Would it be immoral to observe a sex-change operation?

[Dale_M]

The Church indeed has issued a ruling on the matter:

hmm… its a news article, from seven years ago, about a leaked secret document. That document is not publicly available, nor has its existence ever been confirmed.

I think the views expressed in the leaked story are credible, and I have no reason to suspect fraud. On the other hand, to say that the Church has issued a ruling on transsexualism seems an overstatement.I suspect the reason the alleged document remains secret is because the Church understands that the science of transsexualism is still poorly understood, and that it would be rash to issue a definitive statement at this time.

 

[Cetil]

I too think the story is credible, and if it was sent to the bishops, then the bishops have been given their orders.
This is something that was already included in the catechism:
"except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law” (No. 2297).
I don’t think there are any moral theologians that would support the morality of such operations. In addition, a California Catholic hospital refused to perform a “breast enhancement” surgery on a male who had such surgery.
"In a prepared statement, Elizabeth Nikels, vice president of communications for the Daughters of Charity, said, "Seton Medical Center provides medically necessary services to all individuals. However, the hospital does not perform surgical procedures contrary to Catholic teaching; for example, abortion, direct euthanasia, transgender surgery or any of its related components.”
calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=b99ab893-0b1a-4ed4-950f-08df39c2b4c3

C.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t think there are any moral theologians that would support the morality of such operations. In addition, a California Catholic hospital refused to perform a “breast enhancement” surgery on a male who had such surgery.

And yet the news story you cited did not say that such surgery was immoral. In fact, it stated that in some cases it was not immoral for a person to get such surgery.

I think the interpretation of the Catechism section you mentioned is reasonable. However, I am not so sure that the Church has taken a definitive stand on the issue.

The hospital you mentioned is right to follow its understanding of Church teaching. But just because the hospital claimed that transgender surgery is against Church teaching doesn’t make it so.

 

[Cetil]

I don’t think an official ruling is really necessary nor can we suggest the Church has an open mind on the subject. I think any moral theologian would argue that such operations result in sterility and the mutilation of sexual organs and are thus forbidden. Father William Saunders of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College has this to say:
“Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.”

Nevertheless, once a person has made the decision to pursue a sexual reassignment, eventually radical surgery is performed which involves, for a male, castration and the construction of a psuedo-vagina; and for a female, mastectomy and hysterectomy, and the construction of a non-functional pseudo-penis and testes. (Cf. Colin Markland, ATranssexual Surgery" in Obstetrics & Gynecology Annual, 1975.) Obviously, such a procedure involves radical and grotesque mutilation of the body.

No transsexual surgery will ever be able to duplicate completely the anatomy or the functioning of the opposite sex. A male transsexual will never be able to ovulate or conceive; and a female transsexual will never be able to germinate sperm. Transsexuals will need to use synthetic hormones continuously to sustain their change, which in turn runs the risk of cancer.

Another moral consideration is whether the condition of transsexualism justifies surgery. No biological cause of transsexualism has been identified. Rather, the cause appears to stem from psychological development, and thereby transsexualism should be treated with psychotherapy. Interestingly, even after surgery, transsexuals need at least some psychotherapeutic support.

Finally, a transsexual will never be able to enter validly into the Sacrament of Matrimony. A man who undergoes sexual reassignment will never really be a woman, or vice versa; rather, a man will be a man (or vice versa), except with a mutilated body and profound psychological disordering. Moreover, a transsexual will never be able to consummate the marriage in the fullest expression of love of husband and wife, and never will there be a real openness to life and the creation of children."
See: catholicherald.com/detail.html?sub_id=4684

The Church will recognize only the gender which was known and recorded at birth. That and given the obvious mutilation involved in such operations, means it is hardly necessary for the Church to issue a “definitive” ruling.

C.

 

[Dale_M]

Father William Saunders of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College has this to say:
“Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.”

Indeed. But at the same time, we are more than our genitals. If transsexualism exists (which medical community accepts), then there a people who have a sexual identity which is at odds with their genitals. Is there reason to say that body trumps the mind?
Certainly birth defects occur, and the Church does not object to the surgical correction of them. Transsexuals frequently claim their condition is a birth defect, and there seems some medical research in support of that claim.

