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

[aspawloski4th]

Wait – WHAT?! I’m getting a Bachelors of Science in Physics next year – precisely what did I say? (I may have said that bad science doesn’t matter – citing dozens of studies that are more politically oriented than scientifically oriented, for example. If I recall, that was the context.)
First of all, shame on you. Secondly, read: catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp Do not come across as an ignorant anti-papist.

Galleo’s proposals may have not been perfect, but that did not rise to the level of deserving prison… That was an issue the church should of been flexable or neutral on in the first place. So my example stands. I’m using a specific example to illistrate an attutde. An attitude I’m quite frankly sick and tired of having my nose rubbed in on a canstant basis.

 

[Dale_M]

It’s been a while since I’ve been here, so I’ve forgotten of what you’re accusing me. However, you are wrong about the “bearing false witness” thing: That means where you intentionally lie about something. It does not mean “you say something that wasn’t true”. It means being a false witness, i.e. “I saw this thing happen” when you know you didn’t: it refers to intentionally lying.

Hi Ethereality, welcome back.

Yes, its tough to step back into a long discussion after a long break, especially if the the discussion is heated. Sometimes it feels like being ambushed. But I agree with you that “bearing false witness” does not mean unintentionally spreading wrong information. Intentionality is very much part of the sin.

As for Zoe’s charge that you accused people (presumably transsexuals, although it is unclear from her comment) of evil-doing, I wonder if she is referring to post #216, in which you stated:

The problem I’ve seen surface in this thread is this idea that “sex reassignment surgery” is medically sound, akin to removing a cancerous testicle. It is not. This procedure fixes nothing. It mutilates the body and is thus gravely evil, just like tubal ligations and vasectomies. It is not a procedure that fixes something like a cleft palate; rather, it is done so that the person may masquerade as something he is not.

If this is the comment Zoe is responding to (and its the one which turned up via the Search function), then she is misunderstanding you. The Catholic use of the word “evil” is different from that of mainstream culture.

That’s garbage, dude. My views do not support murder. I understand you’re upset, but you’re not taking it out on me, although that was months ago… I guess that’s why I left: I didn’t want to waste time with a frivolous argument. And, since I don’t recall what the argument was, I guess I’m done with it.

I realize that what you are calling frivolous is the accusation that you condone murder. A casual reader might think you are referring to the whole discussion of transsexualism as being frivolous, which I don’t think is your intent. If I read correctly, you yourself have transsexual feelings, is that right?

I understand your concern about sex change as being contrary to the Catholic teaching about body and soul being one. But I wonder if that really is the issue, since soul doesn’t equal mind. To me it seems that transsexualism involves a body/mind disagreement rather than a body/soul conflict.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

I understand your concern about sex change as being contrary to the Catholic teaching about body and soul being one. But I wonder if that really is the issue, since soul doesn’t equal mind. To me it seems that transsexualism involves a body/mind disagreement rather than a body/soul conflict.

Rather, it’s a body/body disagreement. Part of the body is mostly masculinised, part is mostly feminised.

The essence of the problem is caused by trying to coerce a complicated reality into a simplistic binary model.

I recommend reading through the rather long explanation for the decision in the case (PDF).

In this case, the issue is whether Kevin, a post-operative female to male transsexual person, is a man. Each party made submissions on the basis that Kevin is either a man or a woman. Some writers point out that in some ways at least, this dichotomy is socially constructed, and can be regarded as part of the problem. Thus one writer refers to “the inadequacy of our society’s two-sex, two-gender system of organising and regulating sexual identity”. From this point of view, it could be argued that the problem of assigning one sex or other to transsexuals is caused in part by social arrangements that require them to be assigned to one category or the other. Thus one writer proposes that we “make one of the fundamental human rights not the answer to the question “Am I a man or a woman”, but the right not to have the question asked at all”.

Others would argue that a departure from the two-sex approach is unlikely. As Douglas Smith put it in a seminal article:-

*The cultural, religious and moral assumptions that man can be divided into two clearly identifiable and distinct sexes quite naturally became embedded in the law despite its inaccuracy… The modern approach considers human sex to be a continuum ranging from the nonexistent “pure” female to “pure” male…

It is probably impractical for the law to abandon the two-sex assumption. The law must deal with social practicalities, not medical niceties, and most people are clearly male or clearly female…*

From a Catholic Theological viewpoint, it is my impression that all people are either male or female, (with eunuchs, or at least “eunuchs born of their mothers womb” as a partial exception.)

