Trangender identity/language

[CrossCuT]

Does it state so in the CCC? Id be more interested in that than a priest's article regardless of his credentials. 

Edited June 5, 2015 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

Does it state so in the CCC? Id be more interested in that than a priest's article regardless of his credentials. 

​CCC 2297 the Priest cites it in the article. The Church does not accept physically unnecessary sterilizations, or the cutting off or removing physically healthy body parts.

[KnightofChrist]

Also if we are going to argue that it becomes acceptable because someone's mind tells them these body parts shouldn't be there think of the can of worms that opens up. I have had numerous friends in my life who have had the urge to cut themselves because something in the mind told them to, some even enjoyed the pain. Would that not also be permissible using the same logic? And what of those who want to cut off a perfectly healthy nonsexual body part because their minds tells them they should? Or what of those that suffer suicidal thoughts, those who's minds tell them they should cease all functions of the body, wouldn't that also become permissible?

[NadaTeTurbe]

What does the church say about intersex people ? Are reasignement surgery performed at birth (or later) on intersex person prohibited by the Church ? 

[KnightofChrist]

What does the church say about intersex people ? Are reasignement surgery performed at birth (or later) on intersex person prohibited by the Church ? 

​That is a very different issue, even though it may not seem so. Here I believe the Church does allow surgery to choose the particular sex that is most dominant. I will have to respond later with a better and more detailed answer.

[Benedictus]

​CCC 2297 the Priest cites it in the article. The Church does not accept physically unnecessary sterilizations, or the cutting off or removing physically healthy body parts.

​CCC 2297 doesn't really fit to this situation. That covers violence used by the state, or others, such as torture or punishment for moral crimes, guilt etc. It goes on to reference procedures that are done in the same manner, that would be things like forced abortions, torture, cutting off hands for moral crimes etc. It has little, if anything, to do with transsexuals. I think the priest was very flexible with their use of that provision.

There are Catholic bioethics orgs, as mentioned above, with people who at least invest time and knowledge into these sorts of issues.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Benedictus

[KnightofChrist]

​CCC 2297 doesn't really fit to this situation. That covers violence used by the state, or others, such as torture or punishment for moral crimes, guilt etc. It goes on to reference procedures that are done in the same manner, that would be things like forced abortions, torture, cutting off hands for moral crimes etc. It has little, if anything, to do with transsexuals. I think the priest was very flexible with their use of that provision.

There are Catholic bioethics orgs, as mentioned above, with people who at least invest time and knowledge into these sorts of issues.

​Nice try, but I hope few are tempted to buy into such cunning bull. The entire section deals with respect of the body and honoring the dignity of the body. Even when if the persons consent, amputation, mutilation, and sterilization remain immoral because they are an affront to human dignity.  Sex change fits all those types of immoral actions against the dignity of the human body. Because a sex change is a physically unnecessary amputation, mutilation, and sterilization of ones natural sex organs.

[Benedictus]

​Nice try, but I hope few are tempted to buy into such cunning bull. The entire section deals with respect of the body and honoring the dignity of the body. Even when if the persons consent, amputation, mutilation, and sterilization remain immoral because they are an affront to human dignity.  Sex change fits all those types of immoral actions against the dignity of the human body. Because a sex change is a physically unnecessary amputation, mutilation, and sterilization of ones natural sex organs.

​People can read the provision, so how is it deception? The key words in the last part of that section are 'performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons' and 'performed on innocent persons'.

It is the medical view that transsexual surgery is 'performed for therapeutic medical reasons'. So that's the first bit out of the way, unless the church disputes what is medically necessary? There is nothing to suggest they do here.

The part about 'performed on innocent persons'. The implication is these acts are performed on people who aren't guilty of breaking any moral law, even if they may breach a temporal law. That would be the case with forced abortions and similar situations in places such as China.

The section applies to the performing of an act being against the moral law, not the person undergoing it. The provision is clear the liability would be with the one performing the act, such as a doctor, and not the person having the intervention done to them.

If the church wants to come out clearly against transsexuals, let them write it clearly in the CCC.

If you're going to try and interpret this section for transsexuals then at least use material from a Catholic bioethics or legal expert. I gather you, like the priest you quoted, are neither one of those.

You can see above that the poster, Clare Brigid, says she got a positive opinion to proceed with surgery from the National Catholic Bioethics Center. So maybe you should have a beef wih them about the CCC you have a view on

[Clare Brigid]

Benedictus, you've been really cogent. I truly appreciate the care with which you contribute here.

I want to be clear, however, that the NCBC only gave me an opinion on hormone therapy, and it was because of my specific circumstances. I happen to know that they oppose surgical sex reassignment. However, they do so reasoning from general principles and making certain assumptions about the etiology of this condition. As you note, medical necessity is the issue. The majority of theologians deny it, but it depends on facts, and science is still accumulating these. They point heavily to the role of brain sex. Perhaps the Church will rule on this in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep in mind that the validity of conclusions depends on their premises, including factual premises. No one here is a scientist or a pope. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by Clare Brigid

[Benedictus]

Benedictus, you've been really cogent. I truly appreciate the care with which you contribute here.

I want to be clear, however, that the NCBC only gave me an opinion on hormone therapy, and it was because of my specific circumstances. I happen to know that they oppose surgical sex reassignment. However, they do so reasoning from general principles and making certain assumptions about the etiology of this condition. As you note, medical necessity is the issue. The majority of theologians deny it, but it depends on facts, and science is still accumulating these. They point heavily to the role of brain sex. Perhaps the Church will rule on this in the future. In the meantime, it is important to keep in mind that the validity of conclusions depends on their premises, including factual premises. No one here is a scientist or a pope. 

