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

[LilyM]

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

That’s your interpretation, which certainly isn’t proof of anything. I’m certainly familiar enough with the English language to be able to read the Catechism with no problems.

 

[agangbern]

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: .

You should have told us early that what we are talking about here exists only in your mind. This simply is a waste of time indeed. The definition is applicable only to real persons, not those that exist only in dreamworld.

 

[LilyM]

You should have told us early that what we are talking about here exists only in your mind. This simply is a waste of time indeed. The definition is applicable only to real persons, not those that exist only in dreamworld.

People used to think black tulips and blue roses existed only in dreamworld - until clever breeders showed VERY real specimens. People used to think there were no such things as black swans … until they came here to Australia and saw that they are very real.

It’s never a waste of time to consider conditions that MAY exist as well as those that certainly do. It’s something doctors and lawmakers have to consider all the time. It’s not dreaming, it’s sensible allowance for the fact that we don’t presently know all things.

Don’t discount the possibility of such things as true intersexed persons. Again, you’re the one who has asserted the impossibility of their existence which you have yet to prove. And as I have demonstrated, by making a positive assertion you’ve become the affirmative and have the burden of proving the case.

 

[agangbern]

People used to think black tulips and blue roses existed only in dreamworld - until clever breeders showed VERY real specimens. People used to think there were no such things as black swans … until they came here to Australia and saw that they are very real.

It’s never a waste of time to consider conditions that MAY exist as well as those that certainly do. It’s something doctors and lawmakers have to consider all the time. It’s not dreaming, it’s sensible allowance for the fact that we don’t presently know all things.

Don’t discount the possibility of such things as true intersexed persons. Again, you’re the one who has asserted the impossibility of their existence which you have yet to prove. And as I have demonstrated, by making a positive assertion you’ve become the affirmative and have the burden of proving the case.

More empty words…

 

[LilyM]

More empty words…

You’re the one who hasn’t proven your assertions, so you’d be well able to recognise empty words, having produced so many yourself …

 

[agangbern]

You’re the one who hasn’t proven your assertions, so you’d be well able to recognise empty words, having produced so many yourself …

It’s alright. To you, the assertion that “*IT DOESN’T EXIST” * is an affirmative assertion. Keep it up, my friend.

Nice talking with you.

God Bless!

 

[LilyM]

It’s alright. To you, the assertion that “*IT DOESN’T EXIST” * is an affirmative assertion. Keep it up, my friend.

Nice talking with you.

God Bless!

Is English your first language? Have you actually studied debating? If not, what I’m about to say might go over your head.

Look, the ‘affirmative’ in debating terms consists of those speakers who are arguing FOR the truth of a particular statement. It doesn’t mean the statement has to be expressed in the affirmative, it just means the speakers are ‘affirming’ - asserting the truth of - the statement. In other words in a debate, it is the relationship of the speaker to the statement that makes them ‘affirmative’ and gives them the burden of proof, and not the way the statement itself is expressed.

So if a debate has a topic ‘Intersex does not exist’ then those persons who are arguing FOR the proposition - ie arguing that intersex does NOT exist - are actually called ‘the affirmative side’. And THEY have the burden of proof. On the contary,* if *the topic is ‘Intersex DOES exist’, then it is those persons arguing FOR THAT proposition, ie the ones arguing that intersex does exist, that are the ‘affirmative’ and have the burden of proof.

I’m sure everyone on these forums who’s ever done debating - in English - can back me up on this one.

 

[Ryckie]

I would like for all who are reading and writing posts to consider that a person is not just the physical body. The Dear person, Zoe has feelings and so do all the other people that are reading the posts we put up. Ask yourself are you considering that when you are dissecting and arguing over her or any other persons conditions in this format? Are you really acting Christian?

 

[agangbern]

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?

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

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:

You should have told us early that what we are talking about here exists only in your mind. This simply is a waste of time indeed. The definition is applicable only to real persons, not those that exist only in dreamworld.

It’s alright. To you, the assertion that “*IT DOESN’T EXIST” * is an affirmative assertion. Keep it up, my friend.

