Transgenderism

[tinytherese]

What official Church documents specifically discuss transgenderism? 

What reliable resources are there for understanding and interacting with those who are transgendered?

If anyone identifies as transgendered or knows someone who is, what advice would you or they give for how to respond to someone who confesses their identity? What statements are respectful and which are well meaning but rude or obnoxious?

I heard someone on TV talking about identifying this way and being afraid to tell their family members. I may have misconceptions that I don't even know.

Edited May 27, 2016 by tinytherese

[little2add]

On May 27, 2016 at 0:57 AM, tinytherese said:

What official Church documents specifically discuss transgenderism? 

Being “transgendered” is not an identity. homosexuality is not an identity; it is simply a behavior.   

Edited May 28, 2016 by little2add

[Luigi]

On 5/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, tinytherese said:

What official Church documents specifically discuss transgenderism? 

What reliable resources are there for understanding and interacting with those who are transgendered?

If anyone identifies as transgendered or knows someone who is, what advice would you or they give for how to respond to someone who confesses their identity? What statements are respectful and which are well meaning but rude or obnoxious?

I heard someone on TV talking about identifying this way and being afraid to tell their family members. I may have misconceptions that I don't even know.

I doubt that the any Church documents discuss transgenderism. It's too recent a... what shall we say?... development? trend? style? fad?... whatever term you choose, it's too recent to be in Church documents.   

[4588686]

8 hours ago, little2add said:

Being “transgendered” is not an identity. homosexuality is not an identity; it is simply a behavior.   

Like Catholicism

[dUSt]

I don't understand transgendered.

I hear this a lot, "God made me this way, so I am just being who God made me."

Yet, they reject the physical body God made them?

Seems like a contradiction, but I probably have it all wrong.

I also see contradiction in "gender neutrality" arguments, because some people who make those arguments are the ones insisting they are a specific gender?

Again, just confused by the whole thing.

[Aloysius]

as far as a document, there was a document that was sent privately by the Vatican to the bishops, hence not meant to be a teaching to the laity necessarily, and some points of which were leaked, which deal a bit with this.  They say Dr. Paul McHugh, the Johns Hopkins doctor who disputes transgender surgery, was a consultant on the development of the document.

Quote

2000-2003: An official, although initially secret, ruling by the Vatican:After extensive study, the Vatican issued a "sub secretum" (secret) document in the year 2000 to papal representatives in each country. Unfortunately, it became obvious that many bishops did not learn the contents of the document, so copies were sent to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. Finally, in 2003 it was discussed in the Catholic News Service. The document allegedly states that:    Bishops must never alter the gender listed in baptismal records to match the individual's new gender identity. However, a margin note is acceptable.    Persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery are not eligible to marry, to be ordained to the priesthood, or enter religious life.

An unknown source stated:    "The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was [born] male, he remains male. If she was [born] female, she remains female."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu15.htm

Ultimately I think the same advise goes for this as with any other issue, like homosexuality, which is that we disagree with some things that those people believe to be fundamental to their identity, and we must be charitable and kind and avoid any semblance of discrimination, be friends with them as Jesus was to the marginalized.  For goodness sake do not adopt some kind of condescending snarky attitude about it as some conservatives caught up in the spirit of being culture warriors do (ie using the pronouns they don't identify with on purpose, going out of your way to do so just to start an argument), these people are real human beings not fodder for political ideological battles, so be kind!  It becomes difficult because transgender people more than most of these kinds of marginalized taboo groups have a strong need for you to recognize them in order for them to consider you being kind... perhaps because in their case even the most basic everyday conversation will always become a reminder of whether you agree or disagree with them, if, for instance, you use the pronouns they do not identify with.  Pronouns are probably the hardest part of the whole thing... because we certainly do not think that they are that other gender essentially, but it is not in any way helpful to them to insist upon calling them the other pronoun... it's not the hill to die on, because you won't be the one to die on it anyway, any chance they have of entering into a loving understanding with Our Lord about their true selves, which He knows far better than either you or they do, will be dying in that moment.  If you're uncomfortable with the pronouns they prefer, I'd recommend avoiding pronouns or using neutral ones whenever possible.  Be open with them if you don't agree with them, but don't go out of your way to be argumentative about it, just let them know you care about them and (either as a close person to them, or out of broader Christian love for all) you love them no matter what, and you're always open to discuss the issue and your perspectives on it if they're comfortable with it.  But don't go into any interaction thinking you're going to change them or something, that'd be nonsense, especially if they're post-op their commitment to this would be far beyond anything you would or could do rhetorically.

