What Are Your Opinions About Transexualism?

[kayla_veronica]

I want to start by saying that I am a recent convert to Catholicism so I don't don't know the standing of the Church on this, so this is just my opinion.

God doesn't make mistakes. He made us all exactly how he meant us to be, and that while he gives us all crosses to bear, he never gives us more than we can handle. If god made this person a man, then he is a man. I believe that he has some mental problems, and since you mentioned he's had suicidal thoughts this makes sense. Speaking from personal experience, mental illness may be one of the hardest crosses to bear, and so difficult to overcome. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE. One problem I see is that the way society is right now he may get a lot of support from liberals in favor of being politacally correct and tolerant, and maybe he won't be able to get a therapist who think that what he has is a mental illness, which is a shame. I'm glad that you expressed your dissapproval honestly, while still supporting him as a person, I think that was a very charitable thing to do, and brave, as I can sometimes be scared to admit that I don't agree w/ gay marriage because I am go to an art school that is very liberal. Anyways, hope this helped a little.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='kayla_veronica' date='26 December 2009 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1261805462' post='2026149']
I want to start by saying that I am a recent convert to Catholicism so I don't don't know the standing of the Church on this, so this is just my opinion.
[/quote]
Seemed orthodox to me!

[Hilde]

If anyone watched the previous season of America's next top model they'll know that there was a contestant there who was transexual: Isis. I saw Isis on the Tyra show later and they used expressions like "used to be a man, but is now a woman". It got me thinking what makes someone a woman though. I don't think she's like me in the way my XX-chromosomed sisters are. This seems to be a rather commonly accepted disorder.

And to reference another TV-show did anyone watch the episode where one boy got a "negroplasty" to become black, and then his dad had an operation to become a dolphin.

Feeling the way they do must be distressing though.

[Antigonos]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='26 December 2009 - 04:26 AM' timestamp='1261790762' post='2026077']
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/clap.gif[/img] It seems as if people cater to these bizarre wishes claiming, "We just want them to be happy." [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif[/img]
[/quote]

I think it is part of this mania of "political correctness". Or simply, "anything goes". Whenever I hear that, I'm reminded of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".

And that brings me around to homosexuality. I can't call homosexuals "gay" because I think they are tragic. Whether the problem is societal, or genetic, or some form of illness, the bottom line is that homosexuality is a perversion of the innate drive to reproduce one's own species and therefore ensure its survival. And in all forms of animate matter above the level of an amoeba, that means sexual reproduction. Earthworms, to be sure, can be either male or female, but they mate with an earthworm of the "opposite" sex. If we all were homosexual, that would solve the overpopulation problem in one generation.

Do I think homosexuality should be criminalized? No, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business [and if they believe in a God, between them and God]. But flaunting it, in these disgusting "Gay Pride" parades, demanding special privileges in the name of "tolerance"*, to me, goes way beyond the acceptable. That was precisely the same kind of degeneracy which sapped the morality of the Roman Empire and which I think is sapping ours. Hell, I'm diabetic, but you won't see me demanding special rights, parading with my syringes and insulin, in the name of being "special" and therefore entitled to be put on a pedestal.

Sex change surgery has the same implications for me as does the rampant "approval" of homosexuality as a "normal" form of sexuality. Call me old-fashioned. [Well, I'm old, that's for sure]

*I think same-sex couples who live together in stable relationships should have a way of being able to pass on insurance, etc. benefits just as normally married people do. I've got nothing against "civil unions", but I'm darned if I accept the redefinition of [i][b]marriage,[/b][/i] which has always been the permanent union of a [i]man[/i] and a [i]woman[/i], to be the same thing in single sex relationships. It offends my sense of correct English usage. Once you start playing football with tennis rackets, it's neither football or tennis. All games have rules.

Bah humbug. I'm always crotchety before breakfast.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='kayla_veronica' date='26 December 2009 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1261805462' post='2026149']
Speaking from personal experience, mental illness may be one of the hardest crosses to bear, and so difficult to overcome. BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.

[/quote]
And speaking from experience you can say that again. You have no idea what I went through as a young person in the army with a mental illness. I've survived through faith alone and the constant coaching from Jesus himself.

[OraProMe]

Hmmmm. Interesting.

