Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

 

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.

I hear what you are saying. It's a complicated issue because at least right now we don't have a sufficient understanding of the disorder to definitively evaluate the moral implications of it. I would not go so far as @fides' Jack to say that anytime X person declares himself Y gender he sins because he is speaking against objective truth. The root of that declaration can be rooted in pathology. I tend to think that in many cases the person is confused and not really morally culpable in the sense that we normally think of. But is that what @fides' Jack is really suggesting? I don't know. At one point he calls those folks "victims" but then at another point he says that they are morally culpable and sin. Not sure if you can really have it both ways there.

But yeah I guess the whole area of mental illness and moral culpability is pretty complicated. I have family members with mental illness. From one aspect you have to look at their actions from a standpoint of compassion. But on the other hand most people with mental illness still have capacity to act morally or immorally. It's often tough to sort out the extent to which actions can be attributed to the disorder, and which are attributable to a moral failure just like the rest of us.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

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

No, I think it is a legitimate part of the discussion. Your basic form of argument is that "X is male therefore it is wrong for X to declare himself as female, because that conflicts with objective truth." Now that works perfectly well in the abstract, but when practically applied we need a concrete definition of what "male" and "female" are to determine whether X is wrong. I think the issue that @Lilllabettt raised is legitimate. It's difficult to go around making definitive moral pronouncements when the Church hasn't really given us concrete definitions that enable to objectively determine what X's proper gender or gender identity should be. I think these are new issues for the Church to consider and it hasn't been worked out yet.

It's a bit Sci-Fi-ish but lets' say an evil scientist took your brain, the brain of a woman, and put your brain in her body, and put her brain in your body. In that case, what would you be, a male or a female? A man trapped in a woman's body, or a woman with a male brain?

It's not an easy question to answer. But with a lot of folks with gender identity issues, I think they are saying that this is essentially the situation that they are dealing with (by way of disorder I think). That they have a "male brain" in a "female body" or vice-versa. Are they male or female?

Now whether or not there is any scientific basis for that, or whether that is just some impossible junk-science, I don't know. I think folks are really still trying to investigate and understand that, so we're not yet in a position to make moral conclusions.

Personally, I think there could be some legitimacy to the idea. Growing up, there are were just certain kids that had a way about them, we probably guessed that they would grow up to be homosexual. And in many of those cases that is exactly what happened. I have a cousin who "transitioned" from female to male. When she was young, we all thought she was very masculine. I thought that she would probably end up being lesbian. She's pretty confused and it's not like any of my family members indoctrinated her into that. Part of it is biological I think. I don't think this stuff is simply a matter of moral choices. I think there are probably legitimate scientific disorders or reasons that are at play here, so we need to better understand them before just making blanket pronouncements about what people are "objectively" and that they have sinned just because somebody thinks "This person is a woman because she has XYZ physical features."

Edited February 20, 2021 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

On 2/20/2021 at 8:21 AM, Peace said:

I would not go so far as @fides' Jack to say that anytime X person declares himself Y gender he sins because he is speaking against objective truth.

I did not say that.  I didn't bring up those people's sins at all.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:21 AM, Peace said:

But is that what @fides' Jack is really suggesting?

Again, no.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:21 AM, Peace said:

At one point he calls those folks "victims" but then at another point he says that they are morally culpable and sin.

I did call them victims, and I believe they are victims.  I didn't say that they are morally culpable and sin.  I said those (meaning those here who claim to hold the Catholic faith) who don't condemn the falsehood sin.  

I'm actually fairly careful with the words I use.  People often take something from my statements that I didn't say.  I think most people, unfortunately, hear 1 of 2 sides, and assume other things based on which side they believe the person to be arguing for.

[fides' Jack]

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

It's a bit Sci-Fi-ish but lets' say an evil scientist took your brain, the brain of a woman, and put your brain in her body, and put her brain in your body. In that case, what would you be, a male or a female? A man trapped in a woman's body, or a woman with a male brain?

It's not an easy question to answer.

Because it's a ridiculous proposition.  It will never happen (except in our own evil imaginations - evil, because doing so would be contrary to natural law).  Therefore it's moot.

