What is the Church's position on the Intersexed and Transsexed?

[agangbern]

She does not have ovaries, she looks female. Why won’t you look it up? Forget it, I’ll post a link.

Thanks! At last you were able to say it straight. Zoe did “not have ovaries”. Therefore there was no way she could produce ova. There is no doubt therefore that Zoe is male.

Problem solved.

 

[LilyM]

Thanks! At last you were able to say it straight. Zoe did “not have ovaries”. Therefore there was no way she could produce ova. There is no doubt therefore that Zoe is male.

Problem solved.

I have a condition called Turners’ Syndrome. My ovaries, although existent, most likely don’t produce ova (I’ve never been married or wanted children, so never have found out). I suppose I’m not female either then? I certainly don’t have ANY male sexual organs, nor a Y chromosome, so am not male in any sense.

If I understand correctly, she has no PENIS or OTHER male genitalia, which are surely an important part of being male, no?

Well, it is according to this definition: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"an animal that produces gametes (spermatozoa) that can fertilize female gametes (ova) "

It’s impossible for the sperm of someone without a penis to fertilise female ova, no?

 

[agangbern]

How about one who has both ovary and testes?

Both ovary and testes functioning perfectly equally as they are? I have been searching for that in the internet and even in real life, my search simply gave negative result. Therefore,until proven otherwise, I would say that such kind does not exist.

 

[LilyM]

Both ovary and testes functioning perfectly equally as they are? I have been searching for that in the internet and even in real life, my search simply gave negative result. Therefore,until proven otherwise, I would say that such kind does not exist.

But your definitions don’t mention that they must function perfectly, or equally, simply that they must function. Obviously not every man’s testes or woman’s ovaries function perfectly - even a sterile male or female is still male, still female.

So as long as one has functioning (to whatever degree) testes AND functioning (to whatever degree) ovaries, they fit YOUR dictionary definitions of both male and female, and your theory is out the window.

 

[agangbern]

I have a condition called Turners’ Syndrome. My ovaries, although existent, most likely don’t produce ova (I’ve never been married or wanted children, so never have found out). I suppose I’m not female either then? I certainly don’t have ANY male sexual organs, nor a Y chromosome, so am not male in any sense.

If I understand correctly, she has no PENIS or OTHER male genitalia, which are surely an important part of being male, no?

Well, it is according to this definition: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

"an animal that produces gametes (spermatozoa) that can fertilize female gametes (ova) "

It’s impossible for the sperm of someone without a penis to fertilise female ova, no?

When a human being is found conclusively to be not female, there is no other option but that he is male. For God and the Church declared that humans are either male or female, male and female He created them.

It’s impossible for the sperm of someone without a penis to fertilize female ova? Better ponder once again about that. There may be something you forgot.

 

[agangbern]

But your definitions don’t mention that they must function perfectly, or equally, simply that they must function. Obviously not every man’s testes or woman’s ovaries function perfectly - even a sterile male or female is still male, still female.

So as long as one has functioning (to whatever degree) testes AND functioning (to whatever degree) ovaries, they fit YOUR dictionary definitions of both male and female, and your theory is out the window.

OK, let us examine that individual.
Where is the link?

 

[LilyM]

When a human being is found conclusively to be not female, there is no other option but that he is male. For God and the Church declared that humans are either male or female, male and female He created them.

It’s impossible for the sperm of someone without a penis to fertilize female ova? Better ponder once again about that. There may be something you forgot.

It says ‘male and female he created them’, not ‘he created each individual EITHER male OR female and nothing in between’. Some individuals can be created BOTH male AND female without going against either church teaching or the verse of scripture. There’s no indication in the Catechism that ‘being man’ and ‘being woman’ are so utterly exclusive that there is no possibility of the one individual BOTH ‘being man’ AND ‘being woman’.

What did I forget, by the way? Sperm exits the male body and enters the female body through the penis. If you’re talking test tubes or something - they’re a method strictly verboten and unapproved by the Church, so not a legitimate consideration. There’s no (legitimate) possibility of fertilisation without the penis, and therefore, by your logic, no maleness.

By the way, by your logic I’m still probably male and not female since I do not (probably) produce ova. Same with every postmenopausal person, by the way.

 

[LilyM]

OK, let us examine that individual.
Where is the link?

You’re the one who began by asserting that it’s impossible for such a person to exist. So the onus is on you to prove your position Show us YOUR link that conclusively demonstrates it to be impossible for an individual to have both functioning ovaries and functioning testes.

 

[agangbern]

You’re the one who began by asserting that it’s impossible for such a person to exist. So the onus is on you to prove your position Show us YOUR link that conclusively demonstrates it to be impossible for an individual to have both functioning ovaries and functioning testes.

It is like this: If for example I say, "It is impossible to go to the moon." Do I have to prove to you that it is impossible to go to the moon? No! He who would allege the contrary and say, “It is possible to go the moon”, it is he who has the burden to prove his claim.

 

[agangbern]

It says ‘male and female he created them’, not ‘he created each individual EITHER male OR female and nothing in between’.

To settle this thing we simply have to look back to the garden of Eden. Who was the male and who was the female? And who was the in between, if indeed there was one intended to be?

Some individuals can be created BOTH male AND female without going against either church teaching or the verse of scripture. There’s no indication in the Catechism that ‘being man’ and ‘being woman’ are so utterly exclusive that there is no possibility of the one individual BOTH ‘being man’ AND ‘being woman’.