Look, the ‘affirmative’ in debating terms consists of those speakers who are arguing FOR the truth of a particular statement. It doesn’t mean the statement has to be expressed in the affirmative, it just means the speakers are ‘affirming’ - asserting the truth of - the statement. In other words in a debate, it is the relationship of the speaker to the statement that makes them ‘affirmative’ and gives them the burden of proof, and not the way the statement itself is expressed.

 

[eichenb2]

Sexual intercourse, outside of marriage, is a sinful. The church only sanctions marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. So…you do the math! People in the west makes things so difficult and complicated. God created male and female and from this biological, physiological, and psychological fact, and Sacred Scripture, the Church guides us to good and warns us to avoid evil. Rules are not made for exceptions. Also, a disordered desire that one has is not our entire identity. Otherwise, I, and many other men, would be pushing for a parade that celebrates lust for other woman (who we r not married to). Why not just fall in line with the Church’s teachings on morality? Or as Delmar in “O Brother, where are thou?”, said, “Come on in, boys…the water’s fine”.

 

[agangbern]

I would like for all who are reading and writing posts to consider that a person is not just the physical body. The Dear person, Zoe has feelings and so do all the other people that are reading the posts we put up. Ask yourself are you considering that when you are dissecting and arguing over her or any other persons conditions in this format? Are you really acting Christian?

.
However, all that aside, what exactly is Church teaching on the subject? This is especially important in view of His Holiness’s recent statements demanding respect for Church teaching that there is only male and female, and that the idea of “gender” rather than strict corporeal sex at birth is a danger to Humanity and contradicts God’s natural order.

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

 

[eichenb2]

I’ve been trying to get some guidance here for several years. Requests for assistance are acknowledged, but not answered.

To explain, people born with Intersex conditions have bodies that are neither 100% male nor 100% female. Transsexuality is a kind of Intersex where the neurology, the brain, is mismatched with the rest of the body, or most of the rest of the body, as Transsexuals often have other Intersex conditions too.,

The plain fact is that most if not all organisations that view transsexuality as a moral evil on religious grounds are not aware of any distinction between transsexuality and homosexuality - except to believe that transsexuality is ultra-homosexuality, the most perverse of the perverted and the ultimate in moral degradation.

Unfortunately few have any regard for medical science, or science in general. When one believes the bible is literally true, inerrant, and the sun orbits an earth 6000 years old, any appeal to science is likely to be seen as yet more evidence of evil-utionist conspiracy.

Oddly, the Christian mainstream is one of the few religions that should be more understanding, not less, of Intersexed people (and I include Transsexuality there, as the medical evidence indicates that’s what it is). The first line of Matthew 19:12 mentions the Intersexed - those eunuchs born of their mothers womb - and Isaiah 56:3-5 states categorically that they’re exempt from the normal rules of male and female behaviour. They must do what is pleasing to God and keep the Sabbath - that’s it.

There are those who say that men are born men, women are born women, and Intersex and Transsexuality are illusory. There is no Gender, only Sex, and Sex is defined by what you look most like at birth. They fall silent when confronted by medical conditions such as 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) where apparently female infants masculinise so they become apparently male by their mid-20’s. About 2/3 accept or even welcome the change as a cure for their existing transsexuality, while to the remaining third, it’s a descent into nightmare - they become transsexual women with male bodies.

Perhaps such people, like the blind man in John 9:1-12, are there to show that transsexuality is a medical and biological, not a moral issue. That God does not make mistakes when He decides that some should have bodies of uncertain gender, or have brains of one gender and bodies of another. And that neither condition is the result of moral corruption.

However, all that aside, what exactly is Church teaching on the subject? This is especially important in view of His Holiness’s recent statements demanding respect for Church teaching that there is only male and female, and that the idea of “gender” rather than strict corporeal sex at birth is a danger to Humanity and contradicts God’s natural order.