but yeah, the Church's position doesn't really allow for the concept of someone being in the wrong body.  That's a kind of manichaestic dualism about the body and soul that's simply unacceptable to the Church.  our theological anthropology pretty explicitly says we're not ghosts-in-the-machine, we ARE our bodies, and our bodies ARE us.  the soul is the principle of life for the body, not some ghost behind the wheel of the brain... there is only a distinction/separation between body and soul in death, and even that will be reversed on the Last day with the resurrection of the Body.  for a transgender individual, if they did wish to speak to me about the Catholic doctrines on the issue, I may emphasize the Ressurection of the Body, and that we will have such glorified bodies that go far beyond the mere shadows of things we see now, and something far and above transcending of the gender norms society has now, indeed far and above the sexual distinctions of our bodies as we perceive them now, will be found in our resurrected bodies. something far deeper and truer to their true self than a surgically altered body would be. 

Personally I think strict transexualism in this modern dualistic opposition of spirit and body (that posits one is spiritually one gender trapped in the wrong sex's body... though the materialist version has it that one has a different brain trapped in the wrong sex's body, it's still a bit of the same thing), with the idea of surgery as the answer, is a reaction to social norms about gender that are too strict in one sense, and too broken down and inconsistent in another.  they're rigid and therefore brittle and fragile, and people transgressing those norms in any way makes them feel the need to repudiate their body, as the socially constructed gender norms they find appealing don't correspond to the physical sex we've connected them with.  because yes, gender is a social construct, but the strange thing in modern society is that when someone finds their experienced identity to be contradicting the gender norm associated with their body, they decide that it's the body that's wrong.  but it's the strictness of that gender norm (especially broken out of any context in which it might make sense, which is the state of affairs I think we're in) that is wrong.  I feel like G.K. Chesterton would've made a great quip about this if he were around today, it's the exact kind of paradox that lends itself to a Chestertonian axim.

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, Aloysius said:

as far as a document, there was a document that was sent privately by the Vatican to the bishops, hence not meant to be a teaching to the laity necessarily, and some points of which were leaked, which deal a bit with this.  They say Dr. Paul McHugh, the Johns Hopkins doctor who disputes transgender surgery, was a consultant on the development of the document.

Ultimately I think the same advise goes for this as with any other issue, like homosexuality, which is that we disagree with some things that those people believe to be fundamental to their identity, and we must be charitable and kind and avoid any semblance of discrimination, be friends with them as Jesus was to the marginalized.  For goodness sake do not adopt some kind of condescending snarky attitude about it as some conservatives caught up in the spirit of being culture warriors do (ie using the pronouns they don't identify with on purpose, going out of your way to do so just to start an argument), these people are real human beings not fodder for political ideological battles, so be kind!  It becomes difficult because transgender people more than most of these kinds of marginalized taboo groups have a strong need for you to recognize them in order for them to consider you being kind... perhaps because in their case even the most basic everyday conversation will always become a reminder of whether you agree or disagree with them, if, for instance, you use the pronouns they do not identify with.  Pronouns are probably the hardest part of the whole thing... because we certainly do not think that they are that other gender essentially, but it is not in any way helpful to them to insist upon calling them the other pronoun... it's not the hill to die on, because you won't be the one to die on it anyway, any chance they have of entering into a loving understanding with Our Lord about their true selves, which He knows far better than either you or they do, will be dying in that moment.  If you're uncomfortable with the pronouns they prefer, I'd recommend avoiding pronouns or using neutral ones whenever possible.  Be open with them if you don't agree with them, but don't go out of your way to be argumentative about it, just let them know you care about them and (either as a close person to them, or out of broader Christian love for all) you love them no matter what, and you're always open to discuss the issue and your perspectives on it if they're comfortable with it.  But don't go into any interaction thinking you're going to change them or something, that'd be nonsense, especially if they're post-op their commitment to this would be far beyond anything you would or could do rhetorically.

