Understanding transgenders, transsexuals, etc

[roseproject]

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this subject because I never really had a firm understanding on the difference between different terms, the mindset of such people, etc.
Generally, I just want to understand more and set aside whatever generalizations I have in my mind or misunderstandings I have on the issue.

Now, from what I’ve gathered, this is what I understand about the terminology…

Sex=biological sex
Gender=The sex you, in an inward sense, identify yourself with/express yourself as.

Sexual orientation; being gay/lesbian/etc.= strictly refers to which sex you are attracted to and has nothing to do with the way you present yourself.

Transgender= Someone who identifies inwardly with a different sex than their biological sex.
Transsexual=Someone who physically changed their physical sex to match their inward identity.

Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this

From my searching on the web, I’ve found that the development of many components of the brain and the typical, physical components of a given biological sex happen at different points in fetal development. Sometimes, there are hormonal deficiencies and the like that cause the private parts and the brain, and some of the usual mental patterns associated with a particular sex to be different from one another. Example: a child in the womb with male parts may not transfer very much testosterone and other hormones later on in the brain, and may not feel like their gender and sex “match”; their mentality feels prominently feminine/masculine/or somewhere right in the middle at times.

Then, there are the rare occasions of people biologically being neither male or female. Such people may be given the necessary treatment soon after birth to lean the child to one sex or the other, but sometimes such people get assigned to a different sex than what they feel like mentally later on in life.

Now, how should a Catholic understand the meaning of their sex/gender identity if the two don’t match? How does the Church see this issue? And, ultimately, how would one understand this issue in the context of writings like ‘Theology of the Body’ and such writings that talk about the God-given male/female plan for mankind?

It would seem that (truly) transgender people don’t choose to have this different mentality; to have more masculine/feminine thought processes contrary to their sex and whatnot. So, unless they are thoroughly misunderstood themselves and are in reality not born with this, these people aren’t sinning by being transgender. Now, what about the issue of transsexuals? What’s the moral differences between assigning yourself to a different, physical sex through surgery, hormones, etc. and someone born without a specific sex and doctors giving them surgery to correct the physical lack of development/deformity? How would someone know which sex to “set” someone to seeing as their mind may not match in the end? Wouldn’t both instances be “playing God”; altering the body in one way or another in such a major way? Of course, the Catechism says something about the use of hormones being ok for therapeutic uses, right?

Should someone with any of these traits be treated/regarded as their biological sex, or their gender? Do you think God meant for such people to have mismatched mentalities/biology in His original plan, regardless of the fall? I guess such an argument can be extended to people with Down’s Syndrome and the like; would they be the way they are if it weren’t for the fall? Is an extra chromosome or a slight lack/increase of hormones in one area or another part of the fall or do we just think any of it as negative because it may play on our fallen nature at times?

Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance

P.S. Sorry if I sound like I’m rambling on at all. It’s really late right now as I’m writing this.

 

[Richard_White]

Looking at the Oxford English Dictionary, I found that the word “sex” refers to one’s nature as either male or female, whereas the word “gender” refers to the attributing of qualities based on the sexes to certain individuals.

May God bless you and keep you always!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this subject because I never really had a firm understanding on the difference between different terms, the mindset of such people, etc.
Generally, I just want to understand more and set aside whatever generalizations I have in my mind or misunderstandings I have on the issue.

There was an episode of “Southpark” called “Cissy” that surprisingly did well at explaining this. At first glance the word “cissy” above might appear to be an insult. But it’s a reference ti “cis gendered” which is a person that identifies with the sex that they were born with.

Sex=biological sex
Gender=The sex you, in an inward sense, identify yourself with/express yourself as.

Correct.

Sexual orientation; being gay/lesbian/etc.= strictly refers to which sex you are attracted to and has nothing to do with the way you present yourself.

Correct. So a transgendered can still be a heterosexual.

Transgender= Someone who identifies inwardly with a different sex than their biological sex.
Transsexual=Someone who physically changed their physical sex to match their inward identity.

Also correct.

Then, there are the rare occasions of people biologically being neither male or female. Such people may be given the necessary treatment soon after birth to lean the child to one sex or the other, but sometimes such people get assigned to a different sex than what they feel like mentally later on in life.

Yes, though sexual ambiguity can take on several forms such as a genotyped male whose penis doesn’t fully form and testicles don’t descend or a genotyped female with an enlarged clitoris that appears to be a penis.

