"What If My Daughter Insists She Is a Male?" How a Catholic Priest Answered This Mother's Question.

[buffalo]

You can do whatever you want but if you wish to influence people here on this thread we all have to come up with more than our own subjective views and prejudices and produce something relatively objective.

To date you have not done so re your startling assertions that homosexual and alternate gender dispositions are proven by science not to ever be due to errors of mother nature.

Nor have you answered my reasonable questions which would also seem to be a good way to go to increase your credibility vis a vis undecided lurkers here:

I don’t quite see why you felt the need to quote the Catechism…apart from it making my point that even the Church accepts the jury is still out on the causes of this psychological issue - which I am sure was not your intent .

Viz:

Are you for real? “God is on my side” is understood by most to refer to the catch cry of fanatics who believe that they are right simply because they think they are spiritual and religious and their “opponents” are allegedly godless and pagan.

A fundamentalist attitude to be found amongst all religions including most recently Muslims and less recently Christians (the Crusaders) and I observe to some extent in your posts here - unrecognised though it seems to be. This is as much an ideology as that you denounce amongst the gay lobby.
And no I have nothing to do with the gay lobby.
I am just an ordinary, educated, non fundamentalist Christian from a science/engineering background.

I am here to share. People can visit the papers and videos I have linked and make there judgements.

The Catechism is for reference. At the time of its printing (1990’s) the science was more limited. SInce then much has been learned.

Once again. Natural law is on the side that says the rectum’s purpose is not reproduction. Since God is the author, Revelation says it too. (Unless you do not believe Revelation?)

Show me the science that proves homosexual acts are normal and healthy. We can discuss those if you would like.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo - Why is it so important to you that there should not or could not be a scientific explanation behind gender disphoria, whereby the basis is something in the persons biological makeup (perhaps something gone awry in utero) as opposed to a lifestyle choice for some sufferers?

And the same question can be asked in respect of same sex attraction.

If it were true then it is true. So far it has not been found to be true.

Suppose it is in their biological makeup and found to be say plastics in the environment. What should we do about it?

 

[AdamP88]

I am here to share. People can visit the papers and videos I have linked and make there judgements.

The Catechism is for reference. At the time of its printing (1990’s) the science was more limited. SInce then much has been learned.

Once again. Natural law is on the side that says the rectum’s purpose is not reproduction. Since God is the author, Revelation says it too. (Unless you do not believe Revelation?)

Show me the science that proves homosexual acts are normal and healthy. We can discuss those if you would like.

Whatever about normal, they certainly aren’t healthy. There is plenty of scientific evidence that links anal sex to incontinence, infections, cancer and other issues.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am here to share. People can visit the papers and videos I have linked and make there judgements.

The Catechism is for reference. At the time of its printing (1990’s) the science was more limited. SInce then much has been learned.

Once again. Natural law is on the side that says the rectum’s purpose is not reproduction. Since God is the author, Revelation says it too. (Unless you do not believe Revelation?)

Show me the science that proves homosexual acts are normal and healthy. We can discuss those if you would like.

When you can first address my questions rather than go off on tangents listeners may find your startling views about the definitely non biological causality more credible.

Especially as the Church teaches that the actual cause of such issues is still largely unknown.
Which means these things, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness. Strange how the Vatican has not seen fit to update things if the science on this important topic is as convincing as you weakly opine .
You are starting to sound like a “flat earther” who of course has rationalizations for every solid objection no matter how increasingly ludicrous it sounds.

And still you will not explain why such a possibility is so abhorrent to you?

 

[buffalo]

When you can first address my questions rather than go off on tangents listeners may find your startling views about the definitely non biological causality more credible.

Especially as the Church teaches that the actual cause of such issues is still largely unknown.
Which means these things, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness. Strange how the Vatican has not seen fit to update things if the science on this important topic is as convincing as you weakly opine .
You are starting to sound like a “flat earther” who of course has rationalizations for every solid objection no matter how increasingly ludicrous it sounds.

And still you will not explain why such a possibility is so abhorrent to you?

Once again, science is provisional. We know much more today than when the Catechism was printed. (as far as the genesis of the condition goes)

So I ask you a question. Do you advocated homosexual behavior?

You have provided no sources to support your position. I have, although you have denigrated them not on merit.

 

[Rau]

If it were true then it is true. So far it has not been found to be true.

Carefully said, and correct. More corrrct is that the cause of either condition is not known.

Suppose it is in their biological makeup and found to be say plastics in the environment. What should we do about it?

I don’t know buffalo. I’d hope the scientific authorities could devise measures to lessen the risk. Both conditions can be very distressing for those affected and their families.

 

[buffalo]

Carefully said, and correct. More corrrct is that the cause of either condition is not known.

I don’t know buffalo. I’d hope the scientific authorities could devise measures to lessen the risk. Both conditions can be very distressing for those affected and their families.

