Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)

[Jaime]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah I don't know if you are correct here.

The Catechism states:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

So at the very least we can say that the inclination itself (as opposed to homosexual acts) is objectively disordered. I think we can also say that the inclination is against intended nature, being disordered.

Now, I tend to agree with you that an action must be performed in order to violate natural law. If a man is born such that when he ages he has sexual attraction to other men (despite his prayer and earnest desire that this were not the case) - I don't think he can be held morally culpable for his inclination.

But let's not pretend that there is also an aspect of desire that is not also controlled by the will. I could twist my own mind and force myself to be attracted to men, even though I am naturally attracted to women, just like I can twist my mind and force myself to desire all sorts of other bad things.

So me, being a person who is naturally attracted to women, if I were just to just allow myself to head down a path of mental debauchery, liberal lifestyle, or what have you, where I get to the point wherein one day I find myself wanting to have sex with men, or change my identity so that I no-longer identify as a man but as a woman, I think that I am culpable for that. It's not like Christians are willy nilly free to have whatever mental thoughts that they want, and as long as they don't kill someone or stick their penis in the rectum of a man, they  are free to think about themselves and desire whatever they want, and so forth. The man may not do harm to others, but he harms himself.

Now as for where our transgender friend in this thread finds himself (herself? I I don't even know), and whether he (she?) is culpable or not, I think that is up to him (her?) and the Lord I think. Maybe he (she) was really born with a disorder that causes him(her) a severe identity crisis. Maybe he(she) has made a series of willful mental choices that caused this identity crises. That's up to him (her) and God I think but I don't think there is the sort of blanket free-pass that you seem to be suggesting here.

I didn't say anything that contradicted the Catechism.  An objectively disordered inclination isn't at all the same as going against natural law.  I'm not suggesting anyone gets a blanket free pass.  We all have objectively disordered inclinations.   That is what leads to sin. If you've lusted Peace, that's an objectively disordered inclination. If you've ever been envious of someone else's car (house, helicopter, chimpanzee) that's an objectively disordered inclination.  And when we act on those inclinations we sin and hopefully go to confession

What I'm saying is our transgender friend may be unique in his/her disordered inclinations but not alone. While you or I can't understand our transgendered friends desire to be a man, the Church will not say that this alone is a condemnable offense.  So neither will I.

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Jaime said:

I didn't say anything that contradicted the Catechism.  An objectively disordered inclination isn't at all the same as going against natural law.  I'm not suggesting anyone gets a blanket free pass.  We all have objectively disordered inclinations.   That is what leads to sin. If you've lusted Peace, that's an objectively disordered inclination. If you've ever been envious of someone else's car (house, helicopter, chimpanzee) that's an objectively disordered inclination.  And when we act on those inclinations we sin and hopefully go to confession

What I'm saying is our transgender friend may be unique in his/her disordered inclinations but not alone. While you or I can't understand our transgendered friends desire to be a man, the Church will not say that this alone is a condemnable offense.  So neither will I.

I agree with you that inclinations are not sinful in themselves.  But you're wrong if you're saying that sins are necessarily actions.  I don't know for sure if that's your position, but it seems to be.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you're saying.

As any 1st-year catechism student knows, "Actual Sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God."

But we're not talking about a feeling.  We're not talking about sinful inclinations, not acted upon.  We're not even talking about one person's sin.  We're talking about the refusal to accept objective reality, and instead the acceptance of a blatant lie.  We're also talking about those who refuse to condemn that blatant lie, or even call it out as a lie.  Some here have argued that it might be better to pretend the lie is true.

Transgenderism is the acceptance of a lie.  It has nothing to do with sexual activity.  Thus it has nothing to do with sexual inclinations, or any other kind of inclination.  It's a false statement, pure and simple.

Most people here have refused to condemn this lie.  Personally, I believe that qualifies as grave matter.  For someone who claims to have some measure of authority of moral matters, this is even more true.  The refusal to stand up for truth might even be more scandalous than the lie presented in the original post.

[Jaime]

3 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I agree with you that inclinations are not sinful in themselves.  But you're wrong if you're saying that sins are necessarily actions.  I don't know for sure if that's your position, but it seems to be.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you're saying.

As any 1st-year catechism student knows, "Actual Sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God."

But we're not talking about a feeling.  We're not talking about sinful inclinations, not acted upon.  We're not even talking about one person's sin.  We're talking about the refusal to accept objective reality, and instead the acceptance of a blatant lie.  We're also talking about those who refuse to condemn that blatant lie, or even call it out as a lie.  Some here have argued that it might be better to pretend the lie is true.