[quote name='Antigonos' date='26 December 2009 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1261813877' post='2026183']
And that brings me around to homosexuality. I can't call homosexuals "gay" because I think they are tragic. Whether the problem is societal, or genetic, or some form of illness, the bottom line is that homosexuality is a perversion of the innate drive to reproduce one's own species and therefore ensure its survival.r
[/quote]
This is interesting too. I'm going to ask you to prove your assumption that we have an "innate drive to reproduce one's own species". If such a drive was innate then contraception would not be so wide spread. Is sex visceral? Yes. Do we have an animalistic desire to continue our own species? I don't think so. Again I'd point to the wide spread use of contraception to prove this point. This is an age when it's acceptable to indulge in our most animalistic desires, if posterity were truly instinctual then humane vitae would have had a much better reception.

I'm aware that you're not Catholic but for other forum members reading I'd like to point out that such a position isn't contrary to Catholicism. In fact my argument above is basically me regurgitating what C.S Lewis wrote in "The Abolition of Man" to prove that posterity cannot be used as a basis for morality.

[quote]
Hell, I'm diabetic, but you won't see me demanding special rights, parading with my syringes and insulin, in the name of being "special" and therefore entitled to be put on a pedestal.
[/quote]

Well diabetics were never thrown in jail/killed/cast out of their families etc. I've said before that hate crime legislation is simply a reaction to past persecution. You can only kick a dog so much until it bites back.

I haven't studied hate crime legislation though so have no opinion either way.

Edited December 26, 2009 by OraProMe

[Antigonos]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='26 December 2009 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1261820936' post='2026195']


I'm going to ask you to prove your assumption that we have an "innate drive to reproduce one's own species". [/quote]


It is a basic biologic assumption that life perpetuates itself. Otherwise, the earth would be as sterile as the moon, or home to no organisms more advanced than single cell ones.

The first collection of amino acids that resulted in an amoeba never faced the choice of "life" or "death", because, by splitting into two organisms, and the resulting two splitting again, an amoeba of today is a bit of "all the amoebas who ever were" -- the organism never dies*. But as soon as higher organisms -- even as simple as jellyfish -- appeared, so did death, which required a mechanism to replicate itself before it died. All organisms more advanced than an amoeba need to have specialized cells; an amoeba cannot specialize [and remain an amoeba]. Apparently the method of choice is to have specialized sex cells which carry all the necessary genetic material on genes and chromosomes.

This has nothing to do with enjoying sex, or needing contraception, etc. Humans are a bit odd in terms of always being in low grade estrous -- most mammals do not want or seek sex outside of certain periods when the female is capable of reproducing [when an animal is, however, their sexual drive is much higher than humans] Humans, in fact, have fairly inefficient reproductive mechanisms [part of my work deals with infertility]. All societies and religions, therefore, have rules about sexual conduct. And today, technology is running ahead of ethics, and I personally feel there are numerous minefields ahead of us.

*Even viruses mutate to become less harmful. A virus which ALWAYS kills its host before being able to infect another host would quickly exterminate all possible hosts, and the virus does not exist without a host. Historically this has been shown a number of times.

I take your point about diabetics never having been punished by society for being diabetics. But I'm not to blame for being diabetic, and the current "philosophy" about homosexuality is that they aren't responsible for their behavior, either, that it is somehow outside their control and therefore must not just be tolerated, it has to be shown to be a legitimate alternative lifestyle, indeed actually urged as a variety of normal sexuality. I disagree with this. It is a form of disability, just as being diabetic is.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='26 December 2009 - 06:11 AM' timestamp='1261825918' post='2026198']
It is a basic biologic assumption that life perpetuates itself. Otherwise, the earth would be as sterile as the moon, or home to no organisms more advanced than single cell ones.

The first collection of amino acids that resulted in an amoeba never faced the choice of "life" or "death", because, by splitting into two organisms, and the resulting two splitting again, an amoeba of today is a bit of "all the amoebas who ever were" -- the organism never dies*. But as soon as higher organisms -- even as simple as jellyfish -- appeared, so did death, which required a mechanism to replicate itself before it died. All organisms more advanced than an amoeba need to have specialized cells; an amoeba cannot specialize [and remain an amoeba]. Apparently the method of choice is to have specialized sex cells which carry all the necessary genetic material on genes and chromosomes.

This has nothing to do with enjoying sex, or needing contraception, etc. Humans are a bit odd in terms of always being in low grade estrous -- most mammals do not want or seek sex outside of certain periods when the female is capable of reproducing [when an animal is, however, their sexual drive is much higher than humans] Humans, in fact, have fairly inefficient reproductive mechanisms [part of my work deals with infertility]. All societies and religions, therefore, have rules about sexual conduct. And today, technology is running ahead of ethics, and I personally feel there are numerous minefields ahead of us.

