Jump to content

Transgender Man Here! Ask Me Anything! :)


CuriositasEtFidem

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

The OP admits to being a biological woman when they call themselves a "trans man". 

Nope. The trans thing refers to one's "true" gender or sex being different than the one "assigned" at birth. 

It's not unheard of for biomarkers of sex to contradict each other. They are called "disorders of sex development." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • CuriositasEtFidem

    49

  • fides' Jack

    37

  • Peace

    34

  • little2add

    34

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 a

You say "double effect", but I hear "the end justifies the means". What the surgeon does in these circumstance is permanent mutilation to allow someone to tell a lie with their own body. I heard

There was no need to prematurely assume the worst of all of us in this regard before letting the thread take its course. I remain faithful to every teaching of the Catholic Church, felt that a warm we

Posted Images

Credo in Deum
2 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Nope. The trans thing refers to one's "true" gender or sex being different than the one "assigned" at birth. 

 

Nope. The trans thing refers to one believing their "true" gender is different than they one they were natrually assigned at birth based on the biological markers they have; the same markers used to determine their biological sex.  

As for your "it's not unheard of" I'm sure is in reference to intersex individuals.  Sure, while it's not unheard of for them to exists it is unheard of for others who don't fall within their specific parameters to be lumped into the same category as them.  Your woman who later believes she's a man isn't the same as your intersexed individual born with both genitalia or any of the other biological abnormalities observed in intersex individuals.  

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ReasonableFaith
8 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. 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. 

An argument was presented:  1) The Church will not sanction the OP’s marriage to a woman nor 2) sanction the OP’s ordination, therefore the Church regards the OP is female.
 

The fallacy of the argument has been well demonstrated. 
 

What has been side-stepped is a solid logical argument. Females are not the only subset of human persons the Church excludes from marriage to a woman or being ordained. The unwillingness of The Church to allow either or both does not determine the sex/gender of such persons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Credo in Deum
22 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

An argument was presented:  1) The Church will not sanction the OP’s marriage to a woman nor 2) sanction the OP’s ordination, therefore the Church regards the OP is female.
 

The fallacy of the argument has been well demonstrated. 
 

What has been side-stepped is a solid logical argument. Females are not the only subset of human persons the Church excludes from marriage to a woman or being ordained. The unwillingness of The Church to allow either or both does not determine the sex/gender of such persons. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night but the reality remains the OP would be disqualified from both options even if no other things impeded them and thats because they're a biological woman. If the Church didn't have a position on their identity then they wouldn't have that ability to with hold those Sacraments based on biological sex, but they do and could, which means the Church views the person as being a woman.  

You can use semantics and all sorts of mental gymnastics to make someone feel more included all you want.  That doesn't change the reality of the situation and what this person will face, God forbid, they believe themselves called to be married to a woman or Holy Orders.  

 

 

Edited by Credo in Deum
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ReasonableFaith
31 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:
50 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night but the reality remains the OP would be disqualified from both options even if no other things impeded them and thats because they're a biological woman. If the Church didn't have a position on their identity then they wouldn't have that ability to with hold those Sacraments based on biological sex, but they do and could, which means the Church views the person as being a woman.

The Church claims the right to withhold both sacraments on grounds other than sex/gender and does so, particularly in regards to ordination. 
 

The argument is thus: The OP is a female. The church will not ordain or sanction the marriage of the OP to a woman because she is a female. Therefore she is female. Circular, begging the question, etc. 

The inclusion of ordination or the sanctioning of a marriage don’t shed any light on the subject. The church may well have a position on identity but it doesn’t hinge on the possibility of the administration of these two sacraments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Credo in Deum
20 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

 

The inclusion of ordination or the sanctioning of a marriage don’t shed any light on the subject. The church may well have a position on identity but it doesn’t hinge on the possibility of the administration of these two sacraments. 

Actually it does shed light on the subject since it shows the Church views a person's gender as being their biological sex.  The OP will never be considered a man in the eyes of the Church.  Never, ever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ReasonableFaith
3 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Actually it does shed light on the subject since it shows the Church views a person's gender as being their biological sex.  The OP will never be considered a man in the eyes of the Church.  Never, ever. 