No transsexual surgery will ever be able to duplicate completely the anatomy or the functioning of the opposite sex. A male transsexual will never be able to ovulate or conceive; and a female transsexual will never be able to germinate sperm.

Very true. But such surgery can allow for more effective functioning in society, and increased happiness. Reproduction is not our only purpose in life.

Another moral consideration is whether the condition of transsexualism justifies surgery. No biological cause of transsexualism has been identified.

Oh, not true. A former member of CAF, Zoe Brain has posted extensively on the medical research which indicates biological basis for transsexualism. I think the knowledge is still developing, but it does seem to point to a biological origin.

Finally, a transsexual will never be able to enter validly into the Sacrament of Matrimony.

And yet the Catholic Church has knowingly married transsexuals in the past. A classic example would be the French actress and singer, Coccinelle. In the 1960a, she was married in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris (but was first required to be baptized a second time, so that her name was listed) Less high profile transsexuals have also received Church weddings, including a one-time member of CAF (who hasn’t posted in a few years.) In this latter case, her baptismal certificate was changed to reflect her corrected sex.

Moreover, a transsexual will never be able to consummate the marriage in the fullest expression of love of husband and wife, and never will there be a real openness to life and the creation of children."
See: catholicherald.com/detail.html?sub_id=4684

I find that an interesting claim, but Fr. Saunders doesn’t explain his thinking. Would you have some insight? I would think that a transsexual woman, born with male genitals, but surgically corrected would be able to fully express her womanhood in a loving relationship.

 

[swords99]

Supporting a person or assisting in someone’s desire to be someone other than who God calls them to be is not upholding their dignity. It is leading them to feel even more incomplete and alienating them further from the God who gave them life. How can we know who God is calling a person to be? Well of course we can’t know everything about that. But we do know that God never calls someone to do that which is sinful. God knows exactly what is good for us and what is not. Sin is never good for us regardless of who we are. We are all human beings created by God. We ought to trust Him.

God bless

How do you even know what is God’s will for that person, or what God called them to be? Things can go wrong in the womb. And using the heroin analogy is way off base and unfair. Yes you are passing judgment because you make a distinction between these people and those who have physical birth defects that can clearly be seen. The child with 3 arms or no arms absolutely must have surgery, but the child who has male genitalia but a female brain must live in misery and hide from the world because everyone judges him and tells him he’s a sinner and corrective surgery is a sin! Who are you to say having the surgery will make them feel more incomplete? Will alienate them further from God? Have you looked at the suicide and attempted suicide rate among these people? And DNA doesn’t always give the whole answer. Its been medically proven that the problem lies mostly in the brain. Its the brain that tells us what our sexual identity is. If your brain doesn’t line up with your body then you will never be complete.

Again, you ARE saying sex reassignment surgery is sinful and that being transgendered is sinful.

If these people have a relationship with Jesus Christ and prayed about this, then leave it to God and STOP passing judgment!

 

[swords99]

The Church indeed has issued a ruling on the matter:

VATICAN-TRANSSEXUALS

Jan-14-2003 (710 words) xxxi

Vatican says ‘sex-change’ operation

does not change person’s gender

By John Norton Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – 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.

Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex
listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have
undergone “sex-change” procedures are not eligible to marry, be
ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a
source familiar with the text.

The document was completed in 2000 and sent “sub secretum” (under
secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide
guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear
that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the
congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops’ conferences as
well.

“The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so
superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If
the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains
female,” said the source.

Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the U.S.
bishops’ conference, sent a brief letter to U.S. bishops in October
informing them of the Vatican document and highlighting its
instruction not to alter parish baptismal records, except to make a
notation in the margin when deemed necessary.

“The altered condition of a member of the faithful under civil law
does not change one’s canonical condition, which is male or female as
determined at the moment of birth,” Bishop Gregory wrote.

The Vatican text defines transsexualism as a psychic disorder of
those whose genetic makeup and physical characteristics are
unambiguously of one sex but who feel that they belong to the
opposite sex. In some cases, the urge is so strong that the person
undergoes a “sex-change” operation to acquire the opposite sex’s
external sexual organs. The new organs have no reproductive
function.

