transgenderism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Midwest88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Transgenderism is often the cause of the sin of crossdressing. It is also sinful to physically change your sex.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
TERF are Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists they generally claim that psychological differences between males and females are either purely nurture or so substantially nurture that it dwarfs other things.

My point was gender identity is so core to a person that you’d basically have to destroy the person to change the situation.

Even if you enjoy watching someone get crippled and have to deal with it, it still doesn’t fix the fact that you yourself would be struggling with being disabled.

It was always an issue, it was just obscured from the public by incarcerating them in mental institutions or taking ice picks to their brains.

Thoughts are often not random and are much more the consequence of external stimuli than the average person wants to admit. I think there is some difference between the physical brain and the mind.

Elaborate on what “cause/result order” is supposed to mean

There have so far been no methods that “fix the brain” instead of bringing the body into alignment with the mind.

You said the brain is plastic, I was agreeing that to some degree it is
Click to expand...
This is not how the Church views human beings and your idea that our thoughts are greatly determined by physical forces not under our control render anything I say moot. The differences between us are too foundational to discuss this topic; however, I want to say that I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in such a civil manner and have learned more about this issue from your comments, for which I thank you 🙂
 
With all due respect to transgender persons, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us the following:

“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” See paragraph 2297.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
With all due respect to transgender persons, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us the following:

“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” See paragraph 2297.

Ed
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not all people who are transgender want to complete SRS but it is therapeutic for some.
 
St_Francis said:
This is not how the Church views human beings and your idea that our thoughts are greatly determined by physical forces not under our control render anything I say moot. The differences between us are too foundational to discuss this topic; however, I want to say that I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in such a civil manner and have learned more about this issue from your comments, for which I thank you 🙂
Click to expand...
I think we may be misunderstanding each other, I’m talking about how a lot of people see themselves as special snowflakes uninfluenced by anyone else whereas the reason they may have bought the shirt is because their friends are wearing it and the reason they like a song is because it is ubiquitous.

Even Jesus was tempted, but he resisted it and we also get involuntary temptations that we can also resist. The choices we make are influenced by the people around us, but we ultimately choose them and have free will to choose otherwise.
edwest2 said:
With all due respect to transgender persons, the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us the following:

“Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.” See paragraph 2297.

Ed
Click to expand...
It is important to note that that piece is from a section on torture
 
St_Francis said:
We think a boy who believes himself to be a girl is also clearly not in touch with reality.
Click to expand...
If the boy sees breasts where there are none, or does not see the genitals that are there, then that person is not in touch with reality. A person believing they are a Kennedy (when objectively they are not) and believing they underwent a genital-replacing/removing surgery (when objectively they did not) is not in touch with reality.

But that is not the situation of the person suffering dysphoria.

The latter person is in no doubt of their reality. They can see that they are, say, a functioning male. They know their parents, they have a full grip on the people, places and events in their lives. Rather, they are suffering from a severe discomfort “in their own skin” for want of a better way to describe it. They realise something is wrong - a seeming inconsistency which they can describe to others. And it causes great discomfort.

So, the one (the would-be Kennedy) is not in touch with reality, and the other is, but layered on that reality is something else.
 
Rau said:
If the boy sees breasts where there are none, or does not see the genitals that are there, then that person is not in touch with reality. A person believing they are a Kennedy (when objectively they are not) and believing they underwent a genital-replacing/removing surgery (when objectively they did not) is not in touch with reality.

But that is not the situation of the person suffering dysphoria.

The latter person is in no doubt of their reality. They can see that they are, say, a functioning male. They know their parents, they have a full grip on the people, places and events in their lives. Rather, they are suffering from a severe discomfort “in their own skin” for want of a better way to describe it. They realise something is wrong - a seeming inconsistency which they can describe to others. And it causes great discomfort.

So, the one (the would-be Kennedy) is not in touch with reality, and the other is, but layered on that reality is something else.
Click to expand...
That is a fairly accurate and articulate way of putting it.
 
Rau said:
If the boy sees breasts where there are none, or does not see the genitals that are there, then that person is not in touch with reality. A person believing they are a Kennedy (when objectively they are not) and believing they underwent a genital-replacing/removing surgery (when objectively they did not) is not in touch with reality.

But that is not the situation of the person suffering dysphoria.

The latter person is in no doubt of their reality. They can see that they are, say, a functioning male. They know their parents, they have a full grip on the people, places and events in their lives. Rather, they are suffering from a severe discomfort “in their own skin” for want of a better way to describe it. They realise something is wrong - a seeming inconsistency which they can describe to others. And it causes great discomfort.

So, the one (the would-be Kennedy) is not in touch with reality, and the other is, but layered on that reality is something else.
Click to expand...
I would suppose that being discomforted by “their own skin,” as you put it, would indicate being out of touch with reality in another sense. The skin that a person has is “their own.” It is one thing to be discomforted by what you have become, psychologically speaking, and over which you have some measure of control, but it is another thing entirely to be discomforted by realities which are, ultimately, beyond our ability to change them.

Oh, sure, a few superficial or cosmetic changes might be available, but the reality of actually changing one’s biological sex is beyond anyone’s control. What is the point of enabling a psychological outlook that believes itself to have the license to change reality at that level?

The trajectory which seems to be implied by your “layered” view of reality is that human beings who are discomforted by living in a human skin and suffer – not merely from gender dysphoria, but – from species dysphoria ought to be, in principle, supported in doing whatever they can to assuage their discomfort of that reality. Perhaps we ought to be pursuing species reassignment surgery because some human beings want to be parrots or dragons – both of which are actual cases.