The catechism is clear here, there is no space for ambiguity:

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness."http://www.vatican.va/archive/catech…

 

[LilyM]

It is like this: If for example I say, "It is impossible to go to the moon." Do I have to prove to you that it is impossible to go to the moon? No! He who would allege the contrary and say, “It is possible to go the moon”, it is he who has the burden to prove his claim.

Rubbish. You have the burden of proving ANY assertion you make that isn’t self evident, regardless.

As an analogy, it IS true that if I say ‘you were born 20th January 1996’, I might need to prove that. At the same time if YOU assert ‘I was really born 18th February 1997’ it’s not going to be enough to win the argument for you to just assert that, and then sit back and demand MY proof for my date. You have to prove your own asserted date too.

 

[LilyM]

To settle this thing we simply have to look back to the garden of Eden. Who was the male and who was the female? And who was the in between, if indeed there was one intended to be?

The catechism is clear here, there is no space for ambiguity:

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness."http://www.vatican.va/archive/catech…

That’s silly. There were no children in the Garden of Eden either - nor death, nor sin. None of which means that God never meant for there to be any childen in future, nor that these other things didn’t appear later.

Yes, being man and being woman are both goods, and willed by God and men and women both have the same level of inalienable dignity.

Just like being, say, a mother and being a wife are both goods, both willed by God, and mothers and wives both have the same level of inalienable dignity respective of people who are not these things. And teh states of ‘being-wife’ and ‘being-mother’ each reflects the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

True that not all mothers are wives, and not all wives are mothers, so the two states are different, but does that phraseology mean that one can be either a mother, or a wife, but not both? No. Neither does the phraseology mean one can either be a man or a woman but not both.

 

[agangbern]

By the way, by your logic I’m still probably male and not female since I do not (probably) produce ova. Same with every postmenopausal person, by the way.

fe•male (f m l )
adj.
*1.
a. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; feminine.
c. Consisting of members of this sex. *See Usage Note at lady.
thefreedictionary.com/female

Does that definition say to you that the individual to be female must be producing ova throughout her lifetime? No, it does not say that! Female who has reached menopause does not appear to be excluded from that definition. Neither is the infant girl.

 

[agangbern]

That’s silly. There were no children in the Garden of Eden on the day of creation either - does that mean God never meant for there to be any childen in future?

Well, I just quoted the Catechism to you. It is there, being man or being woman. If you find that silly, it’s already your problem not mine.

 

[LilyM]

Well, I just quoted the Catechism to you. It is there, being man or being woman. If you find that silly, it’s already your problem not mine.

What you HAVEN’T shown is that the Catechism states that being man and being women are absolutely and always mutually exclusive - it that it’s impossible to be both at the same time. Like I said, you could take the whole paragraph and substitute ‘wife’ for ‘man’ and ‘mother’ for ‘woman’ and it would work fine - there would be nothing in there negating the idea that one could at the same time be a wife AND a mother.

 

[aspawloski4th]

fe•male (f m l )
adj.
1.
a. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex; feminine.
*c. Consisting of members of this sex. *See Usage Note at lady.
thefreedictionary.com/female

Does that definition say to you that the individual to be female must be producing ova throughout her lifetime? No, it does not say that! Female who has reached menopause does not appear to be excluded from that definition. Neither is the infant girl.

You have to learn to get your head out of that darn dictionary and think for yourself. The dictionary you are looking at is most likely written long ago when we didn’t know what we know today about sex and gender. Why don’t you look up intersex or hermaphrodite in your dictionary. If those are not in it, the dictionary where you are getting definitions from is big time obsolete.

 

[agangbern]

You’re the one who began by asserting that it’s impossible for such a person to exist. So the onus is on you to prove your position Show us YOUR link that conclusively demonstrates it to be impossible for an individual to have both functioning ovaries and functioning testes.

It is like this: If for example I say, "It is impossible to go to the moon." Do I have to prove to you that it is impossible to go to the moon? No! He who would allege the contrary and say, “It is possible to go the moon”, it is he who has the burden to prove his claim.

Rubbish. You have the burden of proving ANY assertion you make that isn’t self evident, regardless.

*“in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).” *
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

[agangbern]

You have to learn to get your head out of that darn dictionary and think for yourself. The dictionary you are looking at is most likely written long ago when we didn’t know what we know today about sex and gender. Why don’t you look up intersex or hermaphrodite in your dictionary. If those are not in it, the dictionary where you are getting definitions from is big time obsolete.

Don’t get mad at dictionaries. Whether you like it or not dictionaries are already part of the present civilization. There is no need of too much empty talk. Just present here your dictionary if you think the dictionary I used is already obsolete.

 

[LilyM]

"in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data)."
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

But I never even claimed that such a person ACTUALLY existed - I just said that IF such a person existed your definitions would be of no help to them or anyone! You need to learn the difference between hypotheticals and assertions of fact :banghead:

I don’t need to prove hypothetical cases brought up to make a point. You on the other hand positively asserted that there is no such thing as a true intersex person. That puts YOU on the affirmative for YOUR proposition and thus gives you the burden of proof for that proposition. Ie by your assertion you’ve effectively begun a debate where the topic is ‘there is no such thing as true intersex’. Making YOU the affirmative side with the burden of proving the topic. Which you’ve notably failed to do.

 

[agangbern]

What you HAVEN’T shown is that the Catechism states that being man and being women are absolutely and always mutually exclusive - it that it’s impossible to be both at the same time. Like I said, you could take the whole paragraph and substitute ‘wife’ for ‘man’ and ‘mother’ for ‘woman’ and it would work fine - there would be nothing in there negating the idea that one could at the same time be a wife AND a mother.

Just get what it says. There is simply no room for a third gender there.