What do you mean by "Intersexed and Transsexed? Is this a medical fact or is it a feeling that one has? I can say that I feel that I should have a harem of the 12 most beautiful women of various ethnic backgrounds and change them out with new ones, as I see fit. I can also make arguments about how men are created to be polygamous from biology, history, and anthropology. Should this be acceptable? Who would decide? If you think I am making this up; this is the classic Islamic apologetics, used to support concubinage.
Should the Church give approval to this, simply because I pressure them by means of political activism.
Church teachings are clear on disordered homosexual desires. Also, if God creates someone as man or woman (biologically), then that is what you are. Will it be easy to accept this teachings? Truth, sometimes, is hard to handle.
If sceintists discover an adultery gene, should we expect the Church say that adultery is fine (as long as it with full consent)??? That would be absurd!

 

[seekerz]

Can everyone just take a deep breath and do a bit of research before pontificating on the matters being discussed here?

I believe we are being presented with different arguments within a real dilemma. One argument is that sometimes the psychological sex does not match the genital sex - that one I am absolutely not qualified to comment on.

The other argument is that sometimes the physical appearance (genitals etc) do not match the genetic sex (X,Y chromosomes) or that in some cases individuals are born with internal gonads of both sexes or with ambiguous external genitalia. I believe ample evidence exists that such conditions ***are real ***and that those born that way have a difficult struggle with sexual identity.

My plea is that, if we cannot empathize with those engaged in that struggle, we should desist from adding to their confusion.

 

[LilyM]

Can everyone just take a deep breath and do a bit of research before pontificating on the matters being discussed here?

I believe we are being presented with different arguments within a real dilemma. One argument is that sometimes the psychological sex does not match the genital sex - that one I am absolutely not qualified to comment on.

The other argument is that sometimes the physical appearance (genitals etc) do not match the genetic sex (X,Y chromosomes) or that in some cases individuals are born with internal gonads of both sexes or with ambiguous external genitalia. I believe ample evidence exists that such conditions ***are real ***and that those born that way have a difficult struggle with sexual identity.

My plea is that, if we cannot empathize with those engaged in that struggle, we should desist from adding to their confusion.

Exactly - I’d say it’s akin to the struggle people with SSA have over sexual identity. And that saying such an intersexed person must live by the dictates of one set of sexual indicia (be it gonads or chromosomes or what have you) over the many others, physical and psychological, that may conflict with each other and with those primary ones, is akin to, but even more difficult and problematic than, telling someone with SSA that they MUST abide by the dictates of heterosexuality. The difference being that the jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is wholly or partly genetic or biologically determined, whereas intersex is demonstrably both genetically and biologically determined - these people undoubtedly have hormones, chromosomes and/or reproductive organs, of mixed gender.

Achieving a well-ordered (from a Catholic point of view) is possible, where it is possible, only with an enormous amount of work and huge adjustments, and often in terms of what Catholics view as appropriate sexuality is not possible, leaving what? Usually lifelong celibacy and abstinence from sex as the only (and unwillingly chosen) apparent option.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I would like for all who are reading and writing posts to consider that a person is not just the physical body. The Dear person, Zoe has feelings and so do all the other people that are reading the posts we put up. Ask yourself are you considering that when you are dissecting and arguing over her or any other persons conditions in this format? Are you really acting Christian?

I have been trying to get ang to look byond the physical body, to get away from the superficial. It just blows my mind that in the year 2009 someone could be so superficial. With such a high desire for simplicity ang should of been born 1000 years ago, when daily survival took up all of one’s endevour. I don’t care what a distionary says or any other literature, I consider Zoe to be intersex and a woman. many times in history including the present, scientific knowledge does get ahead of the dictionary.

 

[hyflyer64]

Can everyone just take a deep breath and do a bit of research before pontificating on the matters being discussed here?

My plea is that, if we cannot empathize with those engaged in that struggle, we should desist from adding to their confusion.

Thank you so much for trying to add a sense of sanity to this discussion.

I do want to apologize for the length of my following response. I do hope that you all will read through and hopefully do a bit of research. I do have facts and sources to back up what follows and will make it obvious if I’m expressing an opinion. Also I have made BOLD things that I feel are most important.

As posted ealier,I quote from a Vatican released document in 2003.

"After years of study, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that “sex-change” procedures do not change a person’s gender in the eyes of the church.