but yeah, the Church's position doesn't really allow for the concept of someone being in the wrong body.  That's a kind of manichaestic dualism about the body and soul that's simply unacceptable to the Church.  our theological anthropology pretty explicitly says we're not ghosts-in-the-machine, we ARE our bodies, and our bodies ARE us.  the soul is the principle of life for the body, not some ghost behind the wheel of the brain... there is only a distinction/separation between body and soul in death, and even that will be reversed on the Last day with the resurrection of the Body.  for a transgender individual, if they did wish to speak to me about the Catholic doctrines on the issue, I may emphasize the Ressurection of the Body, and that we will have such glorified bodies that go far beyond the mere shadows of things we see now, and something far and above transcending of the gender norms society has now, indeed far and above the sexual distinctions of our bodies as we perceive them now, will be found in our resurrected bodies. something far deeper and truer to their true self than a surgically altered body would be. 

Personally I think strict transexualism in this modern dualistic opposition of spirit and body (that posits one is spiritually one gender trapped in the wrong sex's body... though the materialist version has it that one has a different brain trapped in the wrong sex's body, it's still a bit of the same thing), with the idea of surgery as the answer, is a reaction to social norms about gender that are too strict in one sense, and too broken down and inconsistent in another.  they're rigid and therefore brittle and fragile, and people transgressing those norms in any way makes them feel the need to repudiate their body, as the socially constructed gender norms they find appealing don't correspond to the physical sex we've connected them with.  because yes, gender is a social construct, but the strange thing in modern society is that when someone finds their experienced identity to be contradicting the gender norm associated with their body, they decide that it's the body that's wrong.  but it's the strictness of that gender norm (especially broken out of any context in which it might make sense, which is the state of affairs I think we're in) that is wrong.  I feel like G.K. Chesterton would've made a great quip about this if he were around today, it's the exact kind of paradox that lends itself to a Chestertonian axim.

Good post, and I liked your discussion of the resurrection, which I don't believe in literally but I get it. My approach to things is to understand them from the perspective of humanity, and I usually find a plausible (not infallible) explanation that rings true without recourse to theology or mythology. What would you make of the Jungian idea of the duality of masculine and feminine in all of us, in our psyches...to me this helps understand transgenderism without reducing it to an abnormal whim, but also without absolutizing it...it's part of the spectrum of the human psyche, it seems.

[little2add]

19 hours ago, Hasan said:

Like Catholicism

Only if you have no faith

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

On 5/28/2016 at 5:57 AM, little2add said:

Being “transgendered” is not an identity. homosexuality is not an identity; it is simply a behavior.   

Both homosexuality and transgendered are not "behaviors" in and of themselves. In the case of homosexuality, there is a feeling of sexual attraction to the same sex, not the opposite sex. As I understand it, a transgendered person feels that they are really the opposite sex they were born as. What a homosexual or transgendered person actually DOES about the feeling is the behavior, and the behavior is where the person has a choice. As far as I can tell from what I have read, in the vast majority of cases, the feeling of being homosexual (and probably transgendered, as well, although I know much less about that) isn't going to be able to be "switched back" at will. Feeling homosexual or transgendered will remain, and, as I understand it, is not a sin in and of itself. However, ACTING on the feeling goes against Church teachings.

I expect that Church writings on the transgendered issue are rare is because it hasn't been that many years that a person could surgically DO anything to alter their gender.

What I get from the quote in Aloysius' post is that "DNA rules." If a person is born a male, the person remains a male on church records and vice versa.

Now that we have much more sophisticated DNA testing, there is a "muddy" area here. There are people with chromosomal abnormalities such as XXY, or XYY, etc. It is such a recent development that we have the technology to know this, that I'd be surprised if there were church teachings for these cases. In addition. I personally am ignorant about the psychological effects of chromosomal abnormalities, that is, whether people suffering from them feel differently than people with normal XX or XY chromosomes.

Also, (as was posted earlier), there are people who are both with the organs of both sexes. However, these people, as well as people with chromosomal abnormalities are fairly rare, as far as I know.