Now, how should a Catholic understand the meaning of their sex/gender identity if the two don’t match? How does the Church see this issue? And, ultimately, how would one understand this issue in the context of writings like ‘Theology of the Body’ and such writings that talk about the God-given male/female plan for mankind?

I don’t know who the Catholic Church would respond to this, but I know that many other Christians already referred to II Corinthians for what had been seen as gender related issues. “A man shall not wear that which pertains to a woman, nor a woman that which pertains to a man.” I’ve primarily seen this used to argue against men having earings or long hair. I could easily see it being used for Transgenders. However, some of the things that are associated with male or female are cultural. In one culture females may exclusively wear ear rings. In others eat piercings and decorations may be worn by men and represent other things within their society. Skirts are worn by Women except for when they are worn by men in which case we call them kilts.

I guess such an argument can be extended to people with Down’s Syndrome and the like; would they be the way they are if it weren’t for the fall?

IS that called by trisomy of the sex chromosome? If so such a person may already be in a sexually ambiguous space.

 

[cjforJesus]

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this subject because I never really had a firm understanding on the difference between different terms, the mindset of such people, etc.
Generally, I just want to understand more and set aside whatever generalizations I have in my mind or misunderstandings I have on the issue.

Now, from what I’ve gathered, this is what I understand about the terminology…

Sex=biological sex
Gender=The sex you, in an inward sense, identify yourself with/express yourself as.

Sexual orientation; being gay/lesbian/etc.= strictly refers to which sex you are attracted to and has nothing to do with the way you present yourself.

Transgender= Someone who identifies inwardly with a different sex than their biological sex.
Transsexual=Someone who physically changed their physical sex to match their inward identity.

Please correct me if I’m wrong about any of this

From my searching on the web, I’ve found that the development of many components of the brain and the typical, physical components of a given biological sex happen at different points in fetal development. Sometimes, there are hormonal deficiencies and the like that cause the private parts and the brain, and some of the usual mental patterns associated with a particular sex to be different from one another. Example: a child in the womb with male parts may not transfer very much testosterone and other hormones later on in the brain, and may not feel like their gender and sex “match”; their mentality feels prominently feminine/masculine/or somewhere right in the middle at times.

Then, there are the rare occasions of people biologically being neither male or female. Such people may be given the necessary treatment soon after birth to lean the child to one sex or the other, but sometimes such people get assigned to a different sex than what they feel like mentally later on in life.

Now, how should a Catholic understand the meaning of their sex/gender identity if the two don’t match? How does the Church see this issue? And, ultimately, how would one understand this issue in the context of writings like ‘Theology of the Body’ and such writings that talk about the God-given male/female plan for mankind?

It would seem that (truly) transgender people don’t choose to have this different mentality; to have more masculine/feminine thought processes contrary to their sex and whatnot. So, unless they are thoroughly misunderstood themselves and are in reality not born with this, these people aren’t sinning by being transgender. Now, what about the issue of transsexuals? What’s the moral differences between assigning yourself to a different, physical sex through surgery, hormones, etc. and someone born without a specific sex and doctors giving them surgery to correct the physical lack of development/deformity? How would someone know which sex to “set” someone to seeing as their mind may not match in the end? Wouldn’t both instances be “playing God”; altering the body in one way or another in such a major way? Of course, the Catechism says something about the use of hormones being ok for therapeutic uses, right?

Should someone with any of these traits be treated/regarded as their biological sex, or their gender? Do you think God meant for such people to have mismatched mentalities/biology in His original plan, regardless of the fall? I guess such an argument can be extended to people with Down’s Syndrome and the like; would they be the way they are if it weren’t for the fall? Is an extra chromosome or a slight lack/increase of hormones in one area or another part of the fall or do we just think any of it as negative because it may play on our fallen nature at times?

Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance

P.S. Sorry if I sound like I’m rambling on at all. It’s really late right now as I’m writing this.

We live in a fallen world and as time progresses we will see the fruits of our folly.

Feminisation of male fetuses and likewise maculinisation of females does occur on occasion but it is not part of the natural order.It serves no purpose.I do not know f there are any studies but it does seem to be increasing.I have heard some say it is linked to birth control hormones and also compounds from plastics leeching into food.

I feel terribly sorry for these poor souls but surgically altering the genitals is a poor solution for what may be also a mental disorder.

Cosmetic surgery is on the rise also because body dysphoria causes people to greatly dislike certain parts of the body and they are willing to expend great sums of money to alter their physical appearance.

