Christian view on Transexualism

Selkies

My parents are Evangelical Christians, I once was, not any more.
I'm transgendered, I have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder by a clinical psychiatrist. This means that for a long time I've felt at odds with my male parts. To the point where I want to go on hormones and go for surgery.

In many ways this will have a negative effect on my life, I'm aware of a lot of them and I'm happy that this is the right decision.

And I know that my parents are going to have a big problem with this, but I was wondering if what Christians here think of someone transitioning to be female. Do you see it as a sin?

Looking forward to hearing your point of view,
thanks in advance.

StanMcConnell

First of all, well done. It seems like you've got a tough road ahead and that takes bravery.

I don't believe there is one single Christian view on Transexualism, just a lot of individual views. This is because it's not really something that's found in the Bible and generally when Bible use the Bible to judge against it, its because of of their own fears or prejudices.

I personally fully accept transsexualism. I've tried to educate myself on it and have had a little bit of engagement with the trans* community and friends. However, I feel like in Christian circles, I'm probably in minority in that sense.

I'll recommend a film that might give you some perspective. It's called, 'For the Bible Tells Me So'. It available on YouTube and Netflix. It's more focused on homosexuality, but as far as Christianity goes, a lot of the issues are the same.

I'd encourage you to go slow with your parents and try to educate them on the issues as much as possible. I wish the best for you as you go down this road.

looksee

If you had been born as one of conjoined twins would Christians get involved with whether you should be separated? If you needed a blood transfusion would you care because one sect says you should not have it? Would it be of any concern to Christians if you had been born with a defective heart and needed a transplant or a pacemaker?

Before anyone starts picking holes in the comparisons, I am not trying to draw a direct parallel between any of these situations and transexualism, I am trying to point out that it really doesn't matter what Christians think so long as it is legal and benefits you. Some of them will object, and it will come down solely to the fact that sex is involved, as against twins or blood or heart issues.

Some people who are not Christians will also have negative opinions for the same reasons.

There will also be people, Christians and non-Christians, who have the opposite view.

Do you need to allow any of them to judge you? Do what is right for you. Good luck.

PDN

Selkies wrote: »

My parents are Evangelical Christians, I once was, not any more.
I'm transgendered, I have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder by a clinical psychiatrist. This means that for a long time I've felt at odds with my male parts. To the point where I want to go on hormones and go for surgery.

In many ways this will have a negative effect on my life, I'm aware of a lot of them and I'm happy that this is the right decision.

And I know that my parents are going to have a big problem with this, but I was wondering if what Christians here think of someone transitioning to be female. Do you see it as a sin?

Looking forward to hearing your point of view,
thanks in advance.

Given that you have elsewhere claimed to be asexual, I don't see that we are talking with a sin issue. Christian morality on this kind of issue generally deals with sexual actions, rather than some notion of sexual identity.

I am wondering, however, as to why you're posting about this in the Christianity Forum. Your previous track record of posts in A&A deriding and mocking Christianity causes me to question whether you are really seeking genuine advice or discussion, or whether you're just spoiling for a fight. I hope my suspicions are unfounded!

Selkies

PDN wrote: »

Given that you have elsewhere claimed to be asexual, I don't see that we are talking with a sin issue. Christian morality on this kind of issue generally deals with sexual actions, rather than some notion of sexual identity.

I remember someone having some interpretation of Paul's writings that it was actually saying that for a man to be effeminate is immoral rather than for a man to have sex with another man. Not sure how valid it was.

The reason I'm asexual (no sexual orientation), I think, is because the idea of having sex as a man disturbs me.

I'm dating someone who is transitioning the opposition (I'm MTF (Male to Female) and he is FTM ( Female to Male).
The quirky thing about this from a Christian POV I guess is that if you think of me as female and him as Male, then we are "straight", if not then we are still "straight". Hopefully this is going to last.

PDN wrote: »

I am wondering, however, as to why you're posting about this in the Christianity Forum. Your previous track record of posts in A&A deriding and mocking Christianity causes me to question whether you are really seeking genuine advice or discussion, or whether you're just spoiling for a fight. I hope my suspicions are unfounded!