But, if you want a concrete answer, yes, the Church has spoken about that before.  Your soul and your body are the same gender.  If a soul is somehow tied to another gender's body (which would be impossible, anyway, because God wouldn't allow it), the soul in control of the body would still retain its original gender.  Because the soul is a spirit, which, like all spirits, is unchangeable.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

It's difficult to go around making definitive moral pronouncements when the Church hasn't really given us concrete definitions that enable to objectively determine what X's proper gender or gender identity should be.

The Church hasn't made pronouncements regarding who is male and who is female because in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's obvious, AND it's common sense.  Not just common sense, but intuitive to even the youngest babies.  Babies know there is a difference between men and women.  They may not understand that they only get milk from mom and not dad, but they do understand there's a difference.

When people talk about transgenderism they are not talking about people with chromosomal or other physical abnormalities.  They are talking about people who struggle to emotionally identify with the gender that God gave them.  Most people probably wouldn't word it that way.  But that's what the OP is about.  That's what the discussion is about.  That's not to say that there isn't a discussion to be had about those with physical abnormalities, because clearly both the science and the religion behind that isn't clearly defined.  But for the issue of transgenderism as I just described it here, yes, the Church's stance is clear, and that's the issue we're discussing currently.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

I have a cousin who "transitioned" from female to male.

No, that didn't happen.  She is not a man, even if she calls herself one.  She described it as "transitioning" from male to female.  Really she's a woman who emotionally or physically mutilated herself.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

When she was young, we all thought she was very masculine.

So she had a human personality.  Good!  We all do.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

Part of it is biological I think.

Sure, I can agree to that.  There may have been or may currently be some kind of hormonal or other issues that could lead to psychological conditions.  Granted.

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

we need to better understand them before just making blanket pronouncements about what people are "objectively"

No, that's absurd.  We know what men are.  We know what women are.  (Again, for the vast majority of cases, which are those we are discussing)

On 2/20/2021 at 8:50 AM, Peace said:

and that they have sinned just because somebody thinks "This person is a woman because she has XYZ physical features."

I'm reading these words carefully, but I'm not sure what you mean.  Is this assuming that I said, "People sin who say they are men when they are biologically women", or is it assuming that I said, "People sin who think somebody is a woman because she has XYZ physical features".  I said neither of those things.  But certainly in the first example there is the possibility of sin. 

[Anastasia]

I am totally convinced that the only people who have an objective reason to question their own sex are those with true hermaphroditism i.e. their sexual organs have a very ambiguous appearances.  I do not how those people decide whom they should be but I know that 2/3 of them are raised as males. This fact may reflect the preference of a male gender as more desirable. This disorder is very rare. Note that the thoughts of parents "who is my child" have a basis in of the objective reality.

I recall seeing women in the sauna, when I was very small child, and "comparing" them with myself and identifying myself as a girl (it was a kind of my own confirmation based on observation). I have never questioned the fact that I was a girl and I recall that I knew that not because the way I was dressed but because of my body. The body dictated some (cute) details of dressing. Because of family circumstances I learnt "typical" male tasks (like constructing and building things) and very little of women's but it did not affect my perceptions of myself. Furthermore, the extensive test I took some years ago about a gender certified that my brain is more male than of an average male (it was about wiring and the tasks women are typically better than men and vice versa). My "male" brain did not prevent me to make my own dresses which are more feminine than the most stuff one can buy nowadays.

I must say that in the U.S.S.R. and immediately after its destruction there was at least declared equality of sexes. We (girls) were told that we can do anything in art, science etc. Perhaps that was a factor. When the girls in a school are told about women, the jet pilots as heroes during the War it makes an impact. Also, it considered to be vulgar to think much about dressing oneself up (oversexualizing) to cater to male needs.

That's said, I still think that the major factor for taking "I am a girl" as a given thing was the fact that it is.... a given thing. You cannot do anything with the given reality. I understand (and I am speaking here of the "ideologists" of transgenderism) that some people just cannot put up with something "imposed" upon them. Hence their ideology is "I will". Pity they bring so many people down.

Finally, I must say that to me the "transgenderism industry" is a face of the rabid techno-capitalism. Selling new bodies (a fake), glamorizing that fake, making more money on the misery, infantilism and confusion of others and so on. 

I am not a feminist (no need thanks to U.S.S.R.) but I find their argument about how the industry of transgenderism is erasing a woman to be worthy of reading.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Anastasia

[CuriositasEtFidem]

On 2/18/2021 at 10:32 PM, Anomaly said:

So, has @CuriositasEtFidemstill here, or just another flash in the Phan?

