Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Jaime said:

You haven’t convinced me that all men secretly wish they had breasts.

And you have not convinced me that they don't!

[little2add]

2 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Trying to embarass you.

Every other mammal on the planet develops temporary breasts during ovulation or nursing. Basically their purpose is to produce milk. So once the milk is gone, the breasts disappear. But this isn't the case for female humans, whose breasts form during puberty, not pregnancy.

I'm 

Edited February 12, 2021 by little2add

[Anastasia]

On 2/10/2021 at 12:09 PM, CuriositasEtFidem said:

I believe that God created me transgender, and it's taken a very long time to crawl out of the pit of self-hatred and anxiety that religious guilt had trapped me in. I'm not going back. 

God could not created you a transgender because God created "male and female", body and soul together being in harmony. It would be an absurd for God to deliberately place a female soul into a male body and vice versa. The disorder like that is a manifestation of a fallen world, just like other disorders.

Speaking of a hatred for own body, breasts in particular - I knew a woman who suffered an emotional incest with her narcissistic mother. A mother had huge priests. When, at some point of the daughter's life, in her forties I think her breasts suddenly became bigger because of hormonal change she developed an intense disgust for them. Her realization of emotional incest in therapy lessened her disgust. This is just one example of how unresolved deep issues like that, especially re: early significant attachment, can shape a person.

I recall a certain Orthodox priest saying, when being asked about the Church's attitude to transgenders, that an attitude is like to all sinners (the Church is a hospital where everyone is ill after all) but the problem is that many of transgender people do not wish to admit something is wrong with them - on the contrary, most come and demand to be seen as "normal" i.e. without a disorder - hence the Church cannot help them. 

Our identify is in Christ. No disorder can be resolved without a total surrender to Him. He can remake anyone providing that a person thinks of himself as nothing.

As for a lack of the Church teaching on the topic, isn't it said in Deuteronomy that "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." We have always understood it not as "a woman must not wear trousers" buy a woman should not try to look as a man and vice versa.

But in any case, this is a private pastoral issue. On the Orthodox forum someone who starts such a topic would be told to seek a compassionate priest and speak to him. Actually, it is the only reason why such a topic would appear would be a request for a help.

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

What exactly are female-based activities? Oh, is caring for children a "female based" activity, really? It came naturally to this person, therefore that's evidence she's really a woman ... as if men don't find it natural to care for children???

A mother is "joined" with a child until about 2-3 years old when a separation begins. It is indispensable for the psychological development of a child that a mother is totally available. No one can take her place. Others can and should help and care yet it is a mother who is indispensable in formation of the most important attachment (proto-attachment) in a child's life. Hence this is "a female activity" determined by nature.

[Lilllabettt]

16 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

A mother is "joined" with a child until about 2-3 years old when a separation begins. It is indispensable for the psychological development of a child that a mother is totally available. No one can take her place. Others can and should help and care yet it is a mother who is indispensable in formation of the most important attachment (proto-attachment) in a child's life. Hence this is "a female activity" determined by nature.

I have a graduate degree in developmental psychology and have never encountered evidence of what you suggest here.

Of course mothers are indispensable but everything I have read says that men, fathers in particular, are also absolutely indispensable to the proper development of  children. He cannot be replaced. In some areas the father plays the more important role; in his absence the mother's efforts in these areas seem to be in large part futile. It is not an accident that God shows Himself to us as Father. The relationship with Him is essential, He is the most natural of nurturers,  ever present in good times and bad. and this is reflected in the role natural fathers need to play for their children. 

[Anastasia]

13 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

everything I have read says that men, fathers in particular, are also absolutely indispensable to the proper development of  children. He cannot be replaced.

I did not say they are not. (Everyone can be replaced though, in a case if a mother or a father disappeared; but it has to be another figure who can proved an attachment just as secure, a mother figure or a father figure. A child, first and foremost, needs a secure attachment). Fathers and mothers have different roles and both are crucial. 

I probably got the time period wrong, not three years but a bit shorter, of a "fusion state" or "narcissistic stage of development (you can look Kohut's theory for that). A mother is the most important until the "fusion stage" is about to finish. A father then is extremely important, as one who helps a child to break a fusion with a mother, to prompt him into the world.

20 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

I have a graduate degree in developmental psychology and have never encountered evidence of what you suggest here.

In my own experience, what exactly is given to students often depends on "a fashion". For example, there is no chance in our to learn University anything about psychoanalysis and the only therapy they teach is CBT that can be effective but is limited to certain areas. 

I only can say that the attachment to a mother is a proto-attachment which works as "a matrix" for all future attachments including to God. With a "good enough mother" a child usually has no problems with forming healthy attachments. With a pathological the distortions are likely to negatively affect/ruin his attachments, to humans and to God.  This is something I learnt and something I know quite well in practice, especially in an an area of cPTSD.

36 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

It is not an accident that God shows Himself to us as Father. The relationship with Him is essential, He is the most natural of nurturers,  ever present in good times and bad. and this is reflected in the role natural fathers need to play for their children. 