The document’s conclusions close one area of controversial
speculation that arose in Italy in the late 1980s when a priest
publicly announced he had undergone a “sex-change” operation.

Given church teaching that only males can be validly ordained
priests, the question posed in newspapers at the time was whether a
priest who undergoes a “sex-change” operation remains a priest –
the answer is “yes” – and whether a woman who undergoes the
procedure can be ordained – “no.”

A Vatican source said the text was prepared largely by Jesuit Father
Urbano Navarrete, now a retired canon law professor at Rome’s
Gregorian University.

In 1997, Father Navarrete wrote an article on transsexualism in an
authoritative canon law journal and has been consulted by the
doctrinal congregation on specific cases involving transsexualism and
hermaphroditism.

The priest, citing confidentiality rules, declined to speak on the
record to Catholic News Service for this story.

The Vatican document’s specific points include:

– 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.

– 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.

– 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.

– 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.

– A conclusion that those who undergo sex-change operations are
unsuitable candidates for priesthood and religious life because of
mental instability.

– 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.

– 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.

END

01/14/2003 2:33 PM ET
Copyright (c) 2003

Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

The catholic church has just shown its ignorance.

 

[swords99]

There is nothing wrong with corrective surgery when the sex of the person is in doubt due to physical defect. However, to undergo an operation to remove perfectly healthy genitalia in order to “feel” more like another gender is a mutilation not a correction. That is what the Church objects to.

“in order to “feel” like another gender…” Again this is ignorance. It has nothing to do with “feeling.” If you were born with male genitalia and your brain is female and you think and behave as a female, then your male genitals are useless and an abhorrence. You will be living a lie your whole life. Never knowing wholeness and completion that everyone else takes for granted.

Perfectly healthy genitals can be totally useless if you have the brain of the opposite gender. I suggest everyone on here stop mimicking what a church says and do the research on your own. Get educated.

Until you have walked in their shoes, stop judging and pretending you know what’s best for them.

 

[Cetil]

Indeed. But at the same time, we are more than our genitals. If transsexualism exists (which medical community accepts), then there a people who have a sexual identity which is at odds with their genitals. Is there reason to say that body trumps the mind?
Certainly birth defects occur, and the Church does not object to the surgical correction of them. Transsexuals frequently claim their condition is a birth defect, and there seems some medical research in support of that claim.

Very true. But such surgery can allow for more effective functioning in society, and increased happiness. Reproduction is not our only purpose in life.

Oh, not true. A former member of CAF, Zoe Brain has posted extensively on the medical research which indicates biological basis for transsexualism. I think the knowledge is still developing, but it does seem to point to a biological origin.

And yet the Catholic Church has knowingly married transsexuals in the past. A classic example would be the French actress and singer, Coccinelle. In the 1960a, she was married in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris (but was first required to be baptized a second time, so that her name was listed) Less high profile transsexuals have also received Church weddings, including a one-time member of CAF (who hasn’t posted in a few years.) In this latter case, her baptismal certificate was changed to reflect her corrected sex.

I find that an interesting claim, but Fr. Saunders doesn’t explain his thinking. Would you have some insight? I would think that a transsexual woman, born with male genitals, but surgically corrected would be able to fully express her womanhood in a loving relationship.

I think if you are going to argue that the mind’s conception of gender identity is the main one, then there is support for the idea that this whole problem is psychological and not physical. That seems to undermine your own argument that there is a “biological basis” here. You are presenting contradictory arguments. You challenge the notion that “body trumps mind” and yet argue later there is a “biological basis”.
Surgical correction of birth defects is one thing, mutilating yourself is quite another. As noted, one does not become biologically of the other gender after such an operation. The “new” sexual organs are not capable of reproduction and the recipients of these surgeries remain dependent on hormone supplements for the rest of their lives. Surely there are some risks to health in hormone supplementation as medical science has already shown. Reproduction is not our only purpose in life, but to render oneself sterile is still morally wrong.
Zoe Brain is banned from this forum which speaks for itself. Nonetheless it does remain true to say that no biological basis exists for the condition and I think you undermine your own argument to say the evidence “points” and “is still developing”. That by itself shows no convincing biological proof has been found.
Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins did a study on the problems of post operation “transsexuals” and found they were overly pre-occupied with sex and none of them showed any interest in babies whatever. That by itself is very strange for someone who says they have now “become” a woman. The men in the study who claimed they were now women often described themselves as lesbians. The majority of them still struggled with emotional issues. relationship issues, and problems at work that were present before the surgery and they were no easier to live with afterwards.
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0093.html