This models biological reality well enough for most purposes. It works perfectly for 59 people out of 60.

While in the case of some Intersex conditions. I would argue that the classification “eunuchs born of their mothers womb” is the only rational one to adopt, I will accept for the purposes of this debate that this does not apply to transsexuals. That all trans people are legally and theologically (if not biologically) either male or female, not both, not neither.

So how do we determine this? Do we have a right to arbitrarily assign a sex at random? Do we have the right to examine chromosomes, and size of genitalia, and presence or absence of glands or hormone levels, or chromosomes, or even neurological configuration, and then arrogantly command someone to conform to what we tell them we have decided for them? What gives us this authority?

I will accept, again for the purposes of debate, that the Church has this authority. I do not however, accept that the decision can be arbitrary, based on a coin toss. There must be some justification for it.

One very obvious and merciful solution would be to ask a person in this position what sex they are, and then to accept that. Obvious, merciful, but is it* Right*?

Other solutions might be to come up with some sort of formula, length of genitalia 1.00001 inches and he’s male, 0.999999 inches and she’s female, but that just begs the question - why? And what happens at 1.00000 inches? Do we toss a coin? And can we truly look at just one criterion, and ignore all the others? What happens if the universal consequences of our decision lead to such intense misery, misery caused by biological reality, that many die from it? That would be powerful, and to me conclusive, evidence that our criteria were wrong.

I think that there is a way out of this conundrum, one consistent with justice and mercy, and biological reality too. We go with the neurology. The brain, and hence the mind.

Others may differ - but if so, they should be prepared to justify their arguments on both theological and biological grounds. And in accordance with 1 Corinthians 13.

And if they accuse others of a “masquerade” but are unprepared to offer any justification for their accusation, then that is indeed bearing false witness. Saying something you know to be false, or have a reckless disregard for whether it is or not.

 

[Liraco]

Do we toss a coin? And can we truly look at just one criterion, and ignore all the others?

I think that there is a way out of this conundrum, one consistent with justice and mercy, and biological reality too. We go with the neurology. The brain, and hence the mind.

And if they accuse others of a “masquerade” but are unprepared to offer any justification for their accusation, then that is indeed bearing false witness. Saying something you know to be false, or have a reckless disregard for whether it is or not.

It would seem that Ethereality is confusing the difference between someone who’s seen as “transexual” (people who clearly are of one gender [who want] to change to another) and those who are medically intersexed (by definition, your gender is ambiguous). As has already been said, the church is against one as it’s seen as mutilation but has nothing to say on the other likely because it’s something that is only recently being demonstrated scientifically.

If Ethereality were to really understand the issue I doubt he’d call those who are intersexed as “masquerading”. In fact most ARE masquerading because they’ve been forced to act as something they’re not, and what they seek is to no longer have to live a farce, correct?

I agree that we should definitely come to a way of determining one’s gender when children are detected to have this condition to spare them this distress. As you’ve pointed out, Zoe in the case of David Reimer, living as something your body tells you you’re not leads to disaster.

(I hope I can make this point correctly.)
I do see a possible problem stemming from determining gender or rather something being piggy-backed on this issue which are really entirely different subjects: homosexuality.

It’s one thing to have your body be in harmony in terms of gender identity, but it’s another to bring in “sexual preference” as something that defines your identity. In this regard, sex is being given so much emphasis by our culture nowadays that it’s seen as something that defines the kind of person you are, and it shouldn’t be the case. There lies the problem, with people who might abuse this to justify homosexuality as being perfectly normal and acceptable when that’s not the issue being dealt with at all. (To clarify, even if one is born homosexual, I think it’s the sexual act that is wrong.)

In any case, the issue on the intersexed isn’t “religion vs. science”, but rather an issue of understanding which I hope continues developing to better help those afflicted. A matter that can affect the rest of a person’s life should definitely not be arbitrary, which is why the Church has ONLY made a declaration in regards to those who seek to be something they’re not by mutilating their bodies.

The issue here is people who are in fact living as what they know they’re not. Keep in mind that the Church is never quick to decide on matters until it knows all it can, so please be patient. In any event, the Church never has and doesn’t condone any sort of hatred towards anyone (but many of her people don’t listen).