I figured someone might look at my posting history before responding.
I'm not looking for a fight; I guess you can take my word from now exercise caution and build up trust when a fight doesn't develop

But you are right, I have a lot of animosity for religion, but I guess I'd like for my parents to accept me one day, finding out how Christians view this from people who are not directly involved may help me avoid the religious arguments and focus on our relationship.

I might be wrong but it's worth a shot.

Selkies

StanMcConnell wrote: »

First of all, well done. It seems like you've got a tough road ahead and that takes bravery.

Thanks... but worth noting

Natalie Reed wrote:

7. You’re so brave!
No. That’s a lovely idea, it is, and thank you. I do appreciate the sentiment and we often enjoy hearing that kind of thing. It’s an enormously tempting idea, too, and hard to give up. It would be terrific to believe that I’m this wonderfully brave, courageous, strong woman who overcame unimaginable odds to assert her true self without compromise to a hostile, bigoted world. But it just isn’t true. We aren’t brave. We’re scared ****less and in tremendous pain and desperate for a way out, and don’t really have much of a choice.
Imagine you’re being chased by a pack of snarling wolves through a darkened, stormy forest. They’re nipping at your heels, just behind, barking and growling with long strings of saliva dangling from their bared fangs. Your body is aching and sore and straining against the exhaustion, just barely maintaining your sprint through a combination of adrenaline and the terrifying certainty of death should you give in.
Somewhere in the darkness and gloom you suddenly catch a glimpse of light. You run towards it, screaming for help as best you can through your bursting, panting lungs. It is a cabin. You finally make it to the door, you throw it open, and just in nick of time as one of the wolves lunges for your throat, you slam the door shut behind you. At last you’ve escaped. You’re safe.
Inside the cabin sits a friendly old man smoking a pipe and mulling some wine. As you stand there, shaking and gasping for breath and crying and terrified out of your wits, he smiles and says, “wow, you’re really brave.”
Some of us are brave. Some of us are strong. But that’s not always the case, and can’t necessarily be inferred from our transition. We do what we have to do, however we can, no matter how scared we are.
But on the other hand, as it was articulated in Black Swan Green by David Mitchell, one of my favourite novels:
“Courage is being scared ****less and doing it anyway.”

StanMcConnell wrote: »

I don't believe there is one single Christian view on Transexualism, just a lot of individual views. This is because it's not really something that's found in the Bible and generally when Bible use the Bible to judge against it, its because of of their own fears or prejudices.

I personally fully accept transsexualism. I've tried to educate myself on it and have had a little bit of engagement with the trans* community and friends. However, I feel like in Christian circles, I'm probably in minority in that sense.

I'll recommend a film that might give you some perspective. It's called, 'For the Bible Tells Me So'. It available on YouTube and Netflix. It's more focused on homosexuality, but as far as Christianity goes, a lot of the issues are the same.

I'd encourage you to go slow with your parents and try to educate them on the issues as much as possible. I wish the best for you as you go down this road.

Yes that's what I'm trying to do re: my parents, I will have a look at the video, thanks for the post nice to hear

Fanny Cradock

I think that the thread entitled "Christian view on Transsexuals" might be of use

Short answer - there is no single Christian view on transsexualism.

Fanny Cradock

We also have this one. I'm not sure you will hear much different to the views already expressed on these threads.

Selkies

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We also have this one. I'm not sure you will hear much different to the views already expressed on these threads.

thanks will read through those

Selkies

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We also have this one. I'm not sure you will hear much different to the views already expressed on these threads.

I had actually completely forgotten about that thread.

Fanny Cradock

Selkies wrote: »

I had actually completely forgotten about that thread.

Hehe. Thought as much.

qrrgprgua

Selkies wrote: »

My parents are Evangelical Christians, I once was, not any more.
I'm transgendered, I have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder by a clinical psychiatrist. This means that for a long time I've felt at odds with my male parts. To the point where I want to go on hormones and go for surgery.

In many ways this will have a negative effect on my life, I'm aware of a lot of them and I'm happy that this is the right decision.

And I know that my parents are going to have a big problem with this, but I was wondering if what Christians here think of someone transitioning to be female. Do you see it as a sin?

Looking forward to hearing your point of view,
thanks in advance.

Good question!.. What is a sin.

Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

If you are a single man who does not have a family.. well to put on a womans dress is not a sin.

have surgery to remove your male parts would technically make you a eunuch. Also not a sin...