I advocate if one wants to seek help they should be able to get it. Banning therapy like some states is ideology and not truly to help someone. Why? Because the claim is they don’t need help. Yet inside it is a struggle.

The APA has become a political organization and has hurt many by this stance.

 

[Rau]

I advocate if one wants to seek help they should be able to get it. Banning therapy like some states is ideology and not truly to help someone. Why? Because the claim is they don’t need help. Yet inside it is a struggle.

The APA has become a political organization and has hurt many by this stance.

You’ve switched subjects. Ok. I’m not aware of “help” being banned anywhere, but I do understand that in some states, certain types of therapies are not permitted to be offered (to children, I think, but not certain on that qualifier). In principle, that’s not unreasonable. And if prevailing professional opinion is that the particular therapy generally does more harm than good, how can one object?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Once again, science is provisional. We know much more today than when the Catechism was printed. (as far as the genesis of the condition goes)

So I ask you a question. Do you advocated homosexual behavior?

You have provided no sources to support your position. I have, although you have denigrated them not on merit.

Sorry, I don’t indulge posters until they have proven themselves of openness and good faith by appositely answering questions already put to them.

You have consistently ignored my questions and now ask inappropriate questions instead.
Nor do you respond to reasoned rebuttals but simply go off on tangents.
These are both typical evasive, rhetorical smoke screen techniques.

You therefore come across as sharing no more than hollow rhetoric for a set position that is invulnerable to a reasoned debate which is founded on some sort of personal belief you uncritically assume to align with Church teaching.

If you wish to salvage any credibility with open readers here you need to do better than this

The relevant matters you would then need to address, if you are able, would then seem to be:

When you can first address my questions rather than go off on tangents listeners may find your startling views about the definitely non biological causality more credible.

… the Church teaches that the actual cause of such issues is still largely unknown.Which means these things, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness. Strange how the Vatican has not seen fit to update things if the [latest] science on this important topic is as convincing as you weakly opine?

And still you will not explain why such a possibility is so abhorrent to you?

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, I don’t indulge posters until they have proven themselves of openness and good faith by appositely answering questions already put to them.

You have consistently ignored my questions and now ask inappropriate questions instead.
Nor do you respond to reasoned rebuttals but simply go off on tangents.
These are both typical evasive, rhetorical smoke screen techniques.

You therefore come across as sharing no more than hollow rhetoric for a set position that is invulnerable to a reasoned debate which is founded on some sort of personal belief you uncritically assume to align with Church teaching.

If you wish to salvage any credibility with open readers here you need to do better than this

The relevant matters you would then need to address, if you are able, would then seem to be:

Asked and answered.

Any sources you have to support your position will be appreciated.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I believe the Priest’s advice is not wholly sound on the scientific side.
“Don’t lose hope. Eventually the truth “will come out.” Your daughter was created female, and there is no changing that.”

Just as it seems that some homosexuals are born not made so too here.
The question is not biological sex type but “gender”.

Science is increasingly providing evidence that “gender” is objectively determined not simply by the visible genitals but also by the structure of the brain and hormones generated internally.

I believe we have to be open to this objective basis for children from a young age gender identifying themselves as possibly opposite to what their genitals “say”.
Nature is not perfect and there is no reason why, if gender is biologically more than external genitals, nature sometimes does not line up all the matching ducks in a row as it were.

This is not to say that ideology and “not fitting in” can also be responsible.
However, if someone from an early age identifies opposite to their biology and no obvious trauma is responsible then to hold up “nature” (ie external genitals) as being the sole criterion of what is true and how to respond is a flawed approach.

On a practical level a mother surely has the right to say what goes while a child is living at home and how she/he is to be addressed by the family.

If the child has left home and is in fact independent then her own wishes should surely be respected…especially if ignoring her wishes is likely to break down the relationship. One can of course still lovingly say how much it hurts to address her as a son when in fact you regard her as her baby girl…but in the end if opposition is not going to change the situation
then every true parent knows they must sacrifice themselves for their children’s good.
If they have left home it is in the end between them and God and ruining the relationship doesn’t help. One can still have a good relationship where both parties are honest and understand the pain the other is causing…and yet concede to the reasonable wishes of the grown up daughter. That is real love and if anything can change things then this sacrifice by the mother will.

And if it doesn’t, well that is then up to God.

I also note that Buffalo’s “scientific” view below is weak.
It comes from an organisation that appears to have a set bias, the Report is not peer reviewed, nor was it published in a “scientific journal" where it could be critiqued by world leading experts whose actual research suggests otherwise.

I am sorry, (and I hate to be blunt), but that is a lot of bollocks, to be also very British about it.

I can be loving and supportive of my child, but that does not mean that I will bow to his/her pressure to address him/her by something that he/she is not. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Sorry.

That makes me a monster, in your neighborhood.