*Even viruses mutate to become less harmful. A virus which ALWAYS kills its host before being able to infect another host would quickly exterminate all possible hosts, and the virus does not exist without a host. Historically this has been shown a number of times.

I take your point about diabetics never having been punished by society for being diabetics. But I'm not to blame for being diabetic, and the current "philosophy" about homosexuality is that they aren't responsible for their behavior, either, that it is somehow outside their control and therefore must not just be tolerated, it has to be shown to be a legitimate alternative lifestyle, indeed actually urged as a variety of normal sexuality. I disagree with this. It is a form of disability, just as being diabetic is.
[/quote]

You've dodged a lot of what I said and addressed issues I haven't raised.

If we're going to say we have an "innate drive" to do something then it has to be backed up. Again contraception is a great illustration to counter your claim that humans have some primal urge that motivates them to populate the world.

A "basic biological assumption" does not equal an innate desire and drive. You simply cannot compare the two. Sure it's practical, but do you ever see a girl and think "oh man I'd so love to perpetuate the human race with her. Our descendents would be so hot"? You get my point.



[quote]
I take your point about diabetics never having been punished by society for being diabetics. But I'm not to blame for being diabetic, and the current "philosophy" about homosexuality is that they aren't responsible for their behavior,
[/quote]
Do you mean orientation or behaviour? Homosexuals aren't "to blame" for their sexuality. It's not a choice.

[quote]
I disagree with this. It is a form of disability, just as being diabetic is.
[/quote]
We need to be careful when throwing around terms like this. A disability means the lack of an ability to do something.What is it that I, as a homosexual, cannot do that you, as a heterosexual, can?

Edited December 26, 2009 by OraProMe

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='26 December 2009 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1261833646' post='2026205']
You've dodged a lot of what I said and addressed issues I haven't raised.

If we're going to say we have an "innate drive" to do something then it has to be backed up. Again contraception is a great illustration to counter your claim that humans have some primal urge that motivates them to populate the world.

A "basic biological assumption" does not equal an innate desire and drive. You simply cannot compare the two. Sure it's practical, but do you ever see a girl and think "oh man I'd so love to perpetuate the human race with her. Our descendents would be so hot"? You get my point.




Do you mean orientation or behaviour? Homosexuals aren't "to blame" for their sexuality. It's not a choice.


We need to be careful when throwing around terms like this. A disability means the lack of an ability to do something.What is it that I, as a homosexual, cannot do that you, as a heterosexual, can?
[/quote]
This innate drive is something which is observed across the board. There isn't a way to "prove" it outside of observation because there isn't a gene or part of the brain we can look at and say "ah ha!"

[kayla_veronica]

[quote]Seemed orthodox to me! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Good. Thanks!

[kayla_veronica]

[quote]And speaking from experience you can say that again. You have no idea what I went through as a young person in the army with a mental illness. I've survived through faith alone and the constant coaching from Jesus himself. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/saint.gif[/img]
[/quote]

That is wonderful news!

[OraProMe]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='26 December 2009 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1261847910' post='2026241']
This innate drive is something which is observed across the board. There isn't a way to "prove" it outside of observation because there isn't a gene or part of the brain we can look at and say "ah ha!"
[/quote]

Sure there's a way to prove it. If something is innate then it's going to be very strong, apparent and observable. Not just across the board but in our own behaviour and desires. Do you have an instinctual urge to have sex with a woman or an instinctual urge to see the human race survive for a few more centuries?

[quote]
OraProMe:
Do you ever see a girl and think "oh man I'd so love to perpetuate the human race with her. Our descendents would be so hot"?
[/quote]

[Winchester]

This is getting off track.

If I were convinced that my proper body form required wings, would doctors be acting properly if they fixed wings onto my body? Would the law then be required to change my identification to reflect my new form? Would people be obliged to consider me an angel and refer to me as such?

What if I were convinced I was Jesus? Should everyone be obliged to acknowledge me as the Son of God?

What about a delusion that I was the president? Should I gain access to all the privileges and powers of the presidency simply because of my delusion?

Why is the delusion that one is a different sex from the biological one some sacred cow? Why must we pretend a mutilated man is a woman? It's not scientific, it's not true and it's not the normal way we deal with insanity.