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."


I am no theologian but I would not rush to call you a sinner.


A guy a work last year became a woman.. Was so strange the first week. But she is a lot happier now and nobody cares.

JimiTime

Selkies wrote: »

My parents are Evangelical Christians, I once was, not any more.
I'm transgendered, I have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder by a clinical psychiatrist. This means that for a long time I've felt at odds with my male parts. To the point where I want to go on hormones and go for surgery.

In many ways this will have a negative effect on my life, I'm aware of a lot of them and I'm happy that this is the right decision.

And I know that my parents are going to have a big problem with this, but I was wondering if what Christians here think of someone transitioning to be female. Do you see it as a sin?

Looking forward to hearing your point of view,
thanks in advance.

TBH, hermaphrodites exist, and if this disorder exists, then tbh, as much as I can't comprehend it etc, I'd have to be sympathetic. I would have my doubts that such a disorder should be treated by making a man into a faux-woman, or a woman into a faux man (Pardon the language, I don't mean it to offend, but I wont be condescending about it by beating around the bush). I would have thought trying to treat the mind to accept the body would be the way forward, afterall that would make things harmonious. Whereas, surgically removing a penis and making a faux vagina etc, does not a woman make. It will simply be a man with their penis removed etc. Anyway, thats probably for another discussion. At the end of the day, its a complex issue. No doubt there are lines that can be crossed, in a Godly sense, but where those lines are I don't know at this moment. I just hope that once God is put first in terms of will, then God will reveal the line. The danger in all of these types of situations, is that a persons desire comes first.

Onesimus

here is the Catholic view on transgender.

Selkies

Onesimus wrote: »

here is the Catholic view on transgender.

Any idea what he means by feelings?

Is he under the impression that this is akin to feeling like a steak when you only have an Indian curry?
Or feeling like you want to run holding a kite?

The word is kind of ambiguous, especially so as I can't distinguish this from a feeling that I imagine he would appreciate, the feeling of God's presence, or the feeling that you are being called to become a priest.

Maybe someone can explain more clearly.

Onesimus

Selkies wrote: »

Any idea what he means by feelings?

Is he under the impression that this is akin to feeling like a steak when you only have an Indian curry?
Or feeling like you want to run holding a kite?

The word is kind of ambiguous, especially so as I can't distinguish this from a feeling that I imagine he would appreciate, the feeling of God's presence, or the feeling that you are being called to become a priest.

Maybe someone can explain more clearly.

Just drop Fr.Vincent a question. simply register on the forum, go to the ''ask a apologist section'' then use the submission form to ask your question. Explain that you have read his response and Ask him to clarify what it is he means when he talks about feelings and what the difference is. It's an interesting question Selkie.

JimiTime

Selkies wrote: »

Any idea what he means by feelings?

Is he under the impression that this is akin to feeling like a steak when you only have an Indian curry?
Or feeling like you want to run holding a kite?

The word is kind of ambiguous, especially so as I can't distinguish this from a feeling that I imagine he would appreciate, the feeling of God's presence, or the feeling that you are being called to become a priest.

Maybe someone can explain more clearly.

I can't be sure, but tbf, the context would suggest its not akin to wanting a steak rather than a curry and more akin to compulsion. For example, people who suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder, have a compulsion to have certain limbs removed. Removing these perfectly good limbs is allegedly at present the treatment that makes the sufferer of the disorder happiest. Anyone can see however, that such an action is ethically questionable in that it mutilates the person, leave them wheelchair bound, armless etc, and quite plainly only addresses the symptom of the disorder due to our ignorance of the brain/mind and of mental health. So this priest i would assume, is basically saying that even though we may have feelings (compulsions) about certain things, it does not necessarily follow that to follow these compulsions is the right thing to do. Of course, the priest is not talking in terms of medical ethics, but spiritual ethics. Seek first the kingdom. Put Gods will to the fore, and place your trust in him seems to be the general message being conveyed. Is mutilating oneself due to such disorders sinful? I wouldn't think so tbh. I cannot fathom what such a disorder must feel like. Just imagine being constantly compelled to remove your arm and then actually being happy to have it removed!!:( It seems to me that our knowledge of the mind is infantile.