Yes, I'm still here, I'm just a little quiet because of my fatigue. I am keeping up and reading most of everything though.

 

The facts of the matter are that:

-I dress, walk, and speak like a man 

-I will soon be taking testosterone

-I will undergo top surgery one day (until then, I have to bind)

-Most people call me by the name I have chosen and refer to me as "he/they"

-I feel more comfortable calling myself a guy/dude/man/whatever

-I experience gender dysphoria

-I am, and will die, a Roman Catholic

 

Does it really need to be made more complicated than that? I'm not dismissing the good points everyone has brought up (thank you for all of your contributions by the way), I'm simply living comfortably. 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I did not say that.  I didn't bring up those people's sins at all.

Again, no.

I did call them victims, and I believe they are victims.  I didn't say that they are morally culpable and sin.  I said those (meaning those here who claim to hold the Catholic faith) who don't condemn the falsehood sin.  

I'm actually fairly careful with the words I use.  People often take something from my statements that I didn't say.  I think most people, unfortunately, hear 1 of 2 sides, and assume other things based on which side they believe the person to be arguing for.

OK thanks for clarifying. I assumed that you were implying that she was morally culpable when you told her that she was on the road to hell and that she commits mortal sin when she dresses as a man.

What definition of the word "careful" are you using? You may think you are being careful, but I highly suspect that your audience does not. Me personally, not being careful enough with my words is something that I recognize I need to improve, but from my perspective you are even less careful than me. Just my 2 cents.

[ReasonableFaith]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I said those (meaning those here who claim to hold the Catholic faith) who don't condemn the falsehood sin.

I haven’t felt the need to make any condemnation in this thread. Thank you for taking the time to be helpful and point out my ‘sin.’  

I’m sorry to see you falling into your self-described temptation, especially during this penitential season.  Would it be helpful if I suggested some site-blockers?

[Machine_Washable]

1 hour ago, CuriositasEtFidem said:

Yes, I'm still here, I'm just a little quiet because of my fatigue. I am keeping up and reading most of everything though.

 

The facts of the matter are that:

-I dress, walk, and speak like a man 

-I will soon be taking testosterone

-I will undergo top surgery one day (until then, I have to bind)

-Most people call me by the name I have chosen and refer to me as "he/they"

-I feel more comfortable calling myself a guy/dude/man/whatever

-I experience gender dysphoria

-I am, and will die, a Roman Catholic

 

Does it really need to be made more complicated than that? I'm not dismissing the good points everyone has brought up (thank you for all of your contributions by the way), I'm simply living comfortably. 

This issue is difficult for me to navigate. I have no animosity towards transgender people and no desire to be rude to them. I am hostile to the political agenda that has come along with the transgender visibility. In Canada we have had issues with the schools being mandated to teach things that go against Islam about gender and claims that gender is totally constructed. I have friends in Australia who have told me that things are even more extreme there. In Victoria an Imam could get into trouble with even advising a transgender person who wants to be a faithful Muslim because it’s classified as conversion therapy. These things are not your responsibility. I’m not saying this out of hostility. But it seems like this desire that people respect pronouns and other things comes part and parcel with these very strong politics movements. I am reading this thread and thank you for posting it. It is interesting to read. 

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, CuriositasEtFidem said:

Does it really need to be made more complicated than that?

If I understand you correctly, by "more complicated" you mean various opinions of some people here which clash with/challenge your idea of "comfortable living". However, it was you who caused those "more complicated opinions" via writing here and disclosing who you are and calling people to ask you anything. 

As for the list of your intended actions they were all covered by the discussion here about transgenderism as such.

[ReasonableFaith]

14 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

However, it was you who caused those "more complicated opinions" via writing here and disclosing who you are and calling people to ask you anything.

Indeed, she started this by disclosing some aspects of herself and inviting  questions. Some asked questions and received thoughtful responses.  However, some opted to poke and prod her as if she is some sort of moral guinea pig...all the while discussing her ‘moral condition’ as if she wasn’t in the room. It’s been a difficult but educational read. 

[Peace]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Because it's a ridiculous proposition.  It will never happen (except in our own evil imaginations - evil, because doing so would be contrary to natural law).  Therefore it's moot.

