Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)

[Ash Wednesday]

I listen to Father Ripperger from time to time and I remember the first time his video discussing women in the workplace came on to youtube and Catholic internet blew up, so I figured a new thread would likely be necessary. It allows me to practice the phorum splitting skills 

Please refer all discussions on the Father Ripperger video to the thread here:

Cheers

[little2add]

19 hours ago, CuriositasEtFidem said:

Yes, I'm sincere

Womanhood is a God-given grace and should not be squandered.  
 

I may not be an college theologian graduate, but I do believe in the sanctity of life, as we know it.  

Think of the parable: The “Parable of the Bags of Gold”, AKA “Parable of the Talents”

 

Sincerely, L2A

Don’t bury it like “the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.”

[fides' Jack]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Well you can literally find a priest somewhere to say whatever you want nowadays. You really gotta go to official catechisms, encyclicals, the summa, doctors of the church, etc. if you want to make an appeal to authority. You can find a priest on Youtube to say anything.

This is absolutely true.

I would say, though, that Fr. Ripperger also agrees with this statement.  He is extremely careful to follow the True Magisterium.  And he often quotes the various sources you mentioned.

[Anomaly]

Instead of telling you how to behave, I’m asking...

@CuriositasEtFidemThe answer probably got lost in the heated exchanges in this thread, but my question really is what are the parameters of gender behavior that you feel you cannot express as a female?   What are the internal and or external “things” that compels you to be Transgender, not female AND who/what the person you want to be?   What is it that you cannot do or be whilst being called a female?

[little2add]

On 2/28/2021 at 5:37 PM, little2add said:

 

 

 

[little2add]

#curiositasetfidem 

would you sign up for  The “he-man woman haters” club?  

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by little2add

[fides' Jack]

 

[Credo in Deum]

Wow, 20 pages and no ones looked to one of the main things the Church posses which can settle this argument on transgenderism and that's the Sacraments.

1. Can the OP get married to a woman?

2. Can the OP receive Holy Orders?

The answer is, no, which means the Church views the OP as female.

 

Also, the Church is silent on this matter in the same way Christ was silent to Pilate.  People who do not want to conform to the Truth cannot be helped.

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[Luigi]

I Want to Do X - Click for a frustrating chain of illogic. I can't get the image to post. Sorry. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Luigi

[Guest]

On 4/2/2021 at 6:55 AM, Credo in Deum said:

The answer is, no, which means the Church views the OP as female.

Not necessarily, I don't think.  Perhaps such a person is regarded as having a disorder/impediment, which precludes him from both Sacraments?

[Credo in Deum]

3 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Not necessarily, I don't think.  Perhaps such a person is regarded as having a disorder/impediment, which precludes him from both Sacraments?

Yes, the disorder being they think they are a man when in fact they are a female. 

[ReasonableFaith]

4 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

On 4/1/2021 at 3:25 PM, Credo in Deum said:

 

Not necessarily, I don't think.  Perhaps such a person is regarded as having a disorder/impediment, which precludes him from both Sacraments?

A person born with male genitalia could be impeded from both, 1 & 2, on multiple grounds. The premises presented in this case are both false and the correlating conclusion erroneous.  

[Credo in Deum]

5 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

A person born with male genitalia could be impeded from both, 1 & 2, on multiple grounds. The premises presented in this case are both false and the correlating conclusion erroneous.  

This is true a biological male could be but on the other side a biological male is also always able to discern 1 & 2 with the possible outcome of being accepted. That's always been my point and you lot are trying side-step the fact that a biological woman (the OP) could NEVER do 1&2. 

Also, to be clear I'm not here to tell the OP that they're evil, but I'm also not going act as is if the Church doesn't have a position on this matter, when it does as clear as day through its Sacraments.  I will not provide a false hope just so they can feel all warm and fuzzy inside...or what's the buzz word these days?  Inclusivity? 

Reminds me of this scene...."common join us for fellowship."

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

4 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

This is true a biological male could be but on the other side a biological male is also always able to discern 1 & 2 with the possible outcome of being accepted.

 

What's your definition of biological male? XY chromosome, male genitalia, "male" brain? And/or?

Agree, the Church would never ordain one who is not a biological male.  But the proof required to show biological maleness has changed thru the years as science advances. 

To be clear I don't actually believe in the concept of male and female brains. 

I think the Church's current approach is that trans people have something off with them which is disqualifying. Trans people at least agree with that, that there is something off - ie they are in the "wrong" body or some such thing. 

You could say, no, what's actually off is that you think people can be born into the wrong body at all.

But at least everyone agrees something is off!

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

What's your definition of biological male? XY chromosome, male genitalia, "male" brain? And/or?

Agree, the Church would never ordain one who is not a biological male.  But the proof required to show biological maleness has changed thru the years as science advances. 

To be clear I don't actually believe in the concept of male and female brains. 

I think the Church's current approach is that trans people have something off with them which is disqualifying. Trans people at least agree with that, that there is something off - ie they are in the "wrong" body or some such thing. 

You could say, no, what's actually off is that you think people can be born into the wrong body at all.

But at least everyone agrees something is off!

This has nothing to do with "my" definition. The empirical evidence of biological sex that we have is determined by the sex chromosoms, as well as, genitalia.  Any "new" biological markers/evidence would add to this but not contradict it.  Either way this is a moot point, right?   Someone who identifies as trans is doing so because they don't believe they are who they already admit to being biologically. 

The OP admits to being a biological woman when they call themselves a "trans man".  A trans man is not nor ever will be considered the same as a biological man in the eyes of the Church.