Transgenderism is the acceptance of a lie.  It has nothing to do with sexual activity.  Thus it has nothing to do with sexual inclinations, or any other kind of inclination.  It's a false statement, pure and simple.

Most people here have refused to condemn this lie.  Personally, I believe that qualifies as grave matter.  For someone who claims to have some measure of authority of moral matters, this is even more true.  The refusal to stand up for truth might even be more scandalous than the lie presented in the original post.

I'm saying if to go against natural law necessitates an action.  Yes we can sin in thought. I've never said otherwise. But i don't know the thoughts of the author of this post.  I know this person feels like a man. They've also posted that their faith is important to them   But if someone is living a chaste life and wants to strive for holiness, objectively disordered inclinations will be a struggle. And our transgendered friend may have struggles we can't identify with.  But we all are in the same boat with regards to objectively disordered inclinations and the actions that can come from those inclinations.  

[fides' Jack]

6 hours ago, Jaime said:

You, Jack aren't offering aid or encouragement.  Your condemnation (based on no actions) doesn't enable this person to live out a universal call to holiness. 

I'm encouraging this person to accept reality.  No amount of holiness can be achieved, however slight, until this person first acknowledges that she is not a man.  

(Obviously that last statement assumes that this person is not suffering from a mental condition.  Certainly if the lie is believed through no fault of her own then some amount of holiness can be obtained.  However, it still falls on us to condemn the objective falsehood that she is a man.)

1 minute ago, Jaime said:

But we all are in the same boat with regards to objectively disordered inclinations and the actions that can come from those inclinations.  

I think you're still missing the point.  Again, transgenderism has nothing to do with inclinations.  I have no idea why you're arguing that line.  Unless you're talking about an inclination to believe a lie...?  I wouldn't categorize that as an inclination myself, but even so that's beside the point.

Let me put this another way: is this poster a man or a woman?  You referred to her as "they".  Even that much seems to go too far away from objective reality.  She is a "she", pure and simple.  Will you admit that much?

5 minutes ago, Jaime said:

I'm saying if to go against natural law necessitates an action.

To "act against" would necessitate an action.  To "believe contrary to" certainly does not.

[Peace]

 

2 hours ago, Jaime said:

 An objectively disordered inclination isn't at all the same as going against natural law. 

I agree for the most part. Except that I may disagree to the extent that the disordered inclination is willed.

2 hours ago, Jaime said:

I'm not suggesting anyone gets a blanket free pass. 

OK thanks for clarifying.

2 hours ago, Jaime said:

We all have objectively disordered inclinations.   That is what leads to sin. If you've lusted Peace, that's an objectively disordered inclination. If you've ever been envious of someone else's car (house, helicopter, chimpanzee) that's an objectively disordered inclination.  And when we act on those inclinations we sin and hopefully go to confession.

No, I don't think this is correct. Lust is a sin that requires a positive act of the will. The same is true with envy. If an attractive woman passes by me and I become sexually aroused by her presence, that is not sin. That is not lust. That is a natural biological response resulting from testosterone, dopamine, or whatever hormones or subconscious mental processes that control male arousal. Lust occurs when I make a conscious mental decision to entertain the thoughts for my own pleasure (staring at her body and fantasizing what it would be like to have sex with her, and things like that).

For our transgender friend you seem to assume that his/her decision to identify as his/her opposite sex is more akin to the natural biological response, rather than a conscious mental decision. I don't think that assumption is warranted. Maybe it is true in his/her case. Maybe it is not. As I wrote, I think that's up to him/her and the Lord.

2 hours ago, Jaime said:

What I'm saying is our transgender friend may be unique in his/her disordered inclinations but not alone. While you or I can't understand our transgendered friends desire to be a man, the Church will not say that this alone is a condemnable offense.  So neither will I.

Well let's say that tomorrow I decide that I am tired of being a Catholic and choose to live out the rest of my life as a woman, just for the hell of it. Is that OK?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a certain biological inclination, in and of itself, is necessarily sinful.

[Lilllabettt]

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I agree with you that inclinations are not sinful in themselves.  But you're wrong if you're saying that sins are necessarily actions.  I don't know for sure if that's your position, but it seems to be.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you're saying.

As any 1st-year catechism student knows, "Actual Sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God."

But we're not talking about a feeling.  We're not talking about sinful inclinations, not acted upon.  We're not even talking about one person's sin.  We're talking about the refusal to accept objective reality, and instead the acceptance of a blatant lie.  We're also talking about those who refuse to condemn that blatant lie, or even call it out as a lie.  Some here have argued that it might be better to pretend the lie is true.