Selkies

JimiTime wrote: »

I can't be sure, but tbf, the context would suggest its not akin to wanting a steak rather than a curry and more akin to compulsion. For example, people who suffer from Body Integrity Identity Disorder, have a compulsion to have certain limbs removed. Removing these perfectly good limbs is allegedly at present the treatment that makes the sufferer of the disorder happiest. Anyone can see however, that such an action is ethically questionable in that it mutilates the person, leave them wheelchair bound, armless etc, and quite plainly only addresses the symptom of the disorder due to our ignorance of the brain/mind and of mental health. So this priest i would assume, is basically saying that even though we may have feelings (compulsions) about certain things, it does not necessarily follow that to follow these compulsions is the right thing to do. Of course, the priest is not talking in terms of medical ethics, but spiritual ethics. Seek first the kingdom. Put Gods will to the fore, and place your trust in him seems to be the general message being conveyed. Is mutilating oneself due to such disorders sinful? I wouldn't think so tbh. I cannot fathom what such a disorder must feel like. Just imagine being constantly compelled to remove your arm and then actually being happy to have it removed!!:( It seems to me that our knowledge of the mind is infantile.

Got to say that comparison really challenged me.
I guess being happy is more important than having all your limbs.
Certainly I'd find it difficult to live with myself if I had ignored someone who later went on to die as a result of attempting to remove their arm.

Azure_sky

Just want to add that the current scientific evidence points to Gender identity disorder not being a psychological disorder. Good to see plenty of tolerance and non judgementalism in this thread.



The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843193

JimiTime

Selkies wrote: »

Got to say that comparison really challenged me.
I guess being happy is more important than having all your limbs.
Certainly I'd find it difficult to live with myself if I had ignored someone who later went on to die as a result of attempting to remove their arm.

Its certainly a quandry. As others have said, I don't think theres a simple answer either medically OR spiritually.

The Brigadier

The Catholic Church accepts that there are transgendered people in the world. We are called to love them as any other.

What it is against is mutilation of the body.

JimiTime

The Brigadier wrote: »

The Catholic Church accepts that there are transgendered people in the world. We are called to love them as any other.

What it is against is mutilation of the body.

You have to admit though, that if someone is sufferring from a disorder which makes tham want to hack off their leg or somesuch, then it does pose a dilemma no? I am certainly not comfortable with it, but if a person has such a compulsion, they have been known to attempt to hack it off themselves. The medical profession has no answer for this, so currently they believe that removing the limb in question is best for the patient. Again, I'm not comfortable with it, but what if the person hacks at it themselves? It sounds like an awful condition, and while I agree with the principle of not mutilating oneself, this surely presents a conflict?

The Brigadier

JimiTime wrote: »

You have to admit though, that if someone is sufferring from a disorder which makes tham want to hack off their leg or somesuch, then it does pose a dilemma no? I am certainly not comfortable with it, but if a person has such a compulsion, they have been known to attempt to hack it off themselves. The medical profession has no answer for this, so currently they believe that removing the limb in question is best for the patient. Again, I'm not comfortable with it, but what if the person hacks at it themselves? It sounds like an awful condition, and while I agree with the principle of not mutilating oneself, this surely presents a conflict?

The Catholic Church and the medical profession are sometimes at odds. The Church acknowledges that people sometimes experience great suffering. What it doesn't do is use that as an excuse to commit other sins. Look at its position on assisted suicide as an example.

PDN

The Brigadier wrote: »

The Catholic Church accepts that there are transgendered people in the world. We are called to love them as any other.

What it is against is mutilation of the body.

Just wondering how the Church defines 'mutilation'. What if someone gets cosmetic surgery, such as a nose job? Or what about separating conjoined twins? What about weight-loss surgery where the stomach is greatly reduced in size? Where does the Church draw the line?

Benny_Cake

Azure_sky wrote: »

Just want to add that the current scientific evidence points to Gender identity disorder not being a psychological disorder. Good to see plenty of tolerance and non judgementalism in this thread.



The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843193

That's the nub of it really. If that is the case then GID is a biological, medical condition and those who have it are entitled to seek treatment for it. I can't see how that would be wrong. Now if someone was to seek a sex change for the kick of it, that might be wrong, but I suspect the numbers of such people are few, if any.