Granted, I don't think it will be scientifically possible to transfer a brain from one person into the body of another, but you never know. We have successful transplants of other bodily organs, heart, kidney, etc. Besides, even if it is scientifically possible, it provides a useful thought experiment (which is why you attempted to answer the question).

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

But, if you want a concrete answer, yes, the Church has spoken about that before.  Your soul and your body are the same gender.  If a soul is somehow tied to another gender's body (which would be impossible, anyway, because God wouldn't allow it), the soul in control of the body would still retain its original gender.  Because the soul is a spirit, which, like all spirits, is unchangeable.

For one, I don't think the Church teaches that the soul has a gender. But that's up for debate I think:

But more importantly, my hypothetical did not presuppose a "soul swap." It presumed a "brain swap". And by "brain" I refer to the physical organ that is protected by your skull, to be clear. The question is, if we took your "male brain" (if it can even be said that there is such a thing) and put it into what you call a "female body" (lets say a body with a vagina and a uterus) - would you then be properly considered a male or a female?

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

The Church hasn't made pronouncements regarding who is male and who is female because in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's obvious, AND it's common sense.  Not just common sense, but intuitive to even the youngest babies.  Babies know there is a difference between men and women.  They may not understand that they only get milk from mom and not dad, but they do understand there's a difference.

Well the crux of your argument seems to be "I am correct because it is obvious to everybody that I am correct." I think the Church hasn't made strict pronouncements because these gender identity disorders and the science behind gender is relatively new in the life of the Church, and She want to take proper care before issuing the type of black and white pronouncements of good and evil that you have declared in this thread.

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

When people talk about transgenderism they are not talking about people with chromosomal or other physical abnormalities.  They are talking about people who struggle to emotionally identify with the gender that God gave them.  Most people probably wouldn't word it that way.  But that's what the OP is about.  That's what the discussion is about.  That's not to say that there isn't a discussion to be had about those with physical abnormalities, because clearly both the science and the religion behind that isn't clearly defined.  But for the issue of transgenderism as I just described it here, yes, the Church's stance is clear, and that's the issue we're discussing currently.

Friend, that is the issue that "you" are discussing. "I" am discussing the former issue, and what implications it has for the general moral principles that we can make concerning gender disorder issues. Now, "you" may not want to discuss it because "you" just want to keep things overly simple so that you can make black and white pronouncements of good and evil, and that is perfectly fine. But not everyone else here in this thread is required to operate within the narrow frame that you choose to.

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

No, that didn't happen.  She is not a man, even if she calls herself one.  She described it as "transitioning" from male to female.  Really she's a woman who emotionally or physically mutilated herself.

You know perfectly well what I meant. You may come down from your high-horse.

Now, I will agree with you that she mutilated herself (at least as far as I know) and that is sin.

But as for her "not being a man". Well, I don't know if she has an XY chromosome now do I?

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

No, that's absurd.  We know what men are.  We know what women are.  (Again, for the vast majority of cases, which are those we are discussing)

Again, "You" are discussing "the vast majority of cases".

"I" am discussing people with serious gender identity issues and possible biological issues that may make it difficult to classify them based on the criteria that the Church has suggested people should be classified on.

What I am positing here is that there may be something about them biologically that makes it difficult to classify them, even if they do not present a clear problem case like a chromosome abnormality.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. Look, I will grant you that we have a common, fairly intuitive, understanding of what constitutes male and female in our daily lives. I am guessing you want to simplify it down to something as simple as "A woman has a vagina and a man has a penis." But that's not a valid definition that can be generally applied, obviously, because of hermaphrodites. We can't have a serious discussion about gender and deduce general moral principles therefrom if you are using a definition that is neither defined by the Church, or that cannot be applied objectively to determine gender without exception.

So Googled and found this recent Church document:

https://zenit.org/2019/06/10/new-vatican-document-provides-schools-with-guidance-on-gender-issues/

In fact, there are rational arguments to support the centrality of the body as an integrating element of personal identity and family relationships. The body is subjectivity that communicates identity of being.23 In the light of this reality, we can understand why the data of biological and medical science shows that ‘sexual dimorphism’ (that is, the sexual difference between men and women) can be demonstrated scientifically by such fields as genetics, endocrinology and neurology. From the point of view of genetics, male cells (which contain XY chromosomes) differ, from the very moment of conception, from female cells (with their XX chromosomes). That said, in cases where a person’s sex is not clearly defined, it is medical professionals who can make a therapeutic intervention. In such situations, parents cannot make an arbitrary choice on the issue, let alone society. Instead, medical science should act with purely therapeutic ends, and intervene in the least invasive fashion, on the basis of objective parameters and with a view to establishing the person’s constitutive identity.

