Why Is Transgender(ism ?) Homosexuality Not A Mental Disorder

[Benedictus]

Yes in fact it does deal with gender reassignment. Saying it does not when it clearly does leads me to believe you are being misleading or are being  naive. Benedict speaks to those who dispute the gender they have been given, which is what gender reassignment is all about. How this goes against God's creation, He makes us male or female we do not get to change the gender God has given us.

 

Should I even!  Gender is a big area. It deals with gender roles, feminism, cultural/family life roles, child rearing, sexuality etc. Before assuming anything or coming out with those words personally to me you could simply clarify what I said. Or, erm, maybe take hold of the points before you insinuate things. We can all read that link and you can believe it says what you like. I think you're overstating the points made there. That's it. It won't matter to me as such either way whether you alter your view or not.  I'm reading it how I think it reads and sharing my view of it. It's as easy as that and there's no need to agree. Simples.
 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Benedictus

[Credo in Deum]

Should I even! Gender is a big area. It deals with gender roles, feminism, cultural/family life roles, child rearing, sexuality etc. .

Forgive me for being slow but how does transgenderism not directly impact all of those? If it does then how does what KoC posted not apply? Edited July 30, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[CrossCuT]

The problem with gender reassignment, and the Church's teachings on the subject, is that it is so obvious that the Church doesn't think it needs to put out some kind of major encyclical about it. Gender is basic. It is basic natural law, imprinted on our souls by God at the moment of our creation.

 

This explanation is something I can chew on because I understand that in the early church, not everything the church believe was necessarily written in stone or made "official" as we understand it today. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the church usually comes out with an official teaching in response to controversy in the church that causes a certain issue to require addressing. 

 

 

 

It normally takes the Church a few centuries to definitively define a teaching. Our canon of the bible was in place in the 400's, but we didn't dogma-ify it until the 1500's. Sex changes are just a few decades old. By the time we get around to dealing formally with the issue, it could be a moot question. We may identify the issue in the brain that causes this mess and have a treatment by then. I certainly hope so because those clients I dealt with struggling with gender issues were given crosses heavier than any I have ever faced.

 

Ah, I see I just repeated what you said here. 

 

I guess Id be curious how this translates into other technologies involving chimeras...although that is a different topic and I dont want to derail things. 

[Benedictus]

Forgive me for being slow but how does transgenderism not directly impact all of those? If it does then how does what KoC posted not apply?

 

 Many things relate or impact on other things. But it doesn't mean that was the direct issue in hand here (if at all), which was my point. It could be seen as under the 'gender' theory' umbrella but it's not clear. In academic circles gender theory can be heavily directed towards womens issues. Transexual issues, like most LGBT issues, is often grouped under sexuality studies or queer theory. But I guess this will vary on the researchers, academics and the place. It's a big area and It depends how specific or general (clear or vague) the issue is.

In this case the talk wasn't explicit about the issue of trans people. I actually believe it was talking about the instrinsic dynamic between men and women in general, not sex changes. Benedict had mentioned similar things many times, especially around the significance of the wholeness (duality in one) of the marriage relationship. He has also made references to cultural trends, influenced by Gender/Women's studies, and pointed out where this may have gone off track. There are probably other examples. That is as it is. Holding one thing up doesn't necessarily mean all other things are implicated as bad, less, or wrong in all situations/times by default. Many areas have more scope and colour than that.

I think it's a major area the church should write about. I don't think any of the issues are 'obvious' at all. The things the church teaches on a daily basis are obvious, it still repeats them over and over again. That isn't a reason not to talk about something so relevant to the current issues facing people. Maybe this will come up (like same sex families are listed to be) at the conference on the family (maybe it's called something else now?) the Pope has called to be held over the next two years. I guess we'll have to wait and see. But the number of transexuals is maybe higher than some people think. So I don't think it is something they can leave to the side for too long.
What would Jesus think? Well he did have certain views about eunochs, which were fairly inclusive if you consider he was fairly alien to Jewish tradition. But, like everything, there will be people who say 'yes, but', which is to be expected. Anyway i'm going to have a :beer:

[Socrates]

The decision to drop homosexuality from the APA's list of psychological disorders was primary political and ideological, rather than truly scientific.

 

Current ideology denies that there is any proper order or purpose to human sexuality, contrary to the consistent teaching of Christ's Church, so therefore for the most part the modern world does not regard any sexual activity as disordered, so long as it's all consensual and nobody gets seriously hurt.