Ultimately it's impossible to stand in someone's shoes who has this condition. All that we can do is welcome them, listen to their stories, support them and pray for them. God sees the person inside and God knows best, I think this is best left to Him.

The Brigadier

PDN wrote: »

Just wondering how the Church defines 'mutilation'. What if someone gets cosmetic surgery, such as a nose job? Or what about separating conjoined twins? What about weight-loss surgery where the stomach is greatly reduced in size? Where does the Church draw the line?

As I understand it the Church regards mutilation as any form of deliberate and non-therapeutic practice that interferes with the bodies ability to function.

This means that, for example, circumcision is allowed. Cosmetic surgery is non-therapeutic and not allowed.

Now, one might try and argue that sexual reassignment surgery is therapeutic. What it does do though is interfere with the bodies ability to function. Without going into too much detail, removing a penis that is full operational would be forbidden.

prinz

It's a tough one. On the one hand you feel people should be able to undergo whatever operations etc that make them happier in themselves. On the other you have to wonder if the operations etc actually do make them any happier.

For instance someone mentioned weight-loss surgery/gastric bands etc earlier. The suicide rates amongst those who have had that surgery has been found to be far higher than normal. Is this because having the surgery has addressed the underlying problems that they had? Or was it just a case of outwardly appearing 'fixed' but still having the same internal issues.

There isn't exactly consensus on whether gender realignment surgery is actually going to help everyone either..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

Research from the US and Holland suggests that up to a fifth of patients regret changing sex. A 1998 review by the Research and Development Directorate of the NHS Executive found attempted suicide rates of up to 18% noted in some medical studies of gender reassignment.

Also found this piece, unfortunately it's a blog piece with no sources but it does give a refreshing and honest insight..

...Recent polls are proving that. The post-op dissatisfaction rate has been increasing. Where the suicide rate was 5% after surgery it is now 11% and rising......The increased levels in dissatisfaction need to be more closely examined by the Professionals who treat us. If not the time may come when the cure is worse than the malady.

http://lamato.blogdrive.com/

That would be a concern of mine. That as it becomes more common and accepted that people may feel pushed into a surgery (or deluding themselves that surgery will solve their issues) that they later regret and that actually leaves them in a worse position. IMO this is becoming a problem in terms of sexual orientation too. In an effort to be more open/whatever I think people re at a younger and younger age being encouraged to publicly label themselves and I don't think that's healthy in any way, shape or form.

A school classmates of my wife's underwent the transition from MtF, and agree with it or not it's incredible the transformation. She's beautiful otuwardly, and luckily from outward appearances and my OH bumping into her now and then it doesn't seem to have any adverse affects... although she chose to keep her name as before...:p.. which kind of had me wondering before my wife informed that she used to be he.

There's definitely a conflict there of weighing up what's best. It's one of those things Christians and others in the past didn't really have to deal with. Something tells me Christians these days are going to have to deal with a lot more of these types of issues.

Benny_Cake

prinz wrote: »

That would be a concern of mine. That as it becomes more common and accepted that people may feel pushed into a surgery (or deluding themselves that surgery will solve their issues) that they later regret and that actually leaves them in a worse position. IMO this is becoming a problem in terms of sexual orientation too. In an effort to be more open/whatever I think people re at a younger and younger age being encouraged to publicly label themselves and I don't think that's healthy in any way, shape or form.

A school classmates of my wife's underwent the transition from MtF, and agree with it or not it's incredible the transformation. She's beautiful otuwardly, and luckily from outward appearances and my OH bumping into her now and then it doesn't seem to have any adverse affects... although she chose to keep her name as before...:p.. which kind of had me wondering before my wife informed that she used to be he.

There's definitely a conflict there of weighing up what's best. It's one of those things Christians and others in the past didn't really have to deal with. Something tells me Christians these days are going to have to deal with a lot more of these types of issues.