The document above appears to suggest that the difference between "male" and "female" should be decided by medical processionals based on "genetics," "endocrinology," "neurology".

My "brain" example above would fall into the area of "neurology". If a person presents with "male brain" characteristics (such as 20x higher levels of testosterone, male interconnection patterns, etc), is the body in which that brain resides "male" or "female"? That's the hypothetical.

What I posit here is that your "Everbody knows" declarations about these folks and some of the moral conclusions that you have drawn are premature and overly simplistic. You seem to want to take a standard for "the majority of cases" (i.e. people like you and me without serious gender-identity disorders), and assume that folks with gender-identity disorders are the same as you and me. I don't think that assumption is warranted.

I posit that many people who have serious gender-identity issues may have genetic, endocrine, and or neurological issues that present issues from the standpoint of classification and the moral conclusions that can be made, even though they may not fall into any of the clear problem categories such as hermaphrodites or people with "the wrong" XX or XY chromosome. That is all. I think there is a lot more to the issues, and warrants much scientific inquiry and thought by the Church and moral theologians, than you are conceding. I don't think it is is as simple as you seem to want to make it.

 

 

 

 

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

when you told her that she was on the road to hell and that she commits mortal sin when she dresses as a man.

Le sigh.  I kind of did say the first, but I didn't say the latter.  The only specific person that I called out for mortal sin was Jaime, and even then I used the term "grave matter", because I don't know for sure if he's guilty of mortal sin.  That's between him and God.

In general, those who claim to be Catholic and have not yet denounced transgenderism here are probably guilty of at least some amount of sin.

But I'm glad you're calling her a "her" now.  You may have before, and I just missed it.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

What definition of the word "careful" are you using? You may think you are being careful, but I highly suspect that your audience does not. Me personally, not being careful enough with my words is something that I recognize I need to improve, but from my perspective you are even less careful than me. Just my 2 cents.

Fair enough.  But out of all the things that people have said that I said, and then I said, "no, I didn't say that", not a single time has someone come back and shown me an example that I was wrong.  So, I guess I do think I'm being careful enough.  I might be wrong.

In any event, I do recognize that I need to chill online for now.  I probably should've started with Lent...

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Machine_Washable said:

This issue is difficult for me to navigate. I have no animosity towards transgender people and no desire to be rude to them. I am hostile to the political agenda that has come along with the transgender visibility. In Canada we have had issues with the schools being mandated to teach things that go against Islam about gender and claims that gender is totally constructed. I have friends in Australia who have told me that things are even more extreme there. In Victoria an Imam could get into trouble with even advising a transgender person who wants to be a faithful Muslim because it’s classified as conversion therapy. These things are not your responsibility. I’m not saying this out of hostility. But it seems like this desire that people respect pronouns and other things comes part and parcel with these very strong politics movements. I am reading this thread and thank you for posting it. It is interesting to read. 

Whoa. A Muslim on Phatmass?

I think you may be the first one I have noticed on the forum since I started posting here, say 5 years ago. At least for me it would be interesting to hear your perspective on religion and so forth. I haven't really had many opportunities to have religious discussions with Muslims in the real world.

But things can get pretty heated around here - just to warn you!

[Anastasia]

29 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

However, some opted to poke and prod her as if she is some sort of moral guinea pig...all the while discussing her ‘moral condition’ as if she wasn’t in the room

I think you are bias. I do not know, maybe it is just me but I perceive this topic to be somewhat exhibitionistic. If you carefully read it from the beginning you will see that there is no reason for it to appear here because it does not ask about anything but instead invites to ask questions about an extremely private area of sex/gender. Well, when someone engages in a act of exhibitionism it is hard to demand from others to remain very general. After all, "I am a transgender" was posted on the Roman Catholic forum so it is expected that some theological/moral evaluations would be made.

Personally, I am utterly uninterested in any exhibitionistic topics and this is why I chose to move on to the topic of transgenderism as such. I have a male brain after all.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Anastasia