They have to be free to be who they are.

You obviously don’t understand the condition.

Some people are born with the genitals of both sexes, you know. I suppose you recommend keeping both.

I know what gender dysphoria is, and so does the Church.
I also understand that many people are afflicted with distressing confusion about their identity, yet somehow only the confusion having to do with one’s sex is (so far) considered evidence of a “wrong” body. People are not bound to follow arbitrary gender stereotypes, but re-defining what a man is in order to accomodate people afflicted with confusion only serves to confuse the issue of what a man is.

Some people, after all, want to re-define “Christian” to mean someone who meets their definition of a big-hearted person who is not judgmental. C.S. Lewis pointed out the problem with such ill-advised tinkering with the English language. (I will append that in a 2nd post.)

To say that some of the behaviors expected of men are ill-suited to some men is a fair objection. When a society has gender expectations that are arbitrary and enforced with insensitivity, that is worth objecting to.
That is a lot different than changing the definition of a man to the circular one:
A man is someone who self-identifies as a man.

No, that is not what a man is, and using that as the definition of a man doesn’t make women into men. What it does is to rob the word “man” of any definite meaning at all.

 

[PetraG]

People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?”: or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

cont

 

[PetraG]

continued…

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say ‘deepening’, the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

 

[ConstantLearner]

To say that some of the behaviors expected of men are ill-suited to some men is a fair objection. When a society has gender expectations that are arbitrary and enforced with insensitivity, that is worth objecting to.

It’s not a philosophical or social issue; it’s a biological and chemical issue. All the philosophy in the world isn’t going to add one thing.

 

[MikeInVA]

it’s a biological and chemical issue.

Others might say that it is a psychological issue.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Others might say that it is a psychological issue.

Certainly there’s a psychological component, but it is brought about by the physiological and biological and chemical elements…and an uncaring, judgmental society.

The person’s changed reaction to scents shows it is not psychological or societal or brought about by them.

 

[OraLabora]

Others might say that it is a psychological issue.

And yet others, with an open scientific mind, examine the research and don’t jump to conclusions based on personal bias.

 

[PetraG]

It’s not a philosophical or social issue; it’s a biological and chemical issue. All the philosophy in the world isn’t going to add one thing.

Tell me the scientific way to differentiate men from women that does not include self-disclosure. If there is none, how do you come to the conclusion that it is a biological or chemical issue rather than something else?

 

[OraLabora]

Tell me the scientific way to differentiate men from women that does not include self-disclosure. If there is none, how do you come to the conclusion that it is a biological or chemical issue rather than something else?

Just because it requires self-disclosure does not mean that it doesn’t have a biological basis.

For many years I self-disclosed vague and bizarre symptoms to my doctor (and my wife who is also a doctor), and was more or less told it was “all in my head” or that I was a hypochondriac.

Finally a major health crisis revealed the truth: I had hereditary hemochromatosis (HH). So I guess I wasn’t crazy after all. After undergoing treatment, I felt 100% better. Alas my diabetes is a direct result of the delay in diagnosing this fairly common hereditary disease; the prevalence is about 1 in 300 people of Northern European descent, with 10% of this group being carriers. Its prevalence is in fact similar to the prevalence of transgenderism in the same group which is around 0.3% of the population…

Just because we have not yet positively identified the cause of transgenderism does not mean that none exists. The cause of HH, mutations of the HFE gene, was only discovered in 1996. I was diagnosed in 2005, only shortly after a reliable genetic test was available. Prior to 1996 it was known that iron overload caused HH, but the root cause was not established. Diagnosis was via a liver biopsy.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Excellent example. It took me a long time to be correctly diagnosed with anxiety because my symptoms don’t present in a way that is typical and I had a very difficult time explaining what I felt. Feel, feelings, felt. These are very difficult to express and are very divergent. How anxiety manifests with me varies from episode to episode. And a feeling I would have once described as “vague” is very distinct symptom, now that I know what it is. Some are still very vague and not knowing how to explain it is frustrating. I don’t have the language. Transgender people often don’t either.

 

[PetraG]

Just because it requires self-disclosure does not mean that it doesn’t have a biological basis.

For many years I self-disclosed vague and bizarre symptoms to my doctor (and my wife who is also a doctor), and was more or less told it was “all in my head” or that I was a hypochondriac.

Finally a major health crisis revealed the truth: I had hereditary hemochromatosis (HH). So I guess I wasn’t crazy after all. After undergoing treatment, I felt 100% better. Alas my diabetes is a direct result of the delay in diagnosing this fairly common hereditary disease; the prevalence is about 1 in 300 people of Northern European descent, with 10% of this group being carriers. Its prevalence is in fact similar to the prevalence of transgenderism in the same group which is around 0.3% of the population…

Just because we have not yet positively identified the cause of transgenderism does not mean that none exists. The cause of HH, mutations of the HFE gene, was only discovered in 1996. I was diagnosed in 2005, only shortly after a reliable genetic test was available. Prior to 1996 it was known that iron overload caused HH, but the root cause was not established. Diagnosis was via a liver biopsy.

Just because someone’s doctor can find no physical ailment as a reason for real complaints does not mean the symptoms must stem from a physical ailment. There can be one, but sometimes there is not. You can’t say what the cause is for a single case of gender dysphoria, let alone say that all cases have a natural (as opposed to an socio-environmental) cause.