The exclusion of a person from receiving the mentioned sacraments does not shed light on the sex/gender identity of any person; it sheds light upon The Church’s unwillingness to extend said sacraments. The Church may withhold these sacraments for persons based on a myriad of reasons.
 

Exclusion is not determinative of sex or gender. This is the the fallacious argument which has been presented. 
 

One of the uses of online forums, in addition to the free exchange of ideas, is to sharpen or hone one’s positions and/or arguments. 
 

An argument the church will not ordain a person and the church will not sanction the marriage of a person to a woman is a very poor argument for why a person is to be identified as a female. 
 

Lastly, never, ever is a long proposition in the life of the church. Many believers may have believed the church would never, ever recognize or sanction some ideas only to be quite disappointed in the long run. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

An argument the church will not ordain a person and the church will not sanction the marriage of a person to a woman is a very poor argument for why a person is to be identified as a female. 
 

Lastly, never, ever is a long proposition in the life of the church. Many believers may have believed the church would never, ever recognize or sanction some ideas only to be quite disappointed in the long run. 

A person may be excluded from receiving a sacrament for any of a number of reasons - lack of preparation, lack of disposition, age, gender, and so forth. If the church is aware that a person is genetically of Sex A (or B), it will withhold the sacrament of marriage to another person of Sex A (or B). The Church recognizes that the person of is Sex A, no matter what gender the person identifies as. The Church has the right and the duty to make these determinations since the sacraments were established by Jesus and handed down, as part of the deposit of faith, through the apostolic succession. The person seeking the sacrament can make any kind of argument s/he wants to, but the Church will decide whether to grant the sacrament. This applies to baptism, remission of sins, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and extreme unction. 

"Never, ever" is a very long time. It's almost as long as two millenia. The Church has been administering the sacraments according to its own lights (which are really the lights of the Holy Spirit) for two millenia, and I have every faith that She will continue to do so.

Another "never ever" that I can think of is... never ever in the course of human history have there been more than two sexes; never ever in the course of human history has gender been decided by anything other than sexual organs. (Sexual orientation has not always been tied to gender identity, but societies have recognized only two sexes, and gender has been determined by organs.) The recent proliferation of so-called genders is a product of academic nonsense perpetuated the by pseudoscience, psychology. 

Edited by Luigi
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Credo in Deum
1 hour ago, ReasonableFaith said:
Quote

The exclusion of a person from receiving the mentioned sacraments does not shed light on the sex/gender identity of any person; it sheds light upon The Church’s unwillingness to extend said sacraments. The Church may withhold these sacraments for persons based on a myriad of reasons.

Gender being one of the reasons. 
 

Quote

Exclusion is not determinative of sex or gender. This is the the fallacious argument which has been presented.

Sex and gender are the same thing and only those who believe in gender ideology claim otherwise.  Exclusion CAN be determinative on gender if it's the reasons for why they're being excluded, thus the argument is 100% factual and valid.  The Church isn't going to call the OP a woman in one instance and then call them a man in another.  If the OP cant do the two choices I presented because the Church would recognize them as a biological woman then it means the Church, NO MATTER WHAT, will always view them as a woman. 
 

Quote

One of the uses of online forums, in addition to the free exchange of ideas, is to sharpen or hone one’s positions and/or arguments.

Yes, you should try it sometime. 
 

Quote

An argument the church will not ordain a person and the church will not sanction the marriage of a person to a woman is a very poor argument for why a person is to be identified as a female.

 

It's the perfect argument when someone is claiming to be a man when they're not one.   Sadly, people like yourself give these poor confused souls false hope.  While I don't believe the OP has any delusion about being married to a woman or ordained, there might be others who would be delusional in their expectations that a trans man could be married to a woman or ordained when that's absolutely not possible.  

Quote

Lastly, never, ever is a long proposition in the life of the church. Many believers may have believed the church would never, ever recognize or sanction some ideas only to be quite disappointed in the long run.