Zoe, while we are meant to be male and female to complement one another, those who are “ambiguous” have a purpose too (we ALL do which is why we’re here.) Not everyone is called to marriage, and even those who are married are not all called to bear their own children (there’s always adoption).

The problem seems to be that we seem think we’re entitled to have all that we want at any cost (or to not have, especially in the case of abortion). This is the essence of sin, when we say no to God and yes to our selfish whims. Of course that’s also why we’re still alive, another chance to repent from said rebellion and to be right with Him.

Sorry for the long rant, I hope this made sense and came off right (I guess I’ll know by the reactions).​

@Aspalowski, I do recommend you read that link on Galileo again with a calm mind and ignoring Ethereality and this thread. We all know that things could have been handled better but the Church has already apologized for that. Do keep in mind Galileo did a lot more than merely propose a theory (which would have been fine).

 

[Gretta1]

You got it, Lyraco. That wasn’t a rant, that was a really good explanation and made sense to me, at least IMO.

 

[ethereality]

Read it for your self, you are saying science is irrelevent. I rest my case.

Ah, no. I was saying scientific definitions do not define reality. “Irrelevant” in this context means that reality does not care what we say about it.

 

[aspawloski4th]

One way to find reality of somethings is science Science isn’t what we have to say, it’s what we discover.

 

[ethereality]

One way to find reality of somethings is science Science isn’t what we have to say, it’s what we discover.

Unfortunately, we do not practice the ideal you’ve mentioned. (Kinda like how the government is supposed to serve the people and protect morality and so on, but it has corruption.)

As Ben Stein discusses in his film Expelled, science is also political. Politics influences what topics are studied, how they’re studied, and even persuades which conclusions are accepted from a given set of data. Conclusions A and B are both possible, given the data, but we’ll promote conclusion A. Well, why conclusion A and not B? Do the reasons involve research grants or popularity? I’ve not followed climate change too carefully, but I’ve heard it’s a great example. Galileo is also a great example; I’m glad you’ve mentioned him. As that article I referenced states, Galileo’s theory, while eventually accepted, was ridiculed by the majority of his fellow scientists. When I say “politics” I do not just mean politicians: Scientists also have political sway over one another. Scientists with a lot of clout like Einstein come out for or against something, and it influences what is studied and how it’s studied.

There are more examples, such as drug research, that I could go into, but I hope I’ve made my point. My point is that we must think critically when presented with any given “scientific study”. Just because the word “science” is slapped in front of it doesn’t make it authoritative; it does not even promise validity.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Unfortunately, we do not practice the ideal you’ve mentioned. (Kinda like how the government is supposed to serve the people and protect morality and so on, but it has corruption.)

As Ben Stein discusses in his film Expelled, science is also political. Politics influences what topics are studied, how they’re studied, and even persuades which conclusions are accepted from a given set of data. Conclusions A and B are both possible, given the data, but we’ll promote conclusion A. Well, why conclusion A and not B? Do the reasons involve research grants or popularity? I’ve not followed climate change too carefully, but I’ve heard it’s a great example. Galileo is also a great example; I’m glad you’ve mentioned him. As that article I referenced states, Galileo’s theory, while eventually accepted, was ridiculed by the majority of his fellow scientists. When I say “politics” I do not just mean politicians: Scientists also have political sway over one another. Scientists with a lot of clout like Einstein come out for or against something, and it influences what is studied and how it’s studied.

There are more examples, such as drug research, that I could go into, but I hope I’ve made my point. My point is that we must think critically when presented with any given “scientific study”. Just because the word “science” is slapped in front of it doesn’t make it authoritative; it does not even promise validity.

Beleive me Im highly scientific and highly critical thinker. Im a degreed meteeorologist and a degreed geographer. On the science end I know the technical aspect of radio and tv very well. The concusion I come up with when dealing with human biology and physieology, in dealing with transsexualism is nothing but critical ,scientific, logical thinking. I have boned up on the subject for a good 1/3 of a century from many angles.

 

[ethereality]

That’s good; we need more people who value critical thinking.

 

[ethereality]

It would seem that Ethereality is confusing the difference between someone who’s seen as “transexual” (people who clearly are of one gender [who want] to change to another) and those who are medically intersexed (by definition, your gender is ambiguous). As has already been said, the church is against one as it’s seen as mutilation but has nothing to say on the other likely because it’s something that is only recently being demonstrated scientifically.