Or just not “enlightened” enough.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Well given that there is still so much that genetic science does not know, has not explored or requires much larger test sample sizes to validate initial results…I see no basis for your certainty at all. The jury is clearly still out either way on this question.

The bias of fundamentalist Christians is palpably procrustean when it comes to assessing scientific literature on issues of non-normative sexuality issues for some reason.
I have no problem accepting that nature possibly gets these things wrong - as it does in many other areas of biology. How does that invalidate Church teaching?

1. We here at CAF are not fundamentalist Christians. We are Catholics. Or simply Orthodox in communion with Rome like me.
2. Nobody is more “pro-science” here than us Catholics. So this idea that we might be possibly “procrustean” (nice Classical Mythology reference, BTW) because we hold an opinion that does not line up with your non-Vatican approved stance is kind of silly.

That’s all.

 

[Rau]

Asked and answered.

I didn’t think you did. You did not answer my similarly expressed question either.

 

[Rau]

1. We here at CAF are not fundamentalist Christians…

I assure you that “we here at CAF” encompasses everything under the sun. And some express fervently held opinions (such as on the nature of and causes of homosexuality and gender dysporhia), believing they are inherently catholic views, when they are simply personally held views and/or views gleaned from a selective reading of a limited range of sources. Typically, one finds the Church expresses no view on the issue in question.

The Church does profess to know the cause of SSA or gender dyspohoria. The Church does not reject the idea that there might be biological factors in the mix.

 

[buffalo]

1. We here at CAF are not fundamentalist Christians. We are Catholics. Or simply Orthodox in communion with Rome like me.
2. Nobody is more “pro-science” here than us Catholics. So this idea that we might be possibly “procrustean” (nice Classical Mythology reference, BTW) because we hold an opinion that does not line up with your non-Vatican approved stance is kind of silly.

That’s all.

 

[buffalo]

I assure you that “we here at CAF” encompasses everything under the sun. And some express fervently held opinions (such as on the nature of and causes of homosexuality and gender dysporhia), believing they are inherently catholic views, when they are simply personally held views and/or views gleaned from a selective reading of a limited range of sources. Typically, one finds the Church expresses no view on the issue in question.

The Church does profess to know the cause of SSA or gender dyspohoria. The Church does not reject the idea that there might be biological factors in the mix.

Right, the church will wait on the science. However, she cannot change on the act and its sinfulness.

Selective reading? hmmm - I will bet I have studied many many more papers on both sides of this issue. If a gay gene were found it would be foolhardy to argue against that particular finding. The question remains in any case, regardless of cause, should one act on it. The Church and natural law will forever say no.

Now if everyone is convinced it is not innate, then we should help those struggling.

If I have not answered a question ask again. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I have asked for sources from others and they no doubt by now found that what the media has been promoting in the name of science isn’t as strong as they were led to believe.

 

[Rau]

…If a gay gene were found it would be foolhardy to argue against that particular finding.

There is no scientific hypothesis about that there is a “gay gene”, but rather there is a hypothesis that there may be genetic influences.

The question remains in any case, regardless of cause, should one act on it. The Church and natural law will forever say no.

I assume you are referring to homosexuality – and I don’t think any of your interlocutors here have suggested otherwise.

Now if everyone is convinced it is not innate, then we should help those struggling.

I’m not sure what you mean by “innate” in this context. But regardless of cause, be there a biological influence or not, we should help those struggling, right?

 

[Rau]

…The Church does profess to know the cause of SSA or gender dyspohoria.

And of course, that should read “The Church does **NOT **profess to know…”

 

[buffalo]

There is no scientific hypothesis about that there is a “gay gene”, but rather there is a hypothesis that there may be genetic influences.

I assume you are referring to homosexuality – and I don’t think any of your interlocutors here have suggested otherwise.

I’m not sure what you mean by “innate” in this context. But regardless of cause, be there a biological influence or not, we should help those struggling, right?

Sure there was/is. Remember “born that way”? This caused science to look for a gay gene. None has been found.

I clearly make a distinction between the attraction/desire and the homosexual act.

Innate - born that way, unchangeable (like skin color)

Yes, we should help those struggling with any disordered desire.

The Third Way

Desire of the Everlasting Hills

What we should not be doing is letting our kids be indoctrinated and told this is normal and having school counselors encouraging or advocating it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When you can first address my questions rather than go off on tangents listeners may find your startling views about the definitely non biological causality more credible.

Sorry. Where exactly?

Any sources you have to support your position will be appreciated.

Already provided, the Catechism. Here it is again:

… the Church teaches that the actual cause of such issues is still largely unknown.
(2357 Homosexuality has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.) Which means these things, for some, may simply be errors of mother nature herself, a form of illness. Strange how the Vatican has not seen fit to update things if the [latest] science on this important topic is as convincing as you weakly opine?