Transgenderism is the acceptance of a lie.  It has nothing to do with sexual activity.  Thus it has nothing to do with sexual inclinations, or any other kind of inclination.  It's a false statement, pure and simple.

Most people here have refused to condemn this lie.  Personally, I believe that qualifies as grave matter.  For someone who claims to have some measure of authority of moral matters, this is even more true.  The refusal to stand up for truth might even be more scandalous than the lie presented in the original post.

Gender ideology is a pack of lies, sure. That gender is totally separable from sex; that we can choose our sex. However you're trying to go from there to crossing a bridge that hasn't been built yet.

Back in the day, sex was determined by genitalia. But there have always been people with indeterminate genitalia.  Now that we can look at chromosomes, we know that some tiny % of people have a mismatch between their chromosomes and their genitalia. Eg A person who developed a micro penis in utero, turns out to have two x chromosomes. Is that person female or male? Nowadays, I think the Church would say chromosomes trump genitalia in determining sex. Although there is no teaching on this.

Today we have theories of biological female brains and biological male brains. If it is proven that an individual has the biomarkers of a male brain, has ambiguous genitalia but also two x chromosomes, which of these determines their true sex? The Church doesn't say.

This has nothing to do with gender ideology. We can accept the truth that sex cannot be chosen but then we are still in a puzzle about how to objectively determine what true sex is.

Someone once told me that there are more people born intersex (with incongruent or indeterminate markers of biological sex) than there are redheads in the world. But, let's stipulate for the sake of conversation, it's a tiny % of people in this situation. 

The rest of trans people then don't have an objective mismatch in sex characteristics to explain their situation. Their condition is most likely the result of a fault in subjective interpretation caused by a developmental or adjustment disorder, especially autism. In which case you, telling the patient outside of a therapeutic setting, that they are nuts, and that they are repeating lies, is really not helpful. 

Your comments should rather be addressed to healthy brained adherents of gender ideology who insist we accept their theories as true. It is possible to reject the theory while accepting the person, who is themselves a victim. 

[Jaime]

7 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

I agree for the most part. Except that I may disagree to the extent that the disordered inclination is willed.

OK thanks for clarifying.

No, I don't think this is correct. Lust is a sin that requires a positive act of the will. The same is true with envy. If an attractive woman passes by me and I become sexually aroused by her presence, that is not sin. That is not lust. That is a natural biological response resulting from testosterone, dopamine, or whatever hormones or subconscious mental processes that control male arousal. Lust occurs when I make a conscious mental decision to entertain the thoughts for my own pleasure (staring at her body and fantasizing what it would be like to have sex with her, and things like that).

 

I think we're saying the same thing.   My point being is that we all deal with objectively disordered inclinations.  I know this because we all sin.  

 

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

For our transgender friend you seem to assume that his/her decision to identify as his/her opposite sex is more akin to the natural biological response, rather than a conscious mental decision. I don't think that assumption is warranted. Maybe it is true in his/her case. Maybe it is not. As I wrote, I think that's up to him/her and the Lord.

Well let's say that tomorrow I decide that I am tired of being a Catholic and choose to live out the rest of my life as a woman, just for the hell of it. Is that OK?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a certain biological inclination, in and of itself, is necessarily sinful.

I came into this thread because little2add was declaring doctrine where there was none. I also felt compelled to clarify when natural law is broken.  I literally have no idea why someone who is biologically one sex may identify as the opposite sex.  I don't know if it's biology or psychological or if some cases due to abuse.  I don't think anyone knows.  I would imagine it's a huge burden for the person.  

 

And if you left the Church, that would smell of elderberries. 

[fides' Jack]

3 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Gender ideology is a pack of lies, sure. That gender is totally separable from sex; that we can choose our sex. However you're trying to go from there to crossing a bridge that hasn't been built yet.

Back in the day, sex was determined by genitalia. But there have always been people with indeterminate genitalia.  Now that we can look at chromosomes, we know that some tiny % of people have a mismatch between their chromosomes and their genitalia. Eg A person who developed a micro penis in utero, turns out to have two x chromosomes. Is that person female or male? Nowadays, I think the Church would say chromosomes trump genitalia in determining sex. Although there is no teaching on this.

Today we have theories of biological female brains and biological male brains. If it is proven that an individual has the biomarkers of a male brain, has ambiguous genitalia but also two x chromosomes, which of these determines their true sex? The Church doesn't say.

This has nothing to do with gender ideology. We can accept the truth that sex cannot be chosen but then we are still in a puzzle about how to objectively determine what true sex is.