The Vatican document’s specific points include:
1 An analysis of the moral licitness of “sex-change” operations. It concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will “cure” the patient’s internal turmoil.
2 But a source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.
3 A provision giving religious superiors administrative authority to expel a member of the community who has undergone the procedure. In most cases of expulsion from religious life, the superior must conduct a trial.
4 A recommendation of psychiatric treatment and spiritual counseling for transsexual priests. It suggests they can continue to exercise their ministry privately if it does not cause scandal.
5 A conclusion that those who undergo sex-change operations are unsuitable candidates for priesthood and religious life because of mental instability.
6 A conclusion that people who have undergone a sex-change operation cannot enter into a valid marriage, either because they would be marrying someone of the same sex in the eyes of the church or because their mental state casts doubt on their ability to make and uphold their marriage vows.
7 An affirmation of the validity of marriages in which one partner later undergoes the procedure, unless a church tribunal determines that a transsexual disposition predated the wedding ceremony.
"

What people don’t realize is that this document came out in response to the fact that an Italian priest had a sex change operation back in the late 1980s. It was prepared by Fr.Navarrete a Jesuit priest, now a Cardinal, an expert on canon law.

“specific point” #2.

However, he was not an expert on sexual matters so he turned to some one that was supposed to be. Dr. Paul McHugh of John Hopkins University. McHugh became the Vaticans advisor on sexual matters. John Hopkins was one of the first institutions in the States to do Sexual Reasignment Surgery ( SRS ). “In the late 1970s, the climate began to change. The first signs were seen at Johns Hopkins, where the chairman of the Psychiatry department, Dr. Joel Elkes, was replaced by Dr. Paul McHugh. McHugh saw SRS as unnecessary mutilation, and set out to kill the program. He assigned Dr. John Meyer to do a long-term follow-up study of 50 transsexuals who underwent SRS at Johns Hopkins. Meyer’s report, issued in 1977, claimed that SRS confers no objective advantage in terms of social rehabilitation for transsexuals. Although the paper was widely criticized for methodological flaws, while other studies have shown that Meyer’s study was incorrect in its conclusions. it led to the October 1979 closing of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic.”

Quoting from another source: “Sex- reassignment surgery has proven to be the only successful treatment for these patients, and yet for some reason he ( McHugh ) wishes to deny this. He makes a rather clumsy attempt to justify his position by comparing the treatment of adults who are transsexual with the treatment of children who are intersexed. Ironically, the arguments for one contradict the arguments for the other. Children who are intersexed have traditionally been surgically altered in whatever manner is simplest. This has often resulted in a child who has a male brain being given a female body. As Dr. McHugh points out, such a child is tormented by the attempt to force him to live at odds with his natural inclinations. And yet, he cannot find the compassion to provide treatment to those who, for whatever reason, were born male but whose brains were not sexualized as male in the womb. Even though both groups face the same set of problems, Dr. McHugh sets out to protect one group while effectively punishing the other.”

One only has to do a bit of research to see that Dr. McHugh has continues to disregard and discredit all recent studies in support of “true” transexuality as being a “congenital intersexual condition”!!?? One has to ask, “Why??”.

Bottom line, being transexual and having SRS in not a sin, nor is immoral. Up to 50% of trans teenagers, up to age 20, attempt suicide. Way too many succeed.
Why so many?? It’s not because they are at odds with their desires, it’s because society does not accept them. It makes fun of them. Ridicules, and humiliates them.
Does anyone relate to being “different” when in school??

After surgery, the suicide rate drops to below national average.
Why?? Because they can now blend in and be who they should have been to begin with.

Now when you see words like “feel” and “desire”, they do not really describe the emotions that a transexual experiences. What they and “I” experience/experienced, is a drive that can’t be denied. A voice that can’t be quieted, that has to be answered, or else.
People say that we have a choice! Yes we do!

I chose to live!!