I think that's a fair point - the surgery may not be for everyone, and extensive experience counselling should be mandatory before such a procedure if it isn't already. Is it possible in that case for Christians to reach a position or consensus on the issue, given that science is really only getting started at looking into it. I'm not sure that it is, it would be beneficial to listen to transgender people and their experiences, that's for sure. There was an RTE documentary a while back about a who was born a man, it was moving and heartbreaking at times, but what struck me was how she identified as a girl from a very early age, little more than a toddler. Kind of hard to dismiss a story like that.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that's a fair point - the surgery may not be for everyone, and extensive experience counselling should be mandatory before such a procedure if it isn't already. Is it possible in that case for Christians to reach a position or consensus on the issue, given that science is really only getting started at looking into it. I'm not sure that it is, it would be beneficial to listen to transgender people and their experiences, that's for sure. There was an RTE documentary a while back about a who was born a man, it was moving and heartbreaking at times, but what struck me was how she identified as a girl from a very early age, little more than a toddler. Kind of hard to dismiss a story like that.

The danger in all of this, is when it becomes offensive to call such things disorders, abnormal etc, and it becomes offensive to even consider the possibility of 'cures' etc. For example, if someones believes they are a woman, but they are genetically and physically a man, and you present a cure that means that their mind actually balances with the body and they become men in mind. How would this be received? So while we know that there are people who are men who want to be women and vice versa, the story of their compulsion, while moving, does not necessarily mean that it is not deceptive. Taking their compulsions into account is MAYBE not the best thing if there is a disorder of the mind, as the disorder is decieving them into the compulsion.

When someone has cancer, AIDS, Diabetes etc, they just want rid! Now just imagine, if part of cancers symptom was a desire to have cancer. THAT could complicate things somewhat.


So when we become too much of a listening ear, we could actually be letting people with certain disorders seriously down. It could become too socio-political.

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

The danger in all of this, is when it becomes offensive to call such things disorders, abnormal etc, and it becomes offensive to even consider the possibility of 'cures' etc. For example, if someones believes they are a woman, but they are genetically and physically a man, and you present a cure that means that their mind actually balances with the body and they become men in mind. How would this be received? So while we know that there are people who are men who want to be women and vice versa, the story of their compulsion, while moving, does not necessarily mean that it is not deceptive. Taking their compulsions into account is MAYBE not the best thing if there is a disorder of the mind, as the disorder is decieving them into the compulsion.

When someone has cancer, AIDS, Diabetes etc, they just want rid! Now just imagine, if part of cancers symptom was a desire to have cancer. THAT could complicate things somewhat.


So when we become too much of a listening ear, we could actually be letting people with certain disorders seriously down. It could become too socio-political.

I hear what you're saying - while accepting that the condition is real, is it that the body doesn't fit the mind, or that the mind doesn't fit the body? It isn't an easy one to answer, but hopefully in time it will be answered through research. In the meantime transgender people are who they are, and it is important to hear their stories and experiences because most of us simply can't imagine what it must be like to feel that our bodies are of the wrong gender. Actually, it must be pretty horrible, and if Christians, as individuals and communities can have a better understanding, they will be in a better position to offer support and love to transgender people.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

So when we become too much of a listening ear, we could actually be letting people with certain disorders seriously down. It could become too socio-political.

True that. There have been a lot of times where raising concerns and having valid fears is portrayed as judging... and to counter that some people seem to go to the other extreme of listening, support etc while not expressing your concerns (for fear of upsetting someone) which as far as I'm concerned can easily veer into the territory if condoning and even enabling counterproductive behaviour.

Azure_sky

The Brigadier wrote: »

The Catholic Church accepts that there are transgendered people in the world. We are called to love them as any other.

What it is against is mutilation of the body.

What about inter-sexed people? Is the church against sex reassignment is these cases? I assume removing a birth mark is not forbidden?
I don't see what the issue is. It seems to be down to the act of sex , but since abstinence is not disapproved of by the church it makes no logical sense to "allow" the removal of one piece of flesh but not another because it's a reproductive organ- which the lack of use of is not considered a sin. The whole argument falls apart.

The Brigadier

Azure_sky wrote: »

What about inter-sexed people? Is the church against sex reassignment is these cases? I assume removing a birth mark is not forbidden?
I don't see what the issue is. It seems to be down to the act of sex , but since abstinence is not disapproved of by the church it makes no logical sense to "allow" the removal of one piece of flesh but not another because it's a reproductive organ- which the lack of use of is not considered a sin. The whole argument falls apart.

It has nothing to do with sex. Why is everyone who wants to criticise the Catholic Church so obsessed with it?