I don’t have any knowledge of Coccinelle’s “wedding” or anyone else’s. I would think if it happened in a Catholic church then it was a local mistake of the French church. The marriage was over in two years and she married twice more, and surely not in the Church. Given her life as an entertainer who sometimes posed nude, I doubt “she” was a Catholic of any real commitment.
Father Saunders’ thinking speaks for itself really. In Catholic teaching the marital act must be open to the transmission of life and since “transgender” persons cannot bear children their is no such possibility, and thus no real giving of oneself to one’s spouse. OK, I think I’m done with this issue now!

C.

 

[Dale_M]

The catholic church has just shown its ignorance.

You are commenting about the Catholic News Service article about a leaked secret document. As I mentioned earlier, this document is still not available to the public and most priests are unaware of it.

As I recall (its been the better part of decade), the Catholic Church drew up this document in response to a priest who had gone through sexual reassignment surgery. Since this surgery immediately raised controversial questions about the priesthood, a quick policy was necessary which would put an end to those questions.

My guess is the reason this document was issued in secret, and remains secret to this day, is because the Church is aware that the scientific understanding of transsexualism is still developing. The past decade has seen ground breaking research which suggests.that transsexualism may develop in utero. However, the very existence of transsexualism is a challenge to some Natural Law theorizing regarding the nature of men and women. The unity of mind, body and soul may need deeper exploration. These raise uncomfortable questions, and its another reason why the Church does not want to rush into a formal decision.

Rather than the document showing ignorance on the part of the Church, I think it was an attempt to call a timeout until the larger issues are sorted through. The document, as reported, reflects a conservative interpretation of Tradition. It was an attempt to prevent harm to the Church.

 

[yankee_drifter]

This is all very interesting in light of the fact that the roman catholic church itself is riddled with sexual deviations. This very church has knowingly allowed abusive priests to remain priests and the members of this church continue to be members, always looking the other way. Your current pope has housed an abusive priest for years which enabled him and his activities to go unchecked.

Yet you all judge transgendered folks who have committed no crime!

 

[Petergee]

“in order to “feel” like another gender…” Again this is ignorance. It has nothing to do with “feeling.” If you were born with male genitalia and your brain is female and you think and behave as a female, then your male genitals are useless and an abhorrence. You will be living a lie your whole life. Never knowing wholeness and completion that everyone else takes for granted.

Perfectly healthy genitals can be totally useless if you have the brain of the opposite gender. I suggest everyone on here stop mimicking what a church says and do the research on your own. Get educated.

Until you have walked in their shoes, stop judging and pretending you know what’s best for them.

If a patient’s brain is suffering from a delusion that is contrary to physical reality, the correct treatment is to try to help the patient escape from his delusion and to see reality.

The physician is not helping the patient by lopping off perfectly healthy organs and grafting on other bits of tissue in order to try to make the patient’s body superficially resemble his delusion! That is a monstrous abuse of the medical profession.

 

[Petergee]

This is all very interesting in light of the fact that the roman catholic church itself is riddled with sexual deviations.

Yes every Catholic (except one) is a sinner just like all the rest of humanity (bar one) and Catholics are subject to all of the same temptations and sins as non-Catholics.

This very church has knowingly allowed abusive priests to remain priests and the members of this church continue to be members,

Yes, the Church is a hospital for sinners. You don’t get kicked out because you commit a sin. If your religion does that, it must have very few members or else a very narrow definition of sin.

always looking the other way.

No, our Church strictly commands us to honestly confess our sins and firmly resolve not to commit them again.

Your current pope has housed an abusive priest for years which enabled him and his activities to go unchecked.

What an absurd lie. Gee if you’re going to tell lies to attack Catholics at least make them slightly plausible.

Yet you all judge transgendered folks who have committed no crime!