[add]

[quote name='Winchester' date='26 December 2009 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1261879019' post='2026401']
This is getting off track.

If I were convinced that my proper body form required wings, would doctors be acting properly if they fixed wings onto my body? Would the law then be required to change my identification to reflect my new form? Would people be obliged to consider me an angel and refer to me as such?

What if I were convinced I was Jesus? Should everyone be obliged to acknowledge me as the Son of God?

What about a delusion that I was the president? Should I gain access to all the privileges and powers of the presidency simply because of my delusion?

Why is the delusion that one is a different sex from the biological one some sacred cow? Why must we pretend a mutilated man is a woman? It's not scientific, it's not true and it's not the normal way we deal with insanity.
[/quote]


[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2074301/Woman-with-objects-fetish-marries-Eiffel-Tower.html"]My link[/url]

it's
and then there is the funny way we deal with insanity, because when it comes down to it all everybody wants is to be l o v e d.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Antigonos' date='26 December 2009 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1261813877' post='2026183']
I think it is part of this mania of "political correctness". Or simply, "anything goes". Whenever I hear that, I'm reminded of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".[/QUOTE]

I'm not aware of any empire which declined due to excessive 'political correctness'. The term is too ambiguous to have any real analytical merit and the standards and categories to which it could be applied would be too diverse and relative to the particular societies and nations to be of much value.

[QUOTE]And that brings me around to homosexuality. I can't call homosexuals "gay" because I think they are tragic.[/QUOTE]



[QUOTE]Whether the problem is societal, or genetic, or some form of illness, the bottom line is that homosexuality is a perversion of the innate drive to reproduce one's own species and therefore ensure its survival.[/QUOTE]

That's too broad. Sexuality and sexual categories are generally amorphous and your claim is much too rigid. I think it's Koala bears whose females will engage in sexual activities to stimulate male Koala bears to breed. If you've ever been to sufficiently wild party you know that this strategy is utilized by other species as well.

Exclusively homosexual preferences are certainly deviant from the normal sexual behavior of any given species population. Calling it a 'perversion' is probably too polemical. If an individual has a strong aversion to having children we usually don't say their temperament is a perversion of any instinctual desires.

[QUOTE]And in all forms of animate matter above the level of an amoeba, that means sexual reproduction. Earthworms, to be sure, can be either male or female, but they mate with an earthworm of the "opposite" sex. If we all were homosexual, that would solve the overpopulation problem in one generation.[/QUOTE]

I think that's probably in need of qualification, like excluding artificial means of perpetuating the species, but whatever.

[QUOTE]Do I think homosexuality should be criminalized? No, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business [and if they believe in a God, between them and God]. But flaunting it, in these disgusting "Gay Pride" parades, demanding special privileges in the name of "tolerance"*, to me, goes way beyond the acceptable.[/QUOTE]

What special privileges are you thinking of?

[QUOTE]That was precisely the same kind of degeneracy which sapped the morality of the Roman Empire and which I think is sapping ours.[/QUOTE]


Israel isn't an empire.


[QUOTE]*I think same-sex couples who live together in stable relationships should have a way of being able to pass on insurance, etc. benefits just as normally married people do. I've got nothing against "civil unions", but I'm darned if I accept the redefinition of [i][b]marriage,[/b][/i] which has always been the permanent union of a [i]man[/i] and a [i]woman[/i], to be the same thing in single sex relationships. It offends my sense of correct English usage. Once you start playing football with tennis rackets, it's neither football or tennis. All games have rules.

Bah humbug. I'm always crotchety before breakfast.
[/quote]


I don't think Jewish society before the Babylonian Exile excluded a polygamous understanding of marriage. Certainly Islamic society has not. Russian and Slavic culture prior to the Baptism of Vladimir didn't. I think Thai society used to practice polyandry.
Currently most of Western Society does not accept your definition of marriage and has not for some time. Viewing it as between a man and a woman has surely been the norm, but divorce has been acceptable for quite some time in the non-Catholic regions. Permanency may have been an ideal but few people would or would have said that a divorced couple were never really married because marriage is by definition a permanent institution and they failed to remain together. Furthermore the understanding of the nature of the union has long been divergent amongst different groups even withing Western Christendom. Is the union contractual or sacramental in nature? You're a Jew. I'd wager that your understanding of the nature of marriage diverges somewhat from the understanding of marriage held by most individuals here.