Someone once told me that there are more people born intersex (with incongruent or indeterminate markers of biological sex) than there are redheads in the world. But, let's stipulate for the sake of conversation, it's a tiny % of people in this situation. 

The rest of trans people then don't have an objective mismatch in sex characteristics to explain their situation. Their condition is most likely the result of a fault in subjective interpretation caused by a developmental or adjustment disorder, especially autism. In which case you, telling the patient outside of a therapeutic setting, that they are nuts, and that they are repeating lies, is really not helpful. 

Your comments should rather be addressed to healthy brained adherents of gender ideology who insist we accept their theories as true. It is possible to reject the theory while accepting the person, who is themselves a victim. 

I knew somebody would bring this up.

Intersex and chromosomal abnormalities are not part of this discussion.  The point is moot.  They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Absolutely this person is a victim.  As are any Christians who read this thread and don't see Catholics condemning the falsehood as a lie.

I don't believe you can claim that my strict adherence to the truth and refusal to even entertain the lie is not helpful.  What is that based on?

Believe it or not, I have compassion for this woman.  I feel for her plight.  As Jaime suggested, we all struggle with disordered inclinations.  I certainly do, and I pity those with similar or not-so-similar inclinations. 

Whether or not her belief in the lie is sinful or not (that was never my argument), what's really irking me is that most of the people here refuse even to acknowledge the truth.

[Lilllabettt]

19 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I knew somebody would bring this up.

Intersex and chromosomal abnormalities are not part of this discussion.  The point is moot.  They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Absolutely this person is a victim.  As are any Christians who read this thread and don't see Catholics condemning the falsehood as a lie.

I don't believe you can claim that my strict adherence to the truth and refusal to even entertain the lie is not helpful.  What is that based on?

Who is telling the lie here? Which of the people posting here is a liar? A lie requires the intention to deceive.

There are two scenarios, in the one the OP actually has incongruous or indeterminate markers of biological sex, in which case their decision to opt for one biomarker over the other might actually represent their true sex (rather than what some obstetrician guessed by appearances when they were born.) 

In the other scenario the OP is suffering from a developmental disorder. I asked the OP about an autism diagnosis specifically because trans identification so often goes hand in hand with autism spectrum disorder. No surprise, it does in fact run in OPs immediate family. Dollats to donuts that is the pathology at work here. What I'm telling you is what you would know if you were professionally trained - denouncing the confused understanding of sick people as lies, does not help them. There is a therapeutic context in which patients can be successfully guided to reject their subjective experience as unreal. 

There's zero point to your efforts. If there were healthy brained people here who embraced gender ideology then you could claim some purpose in denouncing them as liars or spouters of lies. Maybe there are 1 or 2 in this entire thread; no one currently talking to you is in that category. Addressing the OP in the way you did doesn't serve the truth, or anyone. This was a golden opportunity to ask thoughtful questions that would ultimately undermine and destabilize the OPs [mis]understanding of their situation... you blew it. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Lilllabettt

[fides' Jack]

6 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Who is telling the lie here? Which of the people posting here is a liar? A lie requires the intention to deceive.

There are two scenarios, in the one the OP actually has incongruous or indeterminate markers of biological sex, in which case their decision to opt for one biomarker over the other might actually represent their true sex (rather than what some obstetrician guessed by appearances when they were born.) 

In the other scenario the OP is suffering from a developmental disorder. I asked the OP about an autism diagnosis specifically because trans identification so often goes hand in hand with autism spectrum disorder. No surprise, it does in fact run in OPs immediate family. Dollats to donuts that is the pathology at work here. What I'm telling you is what you would know if you were professionally trained - denouncing the confused understanding of sick people as lies, does not help them. There is a therapeutic context in which patients can be successfully guided to reject their subjective experience.  

There's zero point to your efforts. If there were healthy brained people here who embraced gender ideology then you could claim some purpose in denouncing them as liars or spouters of lies. Maybe there are 1 or 2 in this entire thread; no one currently talking to you is in that category. Addressing the OP in the way you did doesn't serve the truth, or anyone. This was a golden opportunity to ask thoughtful questions that would ultimately undermine and destabilize the OPs [mis]understanding of their situation... you blew it. 

The point is not to play the blame game.  The point is to call out the lie as a lie in and of itself.  The liar might be the person who convinced the original poster she is a man (whether it was intentional or not).  I don't care who the liar is.  I do care when the lie is perpetuated by those who don't condemn it as a lie.

Is transgenderism bad?  Yes or no. 

6 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

In the other scenario

There are more than 2 scenarios here.