I see it differently. God the Father is truly Father because his love is not blind, like mother's love can be, being unchecked by a father. He does not abandon but He demands right actions from His children. To me a mother is the most natural of nurturers (a breastfeeding mother is a symbol of it) and a father is the most natural of "upbringers", one who is more objective.

Of course, God has both aspects, He Himself refers to a mother's love as His in the OT.

[Anomaly]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

And you have not convinced me that they don't!

They don’t, and you know it.  Pick something else to try to make your point.   You’re just making yourself look like a doofus. 

5 hours ago, little2add said:

isn't it odd that

Humans seem to be the only animal whose females have breasts that permanently have a "full" appearance, ie a prominent amount of tissue even when not lactating, whereas other species' breasts seem to almost totally "deflate" when not longer lactating.

just saying

 

So you are saying that female breasts are fluffy for men’s enjoyment as well as to feed children. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Anomaly

[Jaime]

11 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

They don’t, and you know it.  Pick something else to try to make your point.   You’re just making yourself look like a doofus. 

So you are saying that female breasts are fluffy for men’s enjoyment as well as to feed children. 

I'm learning that little2add has chosen his or her name wisely

[ReasonableFaith]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:09 PM, CuriositasEtFidem said:

Hey there! I've decided to open this can of worms and do an AMA.

Thank you for starting this thread. It has made an impact on me and I have followed with fairly closely. 
 

I have a transgender family member (cousin) who is actively involved in her parish. This has given me and idea of some of the beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices she may encounter on a regular basis. 

[Anomaly]

So really, there are only a few behaviors that are gender specific.    The ability to impregnate, the ability to give birth.   Everything else are generally gender tendencies, but not requirements. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

For anyone interested in some well reasoned guidance on such issues, the Congregation for Catholic Education's 2019 document Male and Female He Created Them has some very nice guidance, which I will attach in this post (apologies if it's been referenced earlier, I skimmed the thread and didn't see it mentioned, and in fact saw ppl suggesting the church has avoided saying anything on the subject, this document and the sources it cites should be a starting point for looking at what kind of guidance the church has given); while directed at educational institutions, it gives a good treatment of questions of Christian anthropology at issue here, and refers to some good sources of Church teaching that should be drawn upon if we're talking about what the Church's teaching is.  Though the whole thing is a good read IMO, paragraphs that I think are most relevant to the debate in this thread: 20-21, 23, and then especially 30-35... but ultimately this should be an opportunity not just for saying 'transgenderism is wrong' but for really examining your own understanding of the human person, gender, and sex, in relation to the Church's teaching--because there are profound things that should help us all reflect on our selves and our understandings of our bodies and souls.

19_0997_INGLESE.pdf

particularly important is how it points out the dualistic anthropology of gender ideology is contrary to the Church's understanding of human anthropology, citing the Second Vatican Council's definition of the human person "though made of body and soul, man is one." (Gaudiem et Spes 14, cited in #23 on pg 12 of the attached doc)--essentially pointing out that any sense of someone being a female soul in a male body or a male soul in a female body would certainly be contrary to Catholic teaching on the human person.  the body that you have IS you, you're not a ghost in the machine, and to every degree the body you have is operating in a healthy fashion you are certainly called upon to embrace and nurture your body as essential to who you are as a person.

now of course there can be problems in our material bodies as a result of our fallen natures, so we could come to a more physical question about whether there's a physical problem within the body (as the Catholic doctrine on the body/soul unity would absolutely preclude anything other than a material theory here)... so some kind of question of a more female brain / brain chemistry in an otherwise male body or a more male brain / brain chemistry in an otherwise female body, that could be an issue to discuss.  and then what would be the proper response to that would also be something that needs to be debated.  so the two questions that emerge would be, is it acceptable for someone to either 1) socially live according to the other gender and/or 2) doing something medically / surgically to the body.  I don't know how definitive church teaching might be on the former, but on the latter I think it's a pretty clear principle that these kinds of surgeries on healthy body parts are not in line with the church's moral understanding of our responsibilities to our bodies, at least IMO, but I think this really sets up the parameters the debate should have within Catholic teaching on the human person.

what I think would be most important here is to affirm not just to transgender people but also to many Catholics who have a tendency to fall into dualistic thinking about their soul and their body--you're not a ghost in a machine.  there's no such thing as having a mismatched soul/body.  the soul is the life force of the body, the immaterial principle of the material reality of your body; apologies for getting verbose and abstract, the point is that you do have an immaterial immortal soul, but it's intrinsically intertwined with your body--that's what makes death such a tragedy even though we go on to heaven, and why we proclaim in the creed we believe in the ressurection of the body on the last day (when it will be glorified and made perfect)

19_0997_INGLESE.pdf

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Anomaly said:

So you are saying

No, not all.  Personally i find breast size unimportant, my sexual attraction to the opposite sex is exemplified by the size of ones heart.  