The alternative is to face and accept reality – one which, perhaps, will ultimately be the answer for these individuals as it has been for hundreds of thousands of years with respect to the human condition. It might be said that where reality was denied and alternative avenues to actual reality were pursued, things never went well for those who opted to do so.

Now we have American and other government agencies seriously considering cloning hybrids of humans and other animal species. Speaking of dysphoria. I would think those “individuals” who are the products of such experimentation will be severely discomforted. You might not agree. I would suggest that we ought to be discomforted more by the fact that humans are seriously thinking ourselves capable of delving into endeavors which ought to make our spines crawl but are still doing so because we suppose ourselves competent to “fix” reality at an ontological level about which we simply have no clue.

The rest of us ought to recognize that, in your words, “…something is wrong - a seeming inconsistency which… [we] can describe to others. And it causes great discomfort.” Meaning that, as CS Lewis pointed out in The Abolition of Man, we really have no competency in the area of changing the ultimate ground of reality and to assume ourselves able to monkey around at that level will end us up in nowhere good, although we will misuse our ability to -]reason/-] rationalize in order to justify such forays, in particular, by distinguishing, as you seem to do, the “reality” of our own making or as we wish it to be from the reality that actually exists.
 
Rau said:
If the boy sees breasts where there are none, or does not see the genitals that are there, then that person is not in touch with reality. A person believing they are a Kennedy (when objectively they are not) and believing they underwent a genital-replacing/removing surgery (when objectively they did not) is not in touch with reality.

But that is not the situation of the person suffering dysphoria.

The latter person is in no doubt of their reality. They can see that they are, say, a functioning male. They know their parents, they have a full grip on the people, places and events in their lives. Rather, they are suffering from a severe discomfort “in their own skin” for want of a better way to describe it. They realise something is wrong - a seeming inconsistency which they can describe to others. And it causes great discomfort.

So, the one (the would-be Kennedy) is not in touch with reality, and the other is, but layered on that reality is something else.
Click to expand...
So you are saying because TG people see their bodies accurately, they are in touch with reality. But those with Body Dysmorphia also see their bodies accurately, they just don’t want a part to be ther any more; what is the difference?

I am also curious as to how TG people “know” that what they want to be is the opposite sex. A man, for example, does not know what being a woman is like. He knows only from the outside what it is to be a woman. How do we know that what he wants is to be a woman rather than just having the aspects of womanhood he can see applied to him?

I am thinking in particular of the young man who wanted to use the girls’ locker room to change. He had no understanding of how the girls felt or why they felt that way. If he were truly female, this modesty would have come naturally to him.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I would suppose that being discomforted by “their own skin,” as you put it, would indicate being out of touch with reality in another sense. The skin that a person has is “their own.” It is one thing to be discomforted by what you have become, psychologically speaking, and over which you have some measure of control, but it is another thing entirely to be discomforted by realities which are, ultimately, beyond our ability to change them.

Oh, sure, a few superficial or cosmetic changes might be available, but the reality of actually changing one’s biological sex is beyond anyone’s control. What is the point of enabling a psychological outlook that believes itself to have the license to change reality at that level?

The trajectory which seems to be implied by your “layered” view of reality is that human beings who are discomforted by living in a human skin and suffer – not merely from gender dysphoria, but – from species dysphoria ought to be, in principle, supported in doing whatever they can to assuage their discomfort of that reality. Perhaps we ought to be pursuing species reassignment surgery because some human beings want to be parrots or dragons – both of which are actual cases.

The alternative is to face and accept reality – one which, perhaps, will ultimately be the answer for these individuals as it has been for hundreds of thousands of years with respect to the human condition. It might be said that where reality was denied and alternative avenues to actual reality were pursued, things never went well for those who opted to do so.

Now we have American and other government agencies seriously considering cloning hybrids of humans and other animal species. Speaking of dysphoria. I would think those “individuals” who are the products of such experimentation will be severely discomforted. You might not agree. I would suggest that we ought to be discomforted more by the fact that humans are seriously thinking ourselves capable of delving into endeavors which ought to make our spines crawl but are still doing so because we suppose ourselves competent to “fix” reality at an ontological level about which we simply have no clue.

The rest of us ought to recognize that, in your words, “…something is wrong - a seeming inconsistency which… [we] can describe to others. And it causes great discomfort.” Meaning that, as CS Lewis pointed out in The Abolition of Man, we really have no competency in the area of changing the ultimate ground of reality and to assume ourselves able to monkey around at that level will end us up in nowhere good, although we will misuse our ability to -]reason/-] rationalize in order to justify such forays, in particular, by distinguishing, as you seem to do, the “reality” of our own making or as we wish it to be from the reality that actually exists.
Click to expand...
Well said. Having certain feelings and then trying to force others to allow the use of a certain restroom by force of law? It seems that rearranging the ‘social furniture’ should not be part of the solution. This forced “perception management” issue is now part of what public schools are teaching.

Alternative sexualities are being marketed like products right now.

Ed
 
Midwest88 said:
This is what I read on reddit about transgendersim:

“The medical information out there is pretty clear on this. Sex =/= Gender =/= Sexuality.”
…
Click to expand...
Moses saw it coming when he forbade cross-dressing. Gender is not subjective. Sometimes you feel like a …; sometimes you don’t. But you shouldn’t try to fool Mother Nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top