Edited February 20, 2021 by fides' Jack
clarification

[Lilllabettt]

15 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The point is not to play the blame game.  The point is to call out the lie as a lie in and of itself.  The liar might be the person who convinced the original poster she is a man (whether it was intentional or not).  I don't care who the liar is.  I do care when the lie is perpetuated by those who don't condemn it as a lie.

Is transgenderism bad?  Yes or no. 

There are more than 2 scenarios here.

Who are you trying to help or what good are you trying to accomplish by telling the OP they are living a lie. Just, what's your purpose?

In the cases where transgenderism is a correction of objectively miscategorized biomarkers of sex, that is a good. In that case it's a revelation of objective truth.

Most cases of transgenderism, imo, indicate the presence of pathology. Pathology is contrary to human flourishing, it's bad. Then there is the embrace of transgenderism by healthy brained people as "normal " which has a deleterious effect on social justice, particularly for females. Very bad stuff. None of this is repaired in the least by telling autistic or otherwise suffering people that they are living a lie, or spouting lies, their ideas are delusions, etc. That may be the case but that's not the point- your strategy for whatever you're trying to accomplish stinks. 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Lilllabettt

[fides' Jack]

 

3 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

In the cases where transgenderism is a correction of objectively miscategorized biomarkers of sex, that is a good. In that case it's a revelation of objective truth.

That's not what we're talking about.

4 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Who are you trying to help or what good are you trying to accomplish by telling the OP they are living a lie. Just, what's your purpose?

 

4 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

That may be the case but that's not the point- your strategy for whatever you're trying to accomplish stinks.

I'm not a psychologist (thank God).  I'm willing to admit that I don't know for sure what approach of speaking truth is the best.  But neither do you.  It's pretty obvious at this point that psychology today is largely guided by satan, and the rampant pseudo-intellectual "psychological" approach that we call "expert" has only led us further and further from God.

What I do know is that for too long we "Catholics" have sit idly by and compromised on truth every single chance we had.  We have already been warned.  We're now about to be punished.  Myself as much as anyone else.

Up is down.  Down is up.  Left is right and right is left.  Sin is good and virtue is bad.  Men are women and women are men.  Both are neither.  Both are whatever they want to be.  Violent criminals are let go and even exalted in society while law-abiding, virtuous citizens are demonized, fined, and imprisoned.  Children know better than adults.  Order is bad, chaos is good. 

It's all chaos, it's all satanic, and I refuse to be a part of it, anymore, by cowardly trying to "reason with it".  It's satan, there is no reasoning with it.  The only reasonable response is to reject it.  It doesn't deserve "questions".  It doesn't deserve a reply.  

There is no context in which a man claiming to be a woman is a good thing, and there is no context in which a woman claiming to be a man is a good thing.

All that matters is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

32 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

None of this is repaired in the least by telling autistic or otherwise suffering people that they are living a lie, or spouting lies, their ideas are delusions, etc

Three of my kids and my wife are autistic.  They would be the first to tell you, often the point can only be made by speaking as simply and clearly and objectively about the issue as possible.

[Anastasia]

Re: psychology. I find this resource to be useful and stimulating. 

Psychotherapy in the Catholic Mystic Tradition

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

 What I'm telling you is what you would know if you were professionally trained

When are these appeals to authority ever going to end?

First, if we were biologists we would agree with your views on the safety of the vaccine.

Second, if we were anthropologists we would agree with your views concerning the sexual desires of straight men.

Now, if we were psychologists we would agree with your views on the nature of gender identity disorders.

I've never met a woman with so many different areas of expertise!

What are you going to tell us next, that 2 + 2 = 5, and we would agree with your conclusion if only we were trained mathematicians?

Come on now.

[Lilllabettt]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

When are these appeals to authority ever going to end?

First, if we were biologists we would agree with your views on the safety of the vaccine.

Second, if we were anthropologists we would agree with your views concerning the sexual desires of straight men.

Now, if we were psychologists we would agree with your views on the nature of gender identity disorders.

I've never met a woman with so many different areas of expertise!

What are you going to tell us next, that 2 + 2 = 5, and we would agree with your conclusion if only we were trained mathematicians?

Come on now.

 

No. You don't have to agree with me on the nature of gender identity disorders.  If you live long enough you will encounter the truth through your own experience, that denouncing crazy people as crazy does nothing productive for them. Except maybe scratch an itch you have.

Let's take it out of mental disease and disorder. Let's take a radicalized Trumper who believes in pizzagate and that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. How do you deprogram that person and undermine their brainwashing? We know what works... and the average person who lives long enough discovers thru their own experience what doesn't work... which in the case of the Trumper, would be, for example, denouncing them as a Nazi as you all sit at the dinner table.