God creates us male or female,but hormonal disorders as well as psychological and mental ones can cause individuals to desire to be something else.

The best we can do is pray for these tortured souls and that the Holy Spirit touches their hearts so they can accept themselves as God made them.

 

[roseproject]

We live in a fallen world and as time progresses we will see the fruits of our folly.

Feminisation of male fetuses and likewise maculinisation of females does occur on occasion but it is not part of the natural order.It serves no purpose.I do not know f there are any studies but it does seem to be increasing.I have heard some say it is linked to birth control hormones and also compounds from plastics leeching into food.

I feel terribly sorry for these poor souls but surgically altering the genitals is a poor solution for what may be also a mental disorder.

Cosmetic surgery is on the rise also because body dysphoria causes people to greatly dislike certain parts of the body and they are willing to expend great sums of money to alter their physical appearance.

God creates us male or female,but hormonal disorders as well as psychological and mental ones can cause individuals to desire to be something else.

The best we can do is pray for these tortured souls and that the Holy Spirit touches their hearts so they can accept themselves as God made them.

Also, I think the constant barrage of this whole issue in the media may cause people to jump to conclusions and mislead them into thinking they are something they are not. I can see how this can lead to confusion for a growing kid being taught these things.

Then I guess the big question is that, if feminine males and masculine females are not in line with the natural order that God originally intended, which part of such a person is distorted; are their bodies the way they were supposed to be or the way or is the gender of their brain wrong? and is correcting one or the other morally permissible?

I can’t imagine how confusing it must be for a person who experiences this

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Now, from what I’ve gathered, this is what I understand about the terminology…

Sex=biological sex

Yes

Gender=The sex you, in an inward sense, identify yourself with/express yourself as.

No.

GENDER : A grammatical category indicating the sex, or lack of sex, of nouns and pronouns. The three genders are masculine, feminine, and neuter. He is a masculine pronoun; she is a feminine pronoun; it is a neuter pronoun.

Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.

Sexual orientation; being gay/lesbian/etc.= strictly refers to which sex you are attracted to and has nothing to do with the way you present yourself.

Be careful with this one…

“Sexual orientation” is a highly ambiguous term loaded with hidden false assumptions.

An “orientation” describes the perspective of a subject toward an object. A sexual orientation therefore describes a person (subject) by the object toward which they are sexually attracted: a homosexual is someone oriented toward someone of the same sex, a bisexual toward both sexes, a pedophile toward children, a sado-masochist toward giving or receiving pain, etc…

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

@Zoltan Colbalt

Words tend to have various intended meanings. I’m glad that you’ve shared your intended usage and meaning with some of the words as this reduced ambiguity. I thought there were some other usages of some of the words listed in the O.E.D. that may be relevant. For the word “gender” while there are grammatical usages listed there are also definitions that have to do with a psychological context that I think may be closer to the intended usage of those that most discuss differences in sex and gender.

gender - b. Psychol. and Sociol. (orig. U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one’s sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.

Corpus references:
1945 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 58 228 In the grade-school years, too, gender (which is the socialized obverse of sex) is a fixed line of demarkation, the qualifying terms being ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’.
1950 Amer. Jrnl. Psychol. 63 312 It [sc. Margaret Mead’s Male and Female] informs the reader upon ‘gender’ as well as upon ‘sex’, upon masculine and feminine rôles as well as upon male and female and their reproductive functions.

Also, to share a related word:

cisgender -
A. adj. -Designating someone whose sense of personal identity corresponds to the sex and gender assigned to him or her at birth; of or relating to such persons. Contrasted with transgender.
B. n.- A cisgender person.

Corpus references
1999 Re: Post Op TS Help in soc.support.transgendered (Usenet newsgroup) 17 June The accepted cis-gender model is that I’m in a male body therefore I’m a man.

By definition, there are an unlimited number of potential sexual orientations.

I think the OP may be asking in the limited sense of what sex that a person in question finds sexually stimulating exclusive of other objects and things that the person may find sexually stimulating. So, for example, the pianist that finds piano playing stimulating to the point of having an orgasm (I can’t remember her name) would probably be excluded from consideration in the OP’s question.

Even if we were to include such things it seems that they are not strictly bound to how a person presents themselves. (Though social signaling may impact one’s success in acquiring their sexual interest). As an example, a genotype and physiological male (XY chromosomes and has a penis) may prefer to wear dresses and other things that we associate with females while also exclusively having sexual interest in physiological females.