Nobody here has judged anybody. There are no such thing as “transgendered folks”.

 

[Dale_M]

I think if you are going to argue that the mind’s conception of gender identity is the main one, then there is support for the idea that this whole problem is psychological and not physical.

Well, no. I was too lazy earlier to look up the research links which Zoe Brain has posted, but here a few:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5066992&postcount=165

As I mentioned earlier, the science is still preliminary but does seem to point to structural and functional differences in brains of transsexual individuals which more closely resemble the brains of the sex they affirm, rather than the one to which they were assigned.

Surgical correction of birth defects is one thing, mutilating yourself is quite another.

Indeed, the two are very different. Surgery which enhances health and functioning is a good thing. If sexual reassignment surgery helps a transsexual live happier and more productive life, then I don’t think it could be considered mutilation. However, to impose such surgery on someone who was not transsexual… yes, that would be mutilation.

Zoe Brain is banned from this forum which speaks for itself.

Although I am sorry whenever someone is banned, I do know that the mods do so for good reason. I am not sure why Zoe was banned, but very often the cause of banning has to do with lack of charity. This all too common fault of internet communication does not invalidate her facts.

Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins did a study on the problems of post operation “transsexuals” and found they were overly pre-occupied with sex and none of them showed any interest in babies whatever.

I’m not sure that interest in babies is somehow a validation of womanhood, or that interest in sex means that a person is not a woman. Both seem to be odd claims, and may reflect as much about the observer as the observed.

Dr. Paul McHugh is a highly acclaimed psychiatrist. However, his experience with transsexuals ended in the early 1970’s, a time of much change in gender roles. Since the term “transsexual” hadn’t been coined until 1966, the counseling community was still sorting out how to determine whether someone was transsexual or not. Formal Standards of Care were not developed until 1990.

Unfortunately, Dr. McHugh apparently formed very strong opinions about transsexuals during the early 1970s and he didn’t bother to keep pace with changes in understanding and treatment. I don’t think he is an informed source, or that his views reflect the medical consensus in the US.

Father Saunders’ thinking speaks for itself really. In Catholic teaching the marital act must be open to the transmission of life and since “transgender” persons cannot bear children their is no such possibility, and thus no real giving of oneself to one’s spouse.

Wait a minute… you aren’t seriously saying that only fertile couples have have an authentic marriage are you? Or that couples who are incapable of having children shouldn’t be married? I know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.

OK, I think I’m done with this issue now!

Okay, I don’t want to tire you out or push you past the point of patience. Thank you for being willing to discuss these matters.

C.

 

[Cetil]

Well, no. I was too lazy earlier to look up the research links which Zoe Brain has posted, but here a few:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5066992&postcount=165

As I mentioned earlier, the science is still preliminary but does seem to point to structural and functional differences in brains of transsexual individuals which more closely resemble the brains of the sex they affirm, rather than the one to which they were assigned.

Indeed, the two are very different. Surgery which enhances health and functioning is a good thing. If sexual reassignment surgery helps a transsexual live happier and more productive life, then I don’t think it could be considered mutilation. However, to impose such surgery on someone who was not transsexual… yes, that would be mutilation.

Although I am sorry whenever someone is banned, I do know that the mods do so for good reason. I am not sure why Zoe was banned, but very often the cause of banning has to do with lack of charity. This all too common fault of internet communication does not invalidate her facts.

I’m not sure that interest in babies is somehow a validation of womanhood, or that interest in sex means that a person is not a woman. Both seem to be odd claims, and may reflect as much about the observer as the observed.

Dr. Paul McHugh is a highly acclaimed psychiatrist. However, his experience with transsexuals ended in the early 1970’s, a time of much change in gender roles. Since the term “transsexual” hadn’t been coined until 1966, the counseling community was still sorting out how to determine whether someone was transsexual or not. Formal Standards of Care were not developed until 1990.

Unfortunately, Dr. McHugh apparently formed very strong opinions about transsexuals during the early 1970s and he didn’t bother to keep pace with changes in understanding and treatment. I don’t think he is an informed source, or that his views reflect the medical consensus in the US.

Wait a minute… you aren’t seriously saying that only fertile couples have have an authentic marriage are you? Or that couples who are incapable of having children shouldn’t be married? I know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that.