Bottom line: Be nice to other people--you don't know what they are going through. Listen and try to be respectful. The feelings are not the sin--it's the behavior that goes against Church teachings. Jesus was able to be merciful, kind, and loving to people whose behaviors he did not condone and had preached against--such as the woman sentenced to be stoned for adultery. I think we need to try our best to be as merciful and Jesus was.

Note: Remember, I'm not Catholic. My post above should not be construed as necessarily agreeing with all Church teachings on these issues. Personally, I am totally confused and have lots of questions. However, I DO listen to, and respect what the Church teaches, and why, and pray that God will some day grant me the gift of understanding. 

 

[KnightofChrist]

Cardinal Ratizinger spoke of this subject in the mid-eighties. It's been floating around Facebook for a couple months now and being called prophetic. Seems pretty accurate at any rate. 

"

Against "trivialized" sex

But it is further necessary to get to the bottom of the demand that radical feminism draws from the widespread modern culture, namely, the "trivialization" of sexual specificity that makes every role interchangeable between man and woman. When we were speaking of the crisis of traditional morality, I indicated a series of fatal ruptures: that, for example, between sexuality and procreation. Detached from the bond with fecundity, sex no longer appears to be a determined characteristic, as a radical and pristine orientation of the person. Male? Female? They are questions that for some are now viewed as obsolete, senseless, if not racist. The answer of current conformism is foreseeable: "whether one is male or female has little interest for us, we are all simply humans." This, in reality, has grave consequences even if at first it appears very beautiful and generous. It signifies, in fact, that sexuality is no longer rooted in anthropology; it means that sex is viewed as a simple role, interchangeable at one's pleasure.

What follows with logical necessity is that the whole being and the whole activity of the human person are reduced to pure functionality, to the pure role: depending on the social context, for example, to the role of "consumer" or the role of "worker"; at any rate to something that does not directly regard the respective sex. It is not by chance that among the battles of "liberation" of our time there has also been that of escaping from the "slavery of nature," demanding the right to be male or female at one's will or pleasure, for example, through surgery, and demanding that the State record this autonomous will of the individual in its registry offices. Incidentally, one must realize that this so-called sex change alters nothing in the genetic constitution of the person involved. It is only an external artifact which resolves no problems but only constructs fictitious realities. Nor is it by chance that the laws immediately adapted themselves to such a demand. If everything is only a culturally and historically conditioned "role," and not a natural specificity inscribed in the depth of being, even motherhood is a mere accidental function. In fact, certain feminist circles consider it "unjust" that only the woman is forced to give birth and to suckle. And not only the law but science, too, offers a helping hand: by transforming a male into a female and vice-versa, as we have already seen, or by separating fecundity from sexuality with the purpose of making it possible to procreate at will, with the help of technical manipulations. Are we not, after all, all alike? So, if need be one also fights against nature's "inequity." But one cannot struggle against nature without undergoing the most devastating consequences. The sacrosanct equality between man and woman does not exclude, indeed it requires, diversity." -- Excerpted from The Ratzinger Report

Source: http://www.goodmorals.org/Ratzinger.htm

[PhuturePriest]

It never ceases to amaze me that people have no clue Pope Francis specifically addressed transgenderism in Laudato Si.

“The acceptance of our bodies as God's gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home,” the Pope wrote, “whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.”

“valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment.”

“For example, I ask myself, if the so-called gender theory is not, at the same time, an expression of frustration and resignation, which seeks to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it … the removal of difference in fact creates a problem, not a solution.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/the-popes-take-on-transgender-issues-accept-the-body-god-gave-you-56797/

[Nihil Obstat]

56 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

It never ceases to amaze me that people have no clue Pope Francis specifically addressed transgenderism in Laudato Si.

 

Why does that surprise you? Last time I posted more than two or three paragraphs in a single post a few people practically had a cow.

[CatherineM]

I did a chapter in my book, Screwballs, on a transgendered client. He's deceased now but lived the last decade of his life as Shirley. I'm not a psychologist but I got this impression that he found being a man too difficult. I think he may have been gay actually. I've dealt with a bunch of them. My deepest impression is that most of them believed that changing genders would solve their problems. I saw little real progress post surgery. 

[little2add]

Gender Ideology Harms Children

The American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

LINK:     http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

 

Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.

 

[tinytherese]

I know it doesn't solve the issue, but it's too bad that not everyone understands that you can still be female or male and like non-stereotypical things of your gender like girls enjoying monster trucks and boys wanting to do ballet.