Speaking of which, my sister just returned from a trip to Tokyo. She cam across a middle aged man wearing a school girl’s uniform with lots of school girls flocking around him and walking up to him to take pictures with him. She took a picture with him too. (We had not idea who he was until we share a picture my sister took with him with someone that recognized him). Not wanting to share P.I.I. here is a different picture of him :



The interpretation of this man’s manner of dress is interpreted far differently in Japan than it would be in the USA (where people would probably assess him as a threat to their children). I wonder how people in the west would classify in the topic of discussion.

 

[cjforJesus]

@Zoltan Colbalt

Words tend to have various intended meanings. I’m glad that you’ve shared your intended usage and meaning with some of the words as this reduced ambiguity. I thought there were some other usages of some of the words listed in the O.E.D. that may be relevant. For the word “gender” while there are grammatical usages listed there are also definitions that have to do with a psychological context that I think may be closer to the intended usage of those that most discuss differences in sex and gender.

Also, to share a related word:

I think the OP may be asking in the limited sense of what sex that a person in question finds sexually stimulating exclusive of other objects and things that the person may find sexually stimulating. So, for example, the pianist that finds piano playing stimulating to the point of having an orgasm (I can’t remember her name) would probably be excluded from consideration in the OP’s question.

Even if we were to include such things it seems that they are not strictly bound to how a person presents themselves. (Though social signaling may impact one’s success in acquiring their sexual interest). As an example, a genotype and physiological male (XY chromosomes and has a penis) may prefer to wear dresses and other things that we associate with females while also exclusively having sexual interest in physiological females.

Speaking of which, my sister just returned from a trip to Tokyo. She cam across a middle aged man wearing a school girl’s uniform with lots of school girls flocking around him and walking up to him to take pictures with him. She took a picture with him too. (We had not idea who he was until we share a picture my sister took with him with someone that recognized him). Not wanting to share P.I.I. here is a different picture of him :

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...l_progressive,q_80,w_636/18llms7audc8ojpg.jpg

The interpretation of this man’s manner of dress is interpreted far differently in Japan than it would be in the USA (where people would probably assess him as a threat to their children). I wonder how people in the west would classify in the topic of discussion.

As one poster noted there are an endless number of sexual orientations.

In Japan there seems to be an unusual preoccupation with the uniforms of young schoolgirls. Most anime and manga seem to center around innocent schoolgirls in short dresses with very long legs and large black eyes. This is probably just another orientation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In Japan there seems to be an unusual preoccupation with the uniforms of young schoolgirls. Most anime and manga seem to center around innocent schoolgirls in short dresses with very long legs and large black eyes. This is probably just another orientation.

Throughout middle and high school students in Japan commonly wear school uniforms (seifuku/制服) While the length of the dresses vary some Japanese girls have been known to roll the waist of the skirts to make them shorter; an action that is easily undone if a uniform check occurs. Because of this young girls are commonly portrayed in such uniforms since it’s common attire. They have become a bit of an icon for a young girl there.I don’t think it’s as much an obsession with the uniforms as much as it is an obsession with some subset of the age group that normally wears such uniforms (Lolita complex). This might being varying to far from the topic of the thread. So I’ll hold off on saying more.

As for the man above in the school girl’s uniform, his name is Hideaki Kobayashi. According to an interview ref] he wore a uniform originally for some art/design event and the reaction was positive. So he kept wearing it on weekends and became a local celeb and now manages a a group. I can’t access his mind so I don’t know if he gets any sexual pleasure from it. Can’t tell if it says anything about his sexuality one way or the other.

Here in Atlanta there’s a man known as Baton Bob that is often seen carrying his whistle and Baton marching the streets close to wear I work in one of many outfits (wedding dress, cheer leader’s uniform, so on). Some of his choices in uniform are to make a statement; the wedding dress themed uniform became part of his look after a ruling on gay marriage.

 

[TarkanAttila]

If I may, I think there might be something to an immaterial gender.

Now, I think it is complete nonsense to say one can identify as this or that gender based on feelings. If that be the case, I shall identify as a Russian, because while I don’t have a lick of it in my genes, I sometimes feel very Russian. But if the world is purely material - there are no spirits, etc, in the world - there’s nothing tangible in any sense for transgenderism to exist in. Sex is reducible to genitalia if materialism is true.

But Catholics accept that that immaterial minds can exist. I think this has some interesting consequences. See, God is male. Yet he has no genitals. Why might this be? Might it be because spirits can also have, so to speak, sexes?