If Ethereality were to really understand the issue I doubt he’d call those who are intersexed as “masquerading”. In fact most ARE masquerading because they’ve been forced to act as something they’re not, and what they seek is to no longer have to live a farce, correct?

We’re on the same page, Liraco … I did not confuse the two cases. My comments were addressing only those who were clearly physically male or female who, through a mental problem, desired to be otherwise. (The solution for such people is therapy and prayer and whatnot, not surgery.)

 

[Liraco]

My apologies on my own confusion, Ethereality.

And yes, we do need more critical thinkers in the field of science as recent politics has shown us how illogical decisions can be like embryonic stem cell research vs. the alternatives that DO shown results.

 

[ethereality]

Yes, that’s another example of politics corrupting science, kind of like the example of abortion performers (like the recent Dr. Tiller, may God have mercy on him) exemplifying politics corrupting medicine.

A more relevant example of politics corrupting medicine, though, would be with children suffering from gender identity disorder. Oprah or some stupid talk show did a special on “transgendered children” (ones who were physically properly formed) and focused on one seven year old in particular who was threatening to harm himself.

Instead of the proper course of action – medicinal action, investigation of hormones and so on, physical and mental therapy to correct the disorder – the show went in completely the wrong direction, with the parents going, “Well, we just let him dress up as a girl at school; it’s what makes him happy, and it’s gotten him in trouble at school, but we’re still working on tolerance issues,” (he used a unisex guest restroom near the office, rather than the boys’ room, since he was not allowed to use the girls’ room) and for that seven year old, they were looking into sex mutilation surgery for him before he turned 13.

It was horribly tragic; I guess they need prayer, but I don’t know how long ago the show (which I saw like two years ago) was filmed. I should do more reading, to see how many who undergo such mutilation surgery later regret it, but I imagine such research is immensely difficult. It’s like studies of abortion; the statistics would make me think at first glance that religious people murder their unborn children more than nonreligious people, but then I consider all the factors that are not included by the surveys: How much more sinful practice goes on: oral and anal masturbation, contraception, pill abortifacients that the study cannot estimate; so, while some could conclude from the survey, “See, atheists care more for unborn children than Christians”, it is equally reasonable to think that atheists more effectively and more frequently murder their unborn children. (The media doesn’t like to talk about the surveys illustrating that Western population is decreasing “at an alarming rate” due to the contraceptive mentality.) I’ve heard studies on homosexuality are also difficult, for similar reasons (getting good data and remaining unbalanced). I surmise studies of post-operational people are likewise incomplete, with the problem still present, but manifest in different ways. I imagine it’s like a man with an addiction to pornography; getting married does not make it go away.

I suppose I should check out my college’s electronic research library; do you know of reputable human physiology, sexuality and reproduction magazines, besides Human Reproduction?

 

[Dale_M]

Oprah or some stupid talk show did a special on “transgendered children” (ones who were physically properly formed) and focused on one seven year old in particular who was threatening to harm himself.

Instead of the proper course of action – medicinal action, investigation of hormones and so on, physical and mental therapy to correct the disorder – the show went in completely the wrong direction, with the parents going, "Well, we just let him dress up as a girl at school; it’s what makes him happy

Ethereality, could you provide more information about what you call the proper treatment of “transgender children”? What medicinal action should be taken? How are hormones involved? Physical therapy - what do you mean?

I am guessing when you refer to mental therapy you are referring to rewarding gender-congruent behavior and identity and punishing gender-discongruent behavior and identity. But I welcome hearing more about your views on this matter, too.

 

[Liraco]

Judging by his recent posts I would imagine that he’s talking about a more in-depth analysis of what’s going on with the child to determine a proper course of action.

It would seem prudent to take things slowly and as opposed to what was suggested in the Oprah show (having the boy just go through one massive surgical reconstruction, essentially mutilating his body).

Zoe’s post seems to indicate that her son also needed to go through some surgery but taking things slowly to ensure everything’s in working order as opposed to simply “looking” the part.

Or am I wrong in my assumption?

 

[melissa1980]

Judging by his recent posts I would imagine that he’s talking about a more in-depth analysis of what’s going on with the child to determine a proper course of action.