Okay, I don’t want to tire you out or push you past the point of patience. Thank you for being willing to discuss these matters.

C.

If the science is “preliminary” by your own admission then there seems little to discuss.
Mutilation of sexual organs whether done by oneself or forcibly by another remains the same thing: Mutilation. And therefore immoral.
I’ve met very few women who were not interested in bearing children; the point remains as McHugh noted that none of the transsexuals in his study had ANY interest in bearing children. That’s very odd. And if you actually read my post I was saying that McHugh found these individuals were “overly” interested sex, not just an interest.
How can you say Zoe Brain had “facts” when you yourself continue to argue the science is preliminary? Again, this is a study in self contradiction on your part.
Dr. McHugh’s studies on “transsexuals” was not published until 1979. That’s not the early 1970’s as you say, is it? He did not even take his position at Johns Hopkins until 1975. I think it is facile to suggest McHugh did not continue to read and consider the problem. In the article I posted which you evidently did not read he pointed out an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 which also casts doubt on the wisdom of “gender change” operations. So much for saying that he formed his opinions early on and never kept up with anything else. But if you think the science remains preliminary as of right now. why should he or anyone else revisit the issue? Again, you are going back and forth saying that the science remains preliminary as of this writing and then saying standards of care were not developed until the 1990’s. If the science is “preliminary” as you say, then how could standards of care be developed? The logic being followed (if it can be called logic) is that science is still not certain of the problem but assuming the “sex change” operations should still be performed.
No, I’m not saying that infertile couples do not have marriages. But those who have voluntarily sterilized themselves have imposed something artificial in the way of the marital act and that is not considered moral by the Church. The Church rejects sterilization, and that is what is accomplished in a “sex change” operation. That by itself is more than enough to reject the procedure.
I believe further resuscitation of this horse is clinically inadvisable and no longer morally obligatory.

C.

 

[jenlovesyu]

I must have not been too clear in my previous posts.

I am not referring to people with birth defects.

I am referring to people who are either genetically male with male reproductive organs or people who are genetically female with female reproductive organs.

I apologize for the misconception. However, I no longer wish to discuss this issue.

Now I will just pray.

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[JaneGrey]

Cetil:
If the science is “preliminary” by your own admission then there seems little to discuss.
Mutilation of sexual organs whether done by oneself or forcibly by another remains the same thing: Mutilation. And therefore immoral.
I’ve met very few women who were not interested in bearing children; the point remains as McHugh noted that none of the transsexuals in his study had ANY interest in bearing children. That’s very odd. And if you actually read my post I was saying that McHugh found these individuals were “overly” interested sex, not just an interest.
How can you say Zoe Brain had “facts” when you yourself continue to argue the science is preliminary? Again, this is a study in self contradiction on your part.
Dr. McHugh’s studies on “transsexuals” was not published until 1979. That’s not the early 1970’s as you say, is it? He did not even take his position at Johns Hopkins until 1975. I think it is facile to suggest McHugh did not continue to read and consider the problem. In the article I posted which you evidently did not read he pointed out an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 which also casts doubt on the wisdom of “gender change” operations. So much for saying that he formed his opinions early on and never kept up with anything else. But if you think the science remains preliminary as of right now. why should he or anyone else revisit the issue? Again, you are going back and forth saying that the science remains preliminary as of this writing and then saying standards of care were not developed until the 1990’s. If the science is “preliminary” as you say, then how could standards of care be developed? The logic being followed (if it can be called logic) is that science is still not certain of the problem but assuming the “sex change” operations should still be performed.
No, I’m not saying that infertile couples do not have marriages. But those who have voluntarily sterilized themselves have imposed something artificial in the way of the marital act and that is not considered moral by the Church. The Church rejects sterilization, and that is what is accomplished in a “sex change” operation. That by itself is more than enough to reject the procedure.
I believe further resuscitation of this horse is clinically inadvisable and no longer morally obligatory.

C.

Many women who in fact have no interest in childbearing feel a pressure to pretend they are due to societal expectations. Speaking from experience. Yes the majority of people (both female and male) desire to have children at some point of their lives, but more than you seem to think do not want to either. Many people do not realise this, but choosing to remain single and childless in the Catholic church is not (or should not be) looked down upon as being odd.