​Thanks for clarifying your situation Clare Brigid. Yes, many do work that way based on theological principles, especially moral and body theology. But not the CCC as was asserted here and often the issues are glossed over too simply.

You sure there aren't no Popes on here

[KnightofChrist]

​People can read the provision, so how is it deception? The key words in the last part of that section are 'performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons' and 'performed on innocent persons'.

It is the medical view that transsexual surgery is 'performed for therapeutic medical reasons'. So that's the first bit out of the way, unless the church disputes what is medically necessary? There is nothing to suggest they do here.

The part about 'performed on innocent persons'. The implication is these acts are performed on people who aren't guilty of breaking any moral law, even if they may breach a temporal law. That would be the case with forced abortions and similar situations in places such as China.

The section applies to the performing of an act being against the moral law, not the person undergoing it. The provision is clear the liability would be with the one performing the act, such as a doctor, and not the person having the intervention done to them.

If the church wants to come out clearly against transsexuals, let them write it clearly in the CCC.

If you're going to try and interpret this section for transsexuals then at least use material from a Catholic bioethics or legal expert. I gather you, like the priest you quoted, are neither one of those.

You can see above that the poster, Clare Brigid, says she got a positive opinion to proceed with surgery from the National Catholic Bioethics Center. So maybe you should have a beef wih them about the CCC you have a view on

Yes your position is untruthful. This I'm sorry to say is why you are tagged phishy. The Church does not support unnecessary removing of body parts. I hope few buy into your error.

[Ice_nine]

What does the church say about intersex people ? Are reasignement surgery performed at birth (or later) on intersex person prohibited by the Church ? 

​Unfortunately, not much. Unless the situation has changed dramatically in recent years inteersex folks are kinda left to figure things out by themselves. I can't imagine many things that are more confusing/heart-wrenching to deal with identity wise. If you believe God only makes males and females and your body shows signs of both what the hell are you supposed to do? Just pick one day? What if you pick wrong?

 

Also, there are many documented differences, physical and structural, but these are averages. Among individuals it isn't always so cut-and-dried. Lots of things people here about the brain are grossly generalized, sometimes flat out wrong.

What is being a woman? Being a man? There are stereotypes and gender roles that vary cross-culturally, perhaps with the exception of strength and virility being synonymous with manhood. So if a man is physically weak is he not a man? If a woman is a lumberjill who can chop down forests and crush beer cans on her head is she not a woman? I would say in the vast majority of cases the body informs the gender, even if said body doesn't conform to every single sex role and stereotype. My goodness that would be boring.

 

But then I wonder about people with androgen sensitivity syndrome. CB actually posted about this a while back, but they are people who outwardly appear female, but are genetically male and (I believe) they also have internal male sex organs. Without a genetic testing (very modern) or other tests that can see the internal organs (also modern unless you're ripping someone's stomach open and poking around in there) then they would probably live their lives as females (although infertile) with everyone else thinking they are females but are they really? Or are they really male but they have an impossible birth defect. I'm curious what KofC thinks about these folks.

[Benedictus]

Yes your position is untruthful. This I'm sorry to say is why you are tagged phishy. The Church does not support unnecessary removing of body parts. I hope few buy into your error.

It's in English. I'm sure most people who read it can see what it says. You could have easily used Catholic ethics material to make a case, but you instead decided to argue that it all hinges on the CCC and an opinion piece from a priest. I busted you out on that and you can't concede it was lame, OK.

p.s the tag is old and it doesn't bother me, meh  It made a couple of people with control anxiety happy at the time, good for them. I'm still a humble novice in real life A phatmass phishy interdict doesn't impact that, so don't stress

[Socrates]

Bruce "Caitlyn" (or however you spell "her" new name) Jenner, is not a woman, but a man with breast implants and surgically mutilated genitalia.  That's the truth, plain and simple.  He has no womb or actual functioning female organs of reproduction, and can never can be a mother (nor could he, had he had the op when he was younger).

Cutting off one's penis and testicles doesn't make you a woman any more than hacking off your arms and legs makes you a snake.

It's probably not always prudent to call the post-op "Glenda" "Glen" to his face (unless you had a prior actual personal relationship with that person), but generally language should reflect objective reality (heretical as that notion is to postmodern ears).  

Bruce is a sick and deluded man, and deserves our pity and prayers, but should not be exalted as a hero, as he is by so much of our sick and deluded media.

When talking about him and others like him, we are not discussing hermaphrodites, or people with ambiguous genitalia, but formerly physically healthy males who married and fathered children.

Particularly absurd is the rule of political correctness that "trans" persons should be referred to by their new "sex" even when talking about them "pre-op."  As in "Caitlyn' married her wife and fathered children with her."  

Sorry to burst everyone's pc balloon, but women do not and cannot father children, any more than men can give birth.

[Socrates]

​Although people don't realize it there's a number of people---almost as high as transgender but much lesser known--who believe that they have appendages that don't really belong to them...like hands, feet, legs and arms, eyes, etc.  Doctors have amputated healthy limbs before becuase these make the person so uncomfortable that they often nearly kill themselves trying to remove them.

​Unnecessarily cutting off a perfectly healthy limb is also an objectively immoral act of mutilation.

In these cases, as with "transgendered" people, every effort should be made to get these persons' minds right, rather than mutilating them to conform to their delusions.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Socrates
punctuation