We do have a biological basis for determining sex, but it is being discounted as irrelevant. What is held to be relevant, meanwhile, is something that has no identifying value.

For instance, what reason is there to put gender on a driver’s license when the information has no identifying value? If the biological appearance of gender is not an important piece of information to record about a birth–since the true gender can only be known later–what is the point of recording the information on the birth certificate? I mean why put M or F on a birth certificate at all, if the child can come back when grown up and report that the physical appearance was deceptive? Maybe write “physical appearance consistent with M”? That’s a fact about the birth. Why do pieces of unverifiable information even belong there?

If you want to argue that gender is a cultural construct, I don’t see why it ought to be considered an identifying mark at all. If the outward appearances aren’t reliable, then don’t use it as a means to establish identity.

Why identify people as men or women at all, if the information is apropos of nothing definite? It is better to teach people to mind their own business and throw out their cultural expectations than to re-define the biological concepts of man and woman in favor of a preferred perception.

 

[OraLabora]

You can’t say what the cause is for a single case of gender dysphoria, let alone say that all cases have a natural (as opposed to an socio-environmental) cause.

Nor can you categorically say that there isn’t a biological cause. I’m not saying there is, I am saying that there could be, and as the science is ongoing, it would be prudent to let it carry on instead of hastily jumping to conclusions based on our own sentiments. If you say sentiment should have no basis in establishing gender, then I say sentiment has no place in predicting or overriding the scientific outcomes of research on transgenderism.

We do have a biological basis for determining sex, but it is being discounted as irrelevant. What is held to be relevant, meanwhile, is something that has no identifying value.

I don’t think any sensible person denies that a transgendered person even the transgendered person him/herself, has the physical attributes of his or her birth gender, i.e. male or female, XY or XX and nor is it wrong to assign gender at birth as per their physical presentation because 99.7% of the time the correct assignment is made. Then there are the intersexed, for example complete AIS. Female body. Female brain. Happy in a female persona, but… XY chromosomes and testes instead of ovaries. It’s another piece of the puzzle that the brain is the fundamental sex organ. These people’s brains did not react to androgens because of their condition, and they developed into a female identity in which most are thoroughly comfortable. Still, apart from these rare conditions, a person is born with the physical attributes of one or the other sex. Except that something in the brain does not compute with the rest, in a small number of cases.

A person’s biological sex is thus not irrelevant. In 99.7% of cases, it’s not an issue for the person, but in 0.3%. it is. Feel free to continue calling it a delusion, or a sentiment, or a psychiatric disorder. I will call it gender dysphoria and patiently wait to see what the science determines as the cause, if ever I live that long. If you claim to be trained in the hard sciences (as I am, chemistry, though retired now), you should know better than to prejudice the science with your sentiments. Even though this isn’t my field of expertise beyond what I’m learning because I have a transgendered child, I will trust the process to work its way through and will deal with my child as the unique and lovable individual that she is regardless of the outcome and help her seek out the best care possible.

If you want to argue that gender is a cultural construct,

I have made no such claim and make no such claim. I consider transgenderism to be a very real condition of unknown etiology but which is an active field of research with some evidence suggesting a biological basis. So I will try to keep an open mind in spite of my own prejudices.

 

[OraLabora]

(cont’d)

Why identify people as men or women at all, if the information is apropos of nothing definite?

You will find that most transgendered to accept a binary definition of men or women. They just strongly believe that their physical identity does not match their internal perception. A transgendered woman does not seek to blur the lines between man and woman. She seeks to have a physical presentation congruent with her perceived gender which is opposite to her biological gender. That does not deny maleness or femaleness.

I find it odd that a condition that affects only 0.3% of the population, give or take a tenth, makes Christians feel so threatened. The vast majority of us won’t be swayed from our perceived gender identity whether it is, or isn’t, congruent with our bodies. The 99.7% don’t have to worry that their minds and bodies will suddenly become incongruent because of the 0.3%. Alas, the well-being of the 0.3% is very much threatened by the prejudices of many in the 99.7%. That is a fundamental breach of human dignity that is very much at odds with Gospel values.

Now I’m all for discussing the ethics of the treatment offered to the transgendered because science that isn’t informed by ethics is its own tyranny. I’ve certainly cautioned my daughter to think really hard before any irreversible changes, but ultimately, she is an adult and will make her own choice and I will be there for her regardless of what the choice is.

Lastly, we should probably be dialoguing with the transgendered, rather than about the transgendered. At least our views would then be nourished by their very real experiences, pains and undignified attacks on their person that they must endure.

 

[PetraG]

They just strongly believe that their physical identity does not match their internal perception.

I do, too. I do not for a moment believe that they are lying about their experience.
I don’t even take issue with the idea that some people are physically ambiguous with regards to physical gender.

I take issue with the conclusion that our inner experience or self-identification, no matter how deeply rooted in circumstances beyond our control, is the ultimate source of truth about ourselves. No matter how distressing the experience gets, this isn’t true about anything else. There isn’t any other strongly-held inner sense of identity that is considered to be the truth about the person when that identity is incongruent with the physical facts used to define the descriptive terminology being used. There is no reason to single out persons with this particular sense of incongruity as the exception.