 

 

Having a "sex-change" or "gender re-assignment" operation is objectively an act of mutilation.  Mutilation, or the needless removal or destruction of a healthy body part or organ, is clearly condemned by the Church as a serious sin against the fifth commandment  (see CCC, 2297).  (This is a different matter from true cases of hermaphroditism where the genitalia are ambiguous.)

 

A "male-to-female transsexual" is not truly a woman, but a castrated man, whose body has been surgically mutilated, and who has been given doses of artificial hormones, in order to resemble a woman.  (And vice versa for "female-to-male.")

 

A man who has a "sex-change" operation is no more a real woman, than the late "tiger man," who felt he was a tiger in a man's body and spent a fortune surgically altering himself to look like a big cat, is a real tiger.

 

Here's a good article on the topic from Fr. Saunders, a very solid and knowledgeable priest:  

http://catholicherald.com/stories/Straight-Answers-The-Morality-of-Sex-Change-Operations,1997

 

To destroy organs purposefully that are healthy and functioning, and to try to create imitation organs which will never have the genuineness and functioning of authentic organs is gross and lacks charity. Such surgery which purposefully destroys the bodily integrity of the person must be condemned.

 

 

 

 

There is a psychological disorder known as body integrity identity disorder, or BIID, in which a person feels an overwhelming need to amputate a perfectly healthy arm or leg.  

That disorder does not make hacking off such a person's limbs right, and neither do gender identity disorders justify mutilation of the genitalia.

 

 

The whole debate on whether or not homosexuality and "transgenderism" are biologically rooted is largely irrelevant to whether it is right to act on these disordered inclinations.

 

Because of original sin, we all have disordered tendencies toward evil of some kind and degree.

 

If someone has a biological tendency towards alcoholism, that doesn't make it right to get him drunk.  If someone suffering from schizophrenia (generally believed to have biological causes), is delusional, that doesn't mean the world should cater to those delusions.  If BIID is found to have biological roots, that doesn't mean it is right to amputate a healthy limb.

[Socrates]

I wish there was some sort of guide on all that. . . 

 

There is.  It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

I don't think the particular issue of "transgender" surgery is brought up there, but every orthodox source I've seen agrees that such surgery would fall under mutilation, which is clearly condemned there.

 

 

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations,mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.⁹¹

 

 

And even if this issue isn't dealt with as directly as you'd like in the Catechism, there are many things clearly written there which you disagree with, such as the Church's teachings on homosexuality and contraception.

 

Also, if the popes and Church Fathers, etc. consistently teach something down through the ages, you're best off heeding that teaching.

 

Rejecting whatever Church teachings you don't like as not really being Church teaching "in its purest form" is essentially Protestantism, though I see you no longer identify as a Catholic.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Socrates

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If I'm born truthfully believing that I'm a snake, that doesn't mean that I should be allowed to have my arms and legs removed and my tongue forked. Before you say that's ridiculous, remember that there was a time when we as a society knew that trying to surgically change ones gender was also ridiculous.

 

If you believed you were a snake and we developed a safe way to modify your body based on a snake's, would it be immoral to let you do that? If not, under what circumstances would it be?

 

There are possible genetic and biological factors that we should keep in mind when talking about transgenderism and transsexuality. 

 

Btw, could anyone offer me the Church's position on hermaphroditism? 

Edited July 31, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The decision to drop homosexuality from the APA's list of psychological disorders was primary political and ideological, rather than truly scientific.

 

I keep hearing this but I can't find anything. Could you pass me a link?

[CatherineM]

I'm sorry, but this issue is obvious. We were made as separate unique genders. When someone is born with an indeterminate gender, that is a birth defect which can be corrected. If a male has an accident or illness that has destroyed his genitals, they can be reconstructed, in the same way that a woman who has breast cancer can have her breasts reconstructed. That includes a pre-emptive surgery such as the one Angelina Jolie had.

Those are legitimate physical health issues. My husband had a friend who was stable for many years on her schizophrenia meds. She hit middle age, and an idiot GP told her she should go off them to lose weight. That led to insanity, homelessness, and she was almost shot trying to break into the White House grounds. She's on every watch list in existence. She was so convinced that the CIA put a tracking chip in one of her teeth that she went to dentist after dentist to find one who would remove it along with her perfectly healthy tooth. Finally she told one that if he didn't take it out she would pull the tooth herself with a hammer. He did just so that she wouldn't hurt herself.

I frankly don't see much difference between thinking I've got a tracking chip in my brain and thinking I was born in the wrong body.

[CatherineM]

Btw, could anyone offer me the Church's position on hermaphroditism?

It is a birth defect. You can live with it, or medically correct it.