 

[cristininha]

Exactly - I’d say it’s akin to the struggle people with SSA have over sexual identity. And that saying such an intersexed person must live by the dictates of one set of sexual indicia (be it gonads or chromosomes or what have you) over the many others, physical and psychological, that may conflict with each other and with those primary ones, is akin to, but even more difficult and problematic than, telling someone with SSA that they MUST abide by the dictates of heterosexuality. The difference being that the jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is wholly or partly genetic or biologically determined, whereas intersex is demonstrably both genetically and biologically determined - these people undoubtedly have hormones, chromosomes and/or reproductive organs, of mixed gender.

Achieving a well-ordered (from a Catholic point of view) is possible, where it is possible, only with an enormous amount of work and huge adjustments, and often in terms of what Catholics view as appropriate sexuality is not possible, leaving what? Usually lifelong celibacy and abstinence from sex as the only (and unwillingly chosen) apparent option.

Never assume other people are struggling if they are not. Most people adjust to their conditions and are able bodies and can participate equally in society, if the opportunities are open to them. Offering only the option of celibacy to an individual because of an intersex condition is akin to offering only slavery to an individual because of a pigmentation condition.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Thank you so much for trying to add a sense of sanity to this discussion.

I do want to apologize for the length of my following response. I do hope that you all will read through and hopefully do a bit of research. I do have facts and sources to back up what follows and will make it obvious if I’m expressing an opinion. Also I have made BOLD things that I feel are most important.

As posted ealier,I quote from a Vatican released document in 2003.

"After years of study, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that “sex-change” procedures do not change a person’s gender in the eyes of the church.

The Vatican document’s specific points include:
1 An analysis of the moral licitness of “sex-change” operations. It concludes that the procedure could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases if a medical probability exists that it will “cure” the patient’s internal turmoil.
2 But a source familiar with the document said recent medical evidence suggested that in a majority of cases the procedure increases the likelihood of depression and psychic disturbance.
3 A provision giving religious superiors administrative authority to expel a member of the community who has undergone the procedure. In most cases of expulsion from religious life, the superior must conduct a trial.
4 A recommendation of psychiatric treatment and spiritual counseling for transsexual priests. It suggests they can continue to exercise their ministry privately if it does not cause scandal.
5 A conclusion that those who undergo sex-change operations are unsuitable candidates for priesthood and religious life because of mental instability.
6 A conclusion that people who have undergone a sex-change operation cannot enter into a valid marriage, either because they would be marrying someone of the same sex in the eyes of the church or because their mental state casts doubt on their ability to make and uphold their marriage vows.
7 An affirmation of the validity of marriages in which one partner later undergoes the procedure, unless a church tribunal determines that a transsexual disposition predated the wedding ceremony.
"

What people don’t realize is that this document came out in response to the fact that an Italian priest had a sex change operation back in the late 1980s. It was prepared by Fr.Navarrete a Jesuit priest, now a Cardinal, an expert on canon law.

“specific point” #2.

However, he was not an expert on sexual matters so he turned to some one that was supposed to be. Dr. Paul McHugh of John Hopkins University. McHugh became the Vaticans advisor on sexual matters. John Hopkins was one of the first institutions in the States to do Sexual Reasignment Surgery ( SRS ). “In the late 1970s, the climate began to change. The first signs were seen at Johns Hopkins, where the chairman of the Psychiatry department, Dr. Joel Elkes, was replaced by Dr. Paul McHugh. McHugh saw SRS as unnecessary mutilation, and set out to kill the program. He assigned Dr. John Meyer to do a long-term follow-up study of 50 transsexuals who underwent SRS at Johns Hopkins. Meyer’s report, issued in 1977, claimed that SRS confers no objective advantage in terms of social rehabilitation for transsexuals. Although the paper was widely criticized for methodological flaws, while other studies have shown that Meyer’s study was incorrect in its conclusions. it led to the October 1979 closing of the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic.”