The Church rejects sterilization, but that does not automatically mean that every sterile couple is unable to get married. Depending on circumstances, confession etc the mere fact that one is sterile does not mean marriage is not an option. Whether or not you want to believe transgendered people are genuine or not, the fact is it is a more complicated issue than it seems. Certainly not as clear cut as homosexuality.

 

[Dale_M]

If the science is “preliminary” by your own admission then there seems little to discuss.

Quite the contrary. Because the science is preliminary, there is everything to discuss.

Mutilation of sexual organs whether done by oneself or forcibly by another remains the same thing: Mutilation. And therefore immoral.

If mutilation actually occurred, then yes. However, surgery which enhances functioning can hardly be regarded as mutilation.

I’ve met very few women who were not interested in bearing children; the point remains as McHugh noted that none of the transsexuals in his study had ANY interest in bearing children. That’s very odd. And if you actually read my post I was saying that McHugh found these individuals were “overly” interested sex, not just an interest.

Could you refer me to this study that you mention? I read McHugh’s article, but saw no mention of him conducting a scientific study. Rather, those claims seem to be simply his personal impressions.

How can you say Zoe Brain had “facts” when you yourself continue to argue the science is preliminary? Again, this is a study in self contradiction on your part.

No, its not a contradiction at all. Science only forms conclusions after facts are identified and evaluated. The studies which Zoe Brain provided links to are examples of facts which support the idea that transsexualism has a biological basis. I don’t think the science is conclusive, but there are facts which point in that direction. If you have actual studies which contradict those findings, I welcome reading about them.

I think it is facile to suggest McHugh did not continue to read and consider the problem. In the article I posted which you evidently did not read he pointed out an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2004 which also casts doubt on the wisdom of “gender change” operations.

The studies he mentions (but doesn’t provide citations for) are actually in support of the idea that only the individual affected knows what sex he is. They support they claim that sexual identity can not be assigned by doctors or parents. If anything, those studies undermine his argument that an individual’s sexual identity can be objectively determined.

But if you think the science remains preliminary as of right now. why should he or anyone else revisit the issue?

Revisit? I am not sure that the matter has ever been conclusively decided, although the past 20 years do point to the success of transsexual counseling in enabling persons to live healthier and happier lives.

Again, you are going back and forth saying that the science remains preliminary as of this writing and then saying standards of care were not developed until the 1990’s. If the science is “preliminary” as you say, then how could standards of care be developed?

You are referring to two different things. One is the psychological and medical therapy provided to possible transsexuals. The other is the question of whether there is a biological genesis for transsexualism.

 

[swords99]

If a patient’s brain is suffering from a delusion that is contrary to physical reality, the correct treatment is to try to help the patient escape from his delusion and to see reality.

The physician is not helping the patient by lopping off perfectly healthy organs and grafting on other bits of tissue in order to try to make the patient’s body superficially resemble his delusion! That is a monstrous abuse of the medical profession.

Your ignorance is really showing here. You do not understand gender disphoria at all and referring to them as being delusional is a grave insult. Its amazing how everyone is suddenly an “expert.” Its the BRAIN that identities our sexual identity. Has NOTHING to do with being DELUSIONAL!

Many many years ago institutions thought they were helping transgendered people by forcing them to act, dress, and be the sex they did not identify with. It almost never worked. In fact, many of them suffered greatly This is because the medical world at the time was ignorant. I see many still are.

 

[yankee_drifter]

If a patient’s brain is suffering from a delusion that is contrary to physical reality, the correct treatment is to try to help the patient escape from his delusion and to see reality.

The physician is not helping the patient by lopping off perfectly healthy organs and grafting on other bits of tissue in order to try to make the patient’s body superficially resemble his delusion! That is a monstrous abuse of the medical profession.

I agree with swords99. There are many many babies that are born with some type of “mutilation” or deformity. Babies have been born with half of their genitals or the genitalia of both genders. Have you not read in the Scriptures that some men were born eunuchs by God? The equivalent of castration. God never promised anyone that they will be born in perfect condition.