I don't know whether the Church is against sex reassignment for inter sexed people. Here is the article from Canon Law

"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

My own interpretation is that removing a birth mark is against the moral law. There are grades to things though. The Church teaches that stealing is wrong but can tell the difference between stealing a penny sweet as a child and an organised criminal stealing the life savings from a group of OAPs.

PDN

The Brigadier wrote: »

It has nothing to do with sex. Why is everyone who wants to criticise the Catholic Church so obsessed with it?

Possibly because of sites like www.catholic.com?

The Church has not dealt with this issue in magisterial documents. However, moral theology would seem to offer the following considerations:

Plastic surgery would seem to be warranted if it would provide a significant therapeutic benefit in some regard, either physical (e.g., reconstructive surgery to restore function or utility in cases of accident or birth defect) or psychological. This is provided that the procedure does not damage some other equal or greater good and provided that it is not intrinsically immoral.

Plastic surgery would seem to be permitted—even without significant therapeutic effect—provided that it did not damage a significant good and provided that the procedure is not intrinsically immoral.

Plastic surgery would seem to be impermissible if it damaged a good greater than that to be achieved, being venial if the difference in the goods were light and potentially mortal if the difference in the goods were grave.

Goods that could be damaged by undertaking plastic surgery are varied. They might involve harming oneself—one’s own physical, psychological, or spiritual health—or they might involve harming others, such as being financially unable to provide for one’s family in a proper and timely manner.

As always, if a medical procedure is intrinsically immoral—such as so-called trans-gendering surgeries—it cannot be performed.

The Brigadier

PDN wrote: »

Possibly because of sites like www.catholic.com?

What has that link got to do with sex?

PDN

The Brigadier wrote: »

What has that link got to do with sex?

It's characterisation of transgender operations as 'intrinsically immoral' makes a clear distinction between elective surgery with sexual connotations and other forms of cosmetic surgery.

Azure_sky

PDN wrote: »

Possibly because of sites like www.catholic.com?

Yet suicide is considered a greater sin and SRS drastically reduces the suicide rate amongst people with gender dysphoria. I personally think it's even more about traditional gender roles than sex. The irony is that when you look at the science the existence of transsexuals supports the innate nature of gender roles (brain sex) and can be used as a strong argument against the gender social construct theory. Many radical feminists hate transsexuals.

The Brigadier wrote: »

"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

This criteria should include sex change as it is therapeutic and reduces the risk of suicide. I think there's a misconception that we do it for decadent reasons. Not true I can assure. Another misconception is that it's a sexual orientation, probably because we're politically aligned with the gays, bi and lesbians.

JimiTime

Actually, a bit off topic, but does anyone know what the story is in terms of the law if a male to female transgender assaults a woman or somesuch? Also, does a male to female transgender have to have their penis removed to be considered a woman? If not, can they be convicted of rape, as rape can only be committed by a man in the law?

StanMcConnell

What a random line of questioning!

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, a bit off topic, but does anyone know what the story is in terms of the law if a male to female transgender assaults a woman or somesuch?

Assault is assault, surely?

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, does a male to female transgender have to have their penis removed to be considered a woman?

Socially, no. Legally, not sure, interesting question.

JimiTime wrote: »

If not, can they be convicted of rape, as rape can only be committed by a man in the law?

Rape is defined as unlawful penetration by penis. I'm not sure it matters about the gender identity of the person wielding the said penis.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

Assault is assault, surely?

Not really, there are various factors. You think a judge would view a man who beats up a child or a woman the same as a man who beats up a man? Also, the 'somesuch' in my post can refer to a fight breaking out, and lets say the transgender beats the cr@p out of the woman (The transgender having a mans physicality, anatomy etc). How is that viewed? If the state genuinely calls them a woman, then how can they be viewed as a man in this?

Rape is defined as unlawful penetration by penis. I'm not sure it matters about the gender identity of the person wielding the said penis.

Doesn't the statute refer to 'A man commits rape when...'. It doesn't say, 'A person with a penis commits rape when....' So presently, the law says/implies that a woman cannot commit rape.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Not really, there are various factors. You think a judge would view a man who beats up a child or a woman the same as a man who beats up a man? Also, the 'somesuch' in my post can refer to a fight breaking out, and lets say the transgender beats the cr@p out of the woman (The transgender having a mans physicality, anatomy etc). How is that viewed? If the state genuinely calls them a woman, then how can they be viewed as a man in this?