Quoting from another source: “Sex- reassignment surgery has proven to be the only successful treatment for these patients, and yet for some reason he ( McHugh ) wishes to deny this. He makes a rather clumsy attempt to justify his position by comparing the treatment of adults who are transsexual with the treatment of children who are intersexed. Ironically, the arguments for one contradict the arguments for the other. Children who are intersexed have traditionally been surgically altered in whatever manner is simplest. This has often resulted in a child who has a male brain being given a female body. As Dr. McHugh points out, such a child is tormented by the attempt to force him to live at odds with his natural inclinations. And yet, he cannot find the compassion to provide treatment to those who, for whatever reason, were born male but whose brains were not sexualized as male in the womb. Even though both groups face the same set of problems, Dr. McHugh sets out to protect one group while effectively punishing the other.”

One only has to do a bit of research to see that Dr. McHugh has continues to disregard and discredit all recent studies in support of “true” transexuality as being a “congenital intersexual condition”!!?? One has to ask, “Why??”.

Bottom line, being transexual and having SRS in not a sin, nor is immoral. Up to 50% of trans teenagers, up to age 20, attempt suicide. Way too many succeed.
Why so many?? It’s not because they are at odds with their desires, it’s because society does not accept them. It makes fun of them. Ridicules, and humiliates them.
Does anyone relate to being “different” when in school??

After surgery, the suicide rate drops to below national average.
Why?? Because they can now blend in and be who they should have been to begin with.

Now when you see words like “feel” and “desire”, they do not really describe the emotions that a transexual experiences. What they and “I” experience/experienced, is a drive that can’t be denied. A voice that can’t be quieted, that has to be answered, or else.
People say that we have a choice! Yes we do!

I chose to live!!

I idnetify with that statement very much. Tahnx for posting.

 

[imacatholic47]

I hate to post this but i am transsexual and 15, because of this i can tell you that both me and my friends who suffer through this have felt horrible through the beginning of puberty often times my friends cut their wrists on purpose. About a month ago i told a therapist then my parents, i still dont know wether to go through these procedures, i know the church will not count these people to the sex they want, but i do believe that it would end my inside turmoil, i wish there was a catholic priest on this site who could tell me if this would be a sin or mutilation of the body, My doctor thinks i may have XXY chromosomes.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Here is the position of a Canon Lawyer, someone rather more knowledgeable than a priest who lacks medical or legal training:

The Church has made a pronouncement that it does not want people who clearly are of one gender to change to another because it is considered mutilation. However, it has not made pronouncements for those whose gender is not biologically/genetically consistent or determined. Your situation puts you into a theological and canonical gray area where morally you are simply called to do the best you can do with the information you have.
…
Another limitation of this system is that for those of us who like certainty the silence seems particularly cold. But I really think that this is such a complex biological issue with such profound life ramifications that giving the individual the freedom to trust their consciences is the best they can do. Unfortunately, this often leaves the individual to cope on the local level with authorities who may have less of an understanding of the issue.

If you do have Kleinfelter syndrome (47xxy Intersex, neither 46xx female nor 47xy male), then the church does not consider surgery to be mutilation. It is silent on the issue, and leaves it up to individual conscience.

If you are transsexual, the situation is less clear, but given the recent evidence that transsexuality is a biological Intersex condition too, rather than a psychiatric condition, then it would not be mutilation if you were definitely transsexual.

Local Ecclesiastical Authorities do not have training in this area, and their advice may be in error due to this ignorance.

Please look through this whole thread, and feel free to contact me on the subject.

I lived for 47 years with your torment. I know what you are going through, and the temptation to end it all. My body changed to the correct sex, naturally, but this is so rare we have no idea how common it is. At least 1 in several million. .

You don’t have to go through what I did. To endure such torment without help is not part of His plan for you.

See a gender specialist - contact me and I can give you some practical help there. Transition may not be right for you, but a course of gonadotrophins - “puberty blockers” - or rather, puberty delayers, will give you the time you need.

There is Hope amidst the Hopelessness. There is Love, and Compassion, despite the cruelty and lack of charity that well-meaning but ignorant people will inevitably show you sometimes.

I cannot know what the right course of action is for you, and only a professionally trained specialist can make the diagnosis. But I do know that God loves you, and that whatever you decide, if you do it honestly and with an open heart, cannot be very wrong.

There is Hope. I’m the proof. That you found this place may be more than mere chance,

Hugs, Zoe