[Ice_nine]

@Aloysius just broke it all the way down. Excellent post.

 

[Luigi]

What follows is true. The names have been changed to protect the ignorant. 

So I know a ... person... genetically and physically male, known throughout most of his life as Alex, smart as a whip, but socially inept. Some combination of ADD, autism spectrum, I don't know what all. His father, Charlie, is quite liberal and a professional counselor. His mother considers herself a professional liberal and an urban pioneer. They divorced and Charlie remarried Susie, a nominal Catholic from a family with double-digit kids and old-school Catholic parents, George & Martha. 

Alex goes off to the most liberal college in America (according to his mother, Beloit in Wisconsin). He dates, he gets engaged, they break the engagement, he graduates - double major in political science and women's studies. Mother is pleased. 

Alex gets a job in a liberal local candidate's campaign office. One day Alex puts on a dress and changes his name to Stella.

Alex informs his mother that he is now Stella. Mother is pleased as punch - she is, by virtue of her liberality, perfectly accepting of every person's personal decisions, and she now has a liberal poster child in the flesh.

Alex informs his father that he is now transgender and wishes to be called Stella. Charlie is not at all pleased. Charlie lives in a rural area and is not sure how the neighbors will react to Alex-in-a-dress (they've all met and know him as Alex - he used to spend every other weekend on the farm). Additionally, Charlie and Susie sell at the local farmers' market - they tell Alex/Stella that s/he can't come to the farm or the market wearing a dress - it might hurt business.

Alex informs the liberal local candidate that he is now Stella and will be wearing a dress to the office. The local liberal candidate accepts this decision, but after a week or so, she informs Stella that she's transferring her from the receptionist position to the housekeeping position - Stella is not attractive enough to be the receptionist and needs to "improve her look" (hair, makeup, and clothing were named specifically) if she wants to go back to being the receptionist.

Alex informs George and Martha that he is now a woman and wants to be called Stella. George keeps his mouth shut, but after the visit says to Martha, "Pardon me while I puke." Martha is the only one of Alex's relatives who consistently call him Stella - not one name-reversion to date. Martha talks to Stella just like she did when she was Alex - Martha is, after all, very maternal and concerned with young people & supporting them as they try to find their way in the world. Martha doesn't bring up sex - "don't ask, don't tell," plus she was simply raised not to speak of such things - but Stella volunteers that she is still interested in women, she just wants to have lesbian relationships with them instead of heterosexual relationships.

When asked why she was so tolerant of Stella, Martha replies, "I'm old and expect to die soon. I want God to go easy on me when he judges me." 

 

BTW, I know that Jesus befriended the marginalized. But he also told them to go and sin no more. I know that's not very liberal of me, but I did read it in the Bible, so...

Edited May 31, 2016 by Luigi

[Era Might]

3 hours ago, Luigi said:

BTW, I know that Jesus befriended the marginalized. But he also told them to go and sin no more. I know that's not very liberal of me, but I did read it in the Bible, so...

I think the genius of the Gospel is this: not that Alex/Stella is a sinner (Jesus would take that for granted), but that he's probably the person in this story closest to grace. The best part of the story is the scandalized townspeople at the market, and the scandalized office workers, whose delicate normality has been so offended. In the Gospels, they would be the villains, while Alex/Stella would be either a sinner or a saint, but not a villain. That's what makes the Gospel such a unique moral text, it's interested in conversion, not conformity. Our morality is usually just conformity by another name...including the liberal morality of Alex's mother and the repressed morality of the rural folk.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Era Might

[little2add]

On May 29, 2016 at 3:31 PM, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

 

Bottom line: Be nice to other people--you don't know what they are going through. Listen and try to be respectful. The feelings are not the sin--it's the behavior that goes against Church teachings. Jesus was able to be merciful, kind, and loving to people whose behaviors he did not condone and had preached against--such as the woman sentenced to be stoned for adultery. I think we need to try our best to be as merciful and Jesus was.

 

 

true

i can't help but wonder about the quality of life for a a transgendered, having children or starting a family?  i'm sorry but a man can not be a mother, in practice or physically 

men look at things differently 

every child deserves a mother and father