Love:    as in living for the sake of another, motivated by heart-felt feelings of caring, affection, and responsibility for the other's well-being.

am I making myself clear?

 

Proverb. First found in a work by Sir Thomas Overbury, 1613:

"All the carnall beauty of my wife, Is but skin deep."

[Anomaly]

@little2add So what point were you trying to make about human breasts?   
 

What does make a human person, male or female, in the eyes of human society?  Theologically, isn’t gender relatively not very important?   We’re all a unique person...

[little2add]

18 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

  We’re all a unique person

That’s my point

[CuriositasEtFidem]

57 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

@little2add So what point were you trying to make about human breasts?   
 

What does make a human person, male or female, in the eyes of human society?  Theologically, isn’t gender relatively not very important?   We’re all a unique person...

Concerning breasts, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Women have them to feed children. Breastfeeding is a wonderful and beautiful opportunity for bonding between mother and child. It sort of images how God gives graces to us, if I may muse a little bit. I digress. 

"What does make a human person, male or female, in the eyes of human society?" is EXACTLY the question I'd like answered! Like I've said before, modern "gender theory" dances around the question.

4 hours ago, Aloysius said:

For anyone interested in some well reasoned guidance on such issues, the Congregation for Catholic Education's 2019 document Male and Female He Created Them has some very nice guidance, which I will attach in this post (apologies if it's been referenced earlier, I skimmed the thread and didn't see it mentioned, and in fact saw ppl suggesting the church has avoided saying anything on the subject, this document and the sources it cites should be a starting point for looking at what kind of guidance the church has given); while directed at educational institutions, it gives a good treatment of questions of Christian anthropology at issue here, and refers to some good sources of Church teaching that should be drawn upon if we're talking about what the Church's teaching is.  Though the whole thing is a good read IMO, paragraphs that I think are most relevant to the debate in this thread: 20-21, 23, and then especially 30-35... but ultimately this should be an opportunity not just for saying 'transgenderism is wrong' but for really examining your own understanding of the human person, gender, and sex, in relation to the Church's teaching--because there are profound things that should help us all reflect on our selves and our understandings of our bodies and souls.

19_0997_INGLESE.pdf 265.5 kB · 1 download

particularly important is how it points out the dualistic anthropology of gender ideology is contrary to the Church's understanding of human anthropology, citing the Second Vatican Council's definition of the human person "though made of body and soul, man is one." (Gaudiem et Spes 14, cited in #23 on pg 12 of the attached doc)--essentially pointing out that any sense of someone being a female soul in a male body or a male soul in a female body would certainly be contrary to Catholic teaching on the human person.  the body that you have IS you, you're not a ghost in the machine, and to every degree the body you have is operating in a healthy fashion you are certainly called upon to embrace and nurture your body as essential to who you are as a person.

now of course there can be problems in our material bodies as a result of our fallen natures, so we could come to a more physical question about whether there's a physical problem within the body (as the Catholic doctrine on the body/soul unity would absolutely preclude anything other than a material theory here)... so some kind of question of a more female brain / brain chemistry in an otherwise male body or a more male brain / brain chemistry in an otherwise female body, that could be an issue to discuss.  and then what would be the proper response to that would also be something that needs to be debated.  so the two questions that emerge would be, is it acceptable for someone to either 1) socially live according to the other gender and/or 2) doing something medically / surgically to the body.  I don't know how definitive church teaching might be on the former, but on the latter I think it's a pretty clear principle that these kinds of surgeries on healthy body parts are not in line with the church's moral understanding of our responsibilities to our bodies, at least IMO, but I think this really sets up the parameters the debate should have within Catholic teaching on the human person.

what I think would be most important here is to affirm not just to transgender people but also to many Catholics who have a tendency to fall into dualistic thinking about their soul and their body--you're not a ghost in a machine.  there's no such thing as having a mismatched soul/body.  the soul is the life force of the body, the immaterial principle of the material reality of your body; apologies for getting verbose and abstract, the point is that you do have an immaterial immortal soul, but it's intrinsically intertwined with your body--that's what makes death such a tragedy even though we go on to heaven, and why we proclaim in the creed we believe in the ressurection of the body on the last day (when it will be glorified and made perfect)

19_0997_INGLESE.pdf 265.5 kB · 1 download

Thank you for this resource! I've skimmed it before, but I should go back for a more in-depth read.

My whole "thing" about being transgender is my body is something that is still transforming, and my soul isn't mismatched. It's like grapes on their way to becoming wine, if that makes any sense.

9 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Thank you for starting this thread. It has made an impact on me and I have followed with fairly closely. 
 

I have a transgender family member (cousin) who is actively involved in her parish. This has given me and idea of some of the beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices she may encounter on a regular basis. 

Thanks for taking the time to read!

An image I can come up with for accepting yourself as trans while being an active Catholic is being a barista at a coffee shop, carrying on with your day while being shouted at by customers

[CuriositasEtFidem]

I'm thinking of replying from now on exclusively in comic form lol, I need the practice