I think a judge may well view things along gender lines but s/he shouldn't. The seriousness of an assault should be determined by the circumstances and the level of injury intended or caused.

A man who breaks a man's face with a bottle should be treated the same as a man who breaks a woman's face with a bottle. The argument that a man is somehow better able to defend himself from such an attack, thereby mitigating the intent or ferocity of the attack itself, is clearly inapplicable across the board (not all men are strong, not all women are weak) and should be irrelevant anyway.

JimiTime wrote: »

Doesn't the statute refer to 'A man commits rape when...'. It doesn't say, 'A person with a penis commits rape when....' So presently, the law says/implies that a woman cannot commit rape.

In the UK:

Rape:

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

So possibly some ambiguity over the use of "a person" followed by "he". I suspect that the remaining presence of a penis in a MTF transgender has them labelled as "man" for the purposes of this law here.

Of course, the law has severe penalties for non-penile penetration, although it isn't technically considered rape.

JimiTime

doctoremma wrote: »

I think a judge may well view things along gender lines but s/he shouldn't. The seriousness of an assault should be determined by the circumstances and the level of injury intended or caused.

Thats just it though, a man getting into a fight with another man can be seen as two people having a fight and one coming off worse etc. A man getting into a fight with a woman, its generally known what the outcome would be and men would be expected to show more contraint.

A man who breaks a man's face with a bottle should be treated the same as a man who breaks a woman's face with a bottle.

I agree, but thats not really a scenario I'm getting at. Think of a fight breaking out, and one girl thinking that they are dealing with another girl, where they are really dealing with a physical man.

(not all men are strong, not all women are weak)

You'll find that men are physically stronger than women. A physically weak man, is usually only weak in relation to other men, but will still be physically more powerful than most women.

In the UK:

Rape:

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

So possibly some ambiguity over the use of "a person" followed by "he". I suspect that the remaining presence of a penis in a MTF transgender has them labelled as "man" for the purposes of this law here.

Of course, the law has severe penalties for non-penile penetration, although it isn't technically considered rape.

Cheers for digging that out. In Ireland, I'm nearly sure its 'A man commits rape when....'. Either way though, I can see a complication.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats just it though, a man getting into a fight with another man can be seen as two people having a fight and one coming off worse etc. A man getting into a fight with a woman, its generally known what the outcome would be and men would be expected to show more contraint.

The actuality of the fight is one thing, how it is viewed in the eyes of the law is another. I'm actually coming at this from a POV sympathetic to the male - why should a man who has suffered injury be viewed with less sympathy than a woman suffering the same injury?

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, but thats not really a scenario I'm getting at. Think of a fight breaking out, and one girl thinking that they are dealing with another girl, where they are really dealing with a physical man.

Well, if we get down to basics. Who picks a fight with someone physically much more intimidating than them? If the MTF is tall/broad, I wouldn't be fighting any such girl. If the MTF is physically small, then it might be fairer anyway?

JimiTime wrote: »

Cheers for digging that out. In Ireland, I'm nearly sure its 'A man commits rape when....'. Either way though, I can see a complication.

As far as I can find, Ireland's law is broader than the UK's:

Section 4 rape
This takes its name from Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. It involves penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis (known as Section 4(a) rape), or penetration (however slight) of the vagina by an object held or manipulated by another person (known as Section 4(b) rape).
Section 4(a) rape can only be committed by a man, against either a man or a woman. Section 4(b) rape can only be committed against a woman, but by either men or women. The maximum penalty for both types of rape is life imprisonment.

mehfesto

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, does a male to female transgender have to have their penis removed to be considered a woman?

It's down to the hormones, as far as I remember from college. A man who loses his penis in an accident doesn't become a woman, just by no longer having a penis.

He still secretes testosterone, which played a major part in the development of his genitalia in the first place - this is what defined him as a male. Men should have 7 or 8 times more testosterone in their bodies than women. While I'm not 100% sure, I'd wager this is the legal standpoint as far as I can remember - though I could easily be wrong!