It would seem prudent to take things slowly and as opposed to what was suggested in the Oprah show (having the boy just go through one massive surgical reconstruction, essentially mutilating his body).

Zoe’s post seems to indicate that her son also needed to go through some surgery but taking things slowly to ensure everything’s in working order as opposed to simply “looking” the part.

Or am I wrong in my assumption?

I believe Zoe indicated an approach akin to your writing, her hope in the care of her son being to take things slowly to ensure everything was in working order and for the best interests of him. Such a concept is embedded in the current standards of care pertinent to transsexed individuals for the purpose of avoiding rush to the finish line care.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I believe Zoe indicated an approach akin to your writing, her hope in the care of her son being to take things slowly to ensure everything was in working order and for the best interests of him. Such a concept is embedded in the current standards of care pertinent to transsexed individuals for the purpose of avoiding rush to the finish line care.

Steady as she goes is a very logical way to go about it.

 

[hyflyer64]

We’re on the same page, Liraco … I did not confuse the two cases. My comments were addressing only those who were clearly physically male or female who, through a mental problem, desired to be otherwise. (The solution for such people is therapy and prayer and whatnot, not surgery.)

Around and around we go!
Good lord, how many times do we have to go over and over the same ground.

If it has a penis, then it has to be male, no ands, ifs, or buts about it.
TS is a mental problem solved by therapy and prayer.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a black and white world.
It isn’t Ethereality. There are a lot of gray and foggy areas. You’re not the only one that has thought ( and wished ) that the “solution” was just a matter of prayer and therapy. So many have tried and tried and tried. So many have died in the process.

At least in attempting to be “normal”, you didn’t go and get married. It’s bad enough to face this without involving others.

I pray for all those who are facing this challange.

BTW, I was tested by a psychiatrist, outside the TG practice arena. After several hours, his conclusion was that I was very mentaly competant. One of the most sane people he had seen, in his office, in a long time.

God Bless,
Rachel

 

[aspawloski4th]

Around and around we go!
Good lord, how many times do we have to go over and over the same ground.

If it has a penis, then it has to be male, no ands, ifs, or buts about it.
TS is a mental problem solved by therapy and prayer.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a black and white world.
It isn’t Ethereality. There are a lot of gray and foggy areas. You’re not the only one that has thought ( and wished ) that the “solution” was just a matter of prayer and therapy. So many have tried and tried and tried. So many have died in the process.

At least in attempting to be “normal”, you didn’t go and get married. It’s bad enough to face this without involving others.

I pray for all those who are facing this challange.

BTW, I was tested by a psychiatrist, outside the TG practice arena. After several hours, his conclusion was that I was very mentaly competant. One of the most sane people he had seen, in his office, in a long time.

God Bless,
Rachel

The prayer and therapy routine is getting old. It’s always said in generallitys If you tell me that sex change surgery is wrong, give me specifics on what to do. They don’t give specifics because there is no therapy that changes the gender of the mind or make one comfortable with the sex of their body when they are clearly not. It’s never had existed and never will.

 

[melissa1980]

In my history my parents before me and then I pursued every therapy imaginable mentioned in prior posts on this and other threads enduring at one point hospitalization followed by the everlasting pain and anguish produced either by the therapies themselves or by the disquiet in my brain body/whole body discontinuity. The psychotherapeutic bent toward counseling, religious counseling and healing opportunities, medical therapies to overcome prior depression medicinally, and all of this was based upon the archaic notion that the manifestation was psychological or sin based possession and I tried through attempts at obedience to buy into that train of thought commencing in the late sixties and progressing through a crisis period a few years ago.

At long last, my caregivers showed me the path to reconciling body brain to body whole and HRT was commenced. In reality they had explained and pointed me in the direction of that therapy many years ago, but I tried in vain to resist for reasons personal to me. Immediately upon commencing HRT I settled in. The path leads through a lot of thorny places, but I now feel much more at peace. My caregivers while pronouncing on my stability also noted that if the HRT had not been inappropriate for me, it would have been very apparent from the first administration of the medicinal therapy by way of a negative reaction. To date, no effective treatment was found for me until proceeding with the commencement of transitional work with HRT.

I participate in this thread looking for the Church position on intersexed and transsexed, and yet I feel at peace in my relationship with God regardless of any stated Church position, and yes, I still pray about my approach and its ultimate outcome.