There has never been one single universally accepted understanding of 'marriage' which the dastardly gays are now driven by their degeneracy to try and change. There right in line with those degenerate Indians who wrote havoc and moral corruption upon Indian society by demanding the allowance of inter-cast marriage. The horror.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Hassan

[CatherineM]

A friend of my husband's went off her medication, and began to think that the government had put a tracking chip in her back teeth. She went from dentist to dentist trying to find one who would remove them. None would until she told them that she was going to remove them herself. Then a dentist removed them just to keep her from hurting herself.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='26 December 2009 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1261876606' post='2026389']
Sure there's a way to prove it. If something is innate then it's going to be very strong, apparent and observable. Not just across the board but in our own behaviour and desires. Do you have an instinctual urge to have sex with a woman or an instinctual urge to see the human race survive for a few more centuries?
[/quote]

I think you're kind of over-looking the obvious. No being, whether human or animal, consciously thinks "well let's get in bed and continue our species!" Mother Nature is not as direct as that. Instead, we have naturally evolved, innate biological features that help us accomplish what we need to. For humans, evolution has made our bodies find sexual intercourse pleasurable. To be frank, nature doesn't give a carp if you enjoy sex or not, but your strong, instinctual urge for the pleasure of intercourse is a neat way to get you to mate over and over again with someone suitable until you have offspring. In your biology coursework you may have discussed why men find sleeping with younger women more tempting than older ones; why those with a healthy weight are preferred to those who are fat or very thin. They can't help what they like; age and weight and breast size and so on are all factors that indicate degree of fertility. Nature is taking care of business. I doubt any males are consciously going around thinking, "wow that lady looks nice in that sweater, I bet she will be able to successfully bear my children!" But that's actually what's happening in his brain.

Similarly the concepts of "Love" and "Intimacy" are, naturally speaking, no more than grease for the gears of propagation. Bears and geese and dogs don't have this psychological component but we, the more evolved species, do.

Homosexuality is so inefficient, that's how you can tell there was some abnormal development along the way. To be blunt, from the natural point of view, it's a big waste of sex. Probably we will eventually find out there is a damaged gene to blame. Just as there appear to be bad genes that make you more susceptible to alcoholism and cancer, there is probably a mutation that makes one more likely to have sexual identity or sexual orientation issues. I can not imagine having to carry the cross of being a transexual, but the answer is not mutilation. As said earlier on this thread surgery often does not resolve the problems the sufferer is dealing with.

The first time I thought about this was when Archbishop Burke (the super conservative) accepted the final vows of a transexual person in a convent (or was it a monastery, I can't remember the particulars). It was in his earlier diocese of La Crosse. The reasoning given was that the person who had undergone the surgery to become a woman was already mutilated; she had repented, but there is no way to unring a bell... and so it was accepted that she could live as a female religious.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Winchester' date='26 December 2009 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1261879019' post='2026401']
This is getting off track.

If I were convinced that my proper body form required wings, would doctors be acting properly if they fixed wings onto my body? Would the law then be required to change my identification to reflect my new form? Would people be obliged to consider me an angel and refer to me as such?

What if I were convinced I was Jesus? Should everyone be obliged to acknowledge me as the Son of God?

What about a delusion that I was the president? Should I gain access to all the privileges and powers of the presidency simply because of my delusion?

Why is the delusion that one is a different sex from the biological one some sacred cow? Why must we pretend a mutilated man is a woman? It's not scientific, it's not true and it's not the normal way we deal with insanity.
[/quote]

Exactly. To me this is like telling a schizophrenic that he really is hearing voice or telling a paranoic that everyone really is out to get him. This would be considered sadistic with any other mental delusion, yet it is seen as "supportive and tolerant" with this one.

[Hassan]

[quote name='King's Rook's Pawn' date='28 December 2009 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1262042971' post='2026994']
Exactly. To me this is like telling a schizophrenic that he really is hearing voice or telling a paranoic that everyone really is out to get him. This would be considered sadistic with any other mental delusion, yet it is seen as "supportive and tolerant" with this one.
[/quote]


I believe transsexual males have brain's which are closer to female brains than male brains, to the extent that any difference exists. If there are genuine physiological differences then they are not merely delusional.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hassan' date='29 December 2009 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1262118161' post='2027272']
I believe transsexual males have brain's which are closer to female brains than male brains, to the extent that any difference exists. If there are genuine physiological differences then they are not merely delusional.
[/quote]
There are genuine physiological differences between humans to start with, we are on a continuum, not a straight dichotomy.