[CrossCuT]

There is.  It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

Yeah I know. I have one. Thanks.

[Credo in Deum]

If you believed you were a snake and we developed a safe way to modify your body based on a snake's, would it be immoral to let you do that? If not, under what circumstances would it be?

You should repeat these questions out loud, slowly, and while facing a mirror. Then while still facing the mirror, look at your reflection and ask yourself: "are you for real?"

[CrossCuT]

Unnecessary 

[Benedictus]

I'm sorry, but this issue is obvious. We were made as separate unique genders. When someone is born with an indeterminate gender, that is a birth defect which can be corrected. If a male has an accident or illness that has destroyed his genitals, they can be reconstructed, in the same way that a woman who has breast cancer can have her breasts reconstructed. That includes a pre-emptive surgery such as the one Angelina Jolie had.

So you're against physical surgery when it's for psychological reasons and to improve life function, as in the case of transexuals. But you don't have a problem with physical surgery as long as there is a physical imperative. OK. But breast reconstruction is done for psychological reasons and to improve life function. Yes, you could say it's only to restore what was already there. But the concept of altering and changing the body in response to natural illness, imperfect physical/psychological development and need is the same. It's simply some see the alteration of physical aspects (or certain changes) as a mistake.  But if it allows the person to live, function and it manages a potential developmental /hormonal problem (even if not physically obvious) then I'm not convinced it should be denied. It seems many counsellors, psychiatrists and surgeons agree with that as well. If this wasn't the case then it wouldn't be a sanctioned treatment. To call such a treatment mutilation is really an affront to the definition of the term (and practices that have gone on in the past which are mutilation) and the work the professionals do. Is cosmetic surgery mutilation? Is circumcision mutilation? Is taking organ donation or life support a subversion of the natural order? Is getting fat and smoking an affront to God?

 

Those are legitimate physical health issues. My husband had a friend who was stable for many years on her schizophrenia meds. She hit middle age, and an idiot GP told her she should go off them to lose weight. That led to insanity, homelessness, and she was almost shot trying to break into the White House grounds. She's on every watch list in existence. She was so convinced that the CIA put a tracking chip in one of her teeth that she went to dentist after dentist to find one who would remove it along with her perfectly healthy tooth. Finally she told one that if he didn't take it out she would pull the tooth herself with a hammer. He did just so that she wouldn't hurt herself.

So are mental illness and psychological problems legitimate? The difference between a psychotic patient and a transexual, and there's many, is that the transexual hasn't got any pills that could manage the issue they face. Transition is an option for many and it works out. In the interim are you suggesting people simply be told to get on with it? Knowing the high suicide rates? Knowing that a medical/surgical option could be great for them to move forward with their lives?. To not sanction this would, in my view, be as misguided in application of theology as those sects who prohibit their members having blood transfusions or organ donation.

 

I frankly don't see much difference between thinking I've got a tracking chip in my brain and thinking I was born in the wrong body.

Yes I agree, you don't see the difference. 
 

[Amppax]

I have a hard time deciphering what is church teaching and what isnt in its purest form on here because there are a lot of opinions floating around and a lot of the time our fallen human nature causes us to pass off certain opinions (even as wonderful as they are) as fact. 

 

I wish there was some sort of guide on all that. I have not studied church teaching in college or have any deep understanding of philosophy and how to determine official teaching from a Pope's general comments on various moral aspects...so bleh. Wish the church made it easier for dumb people like me. I only have my elementary and high school knowledge to help me. It would help clear the air on a lot of subjects to see where things were definitive and where they were not. 

 

I think a majority of people on this site have spent their higher education studying Catholic teaching so its easier for them to converse with each other. But I have a hard time keeping up with the deep stuff. 

 

Despite peoples best intentions, it doesnt help me understand the subject better to pass off everything single thing a Pope utters as 100% factual, concrete, indisputable Catholic teaching. But I do appreciate their input. 

 

One really helpful document is the CDF commentary on the profession of faith, required of everyone who takes the mandatum to teach theology (aka is approved by the Church to teach theology), it was issued while Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict was head of the CDF. It's pretty short, here's a link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

 

While Pope Benedict's public addresses certainly don't have binding force, nonetheless they are very helpful for our own reflection on topics. He is probably one of, if not the best theologian ever to occupy the chair of Peter. Several of his public addresses have driven some incredible work in theology and philosophy (his Reagensburg address, for one) and his non-magisterial works, the Jesus of Nazereth series, are some of the most profound works I have ever read. So while these are not binding statements, they are something that we ought to take into account in forming our own reflection on these matters.