Oh it is a long time so better set the expectation now, like I'm doing, so trans people don't come into the Church thinking it's going to change on these things.  Well given that homosexual acts are sinful and that Christ is a biological male, I don't see these two things changing ever.  

 

Edited by Credo in Deum
Link to post
Share on other sites
ReasonableFaith
8 minutes ago, Luigi said:

A person may be excluded from receiving a sacrament for any of a number of reasons - lack of preparation, lack of disposition, age, gender, and so forth. If the church is aware that a person is genetically of Sex A (or B), it will withhold the sacrament of marriage to another person of Sex A (or B). The Church recognizes that the person of is Sex A, no matter what gender the person identifies as. The Church has the right and the duty to make these determinations since the sacraments were established by Jesus and handed down, as part of the deposit of faith, through the apostolic succession. The person seeking the sacrament can make any kind of argument s/he wants to, but the Church will decide whether to grant the sacrament. This applies to baptism, remission of sins, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and extreme unction. 

"Never, ever" is a very long time. It's almost as long as two millenia. The Church has been administering the sacraments according to its own lights (which are really the lights of the Holy Spirit) for two millenia, and I have every faith that She will continue to do so.

Another "never ever" that I can think of is... never ever in the course of human history have there been more than two sexes; never ever in the course of human history has gender been decided by anything other than sexual organs. (Sexual orientation has not always been tied to gender identity, but societies have recognized only two sexes, and gender has been determined by organs.) The recent proliferation of so-called genders is a product of academic nonsense perpetuated the by pseudoscience, psychology. 

Much of this is plainly true. The argument has been proposed a person cannot be ordained or have a marriage to a women sanctioned by the church therefore such a person is a female. As pointed out in the above quotation, the argument is false. A host of other reasons may result in the withholding of said sacraments. If one wishes to identify the sex/gender of a person a better argument is required. 
 

In the life of the church it is apparent sacraments have been withheld or administered, in specific, individual circumstances, for reasons other than the influence of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, ‘improperly disposed persons’ have been granted the administration of sacraments and dubiously ‘improperly disposed’ persons have been denied access to the sacraments.  In all likelihood the administration or withholding  of sacraments will continue along these same lines in some circumstances. 
 

The history of human biology in regards to sex/gender has never been so clear cut to just one or the other. Some persons have biologically presented as having an equal presentation of physical sexual traits/organs. Some have presented as having the majority of such traits/organs present as one sex/gender while having minority traits/organs of the opposing sex/gender. Some persons have presented anatomically as one sex/gender with the only counter-indicating traits/organs being sex organs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Credo in Deum
3 minutes ago, ReasonableFaith said:

 

The history of human biology in regards to sex/gender has never been so clear cut to just one or the other. Some persons have biologically presented as having an equal presentation of physical sexual traits/organs. Some have presented as having the majority of such traits/organs present as one sex/gender while having minority traits/organs of the opposing sex/gender. Some persons have presented anatomically as one sex/gender with the only counter-indicating traits/organs being sex organs. 

Here you're referring to individuals who are intersex. These cases are EXTREMELY rare and the biological abnormalities which classify someone as intersex doesn't even apply to the majority of people who identify as trans!  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Credo in Deum
6 hours ago, ReasonableFaith said:

Much of this is plainly true. The argument has been proposed a person cannot be ordained or have a marriage to a women sanctioned by the church therefore such a person is a female. As pointed out in the above quotation, the argument is false. A host of other reasons may result in the withholding of said sacraments. If one wishes to identify the sex/gender of a person a better argument is required. 
 

 

A better argument isn't required simply because you fail to understand what's being said.  What you fail to grasp is that the OPs sex/gender will always be a reason in conjunction with the myriad of other reasons.   An example of what I'm talking about:

Possible reasons OP would be disqualified from both Sacraments:

1. Age AND gender.

2  Lack of preparation AND gender.

3. Lack of disposition AND gender.

4. Any other reasons  AND gender. 

5. GENDER!

No matter what the myriad of other reasons are, OR in the absence of them, the OP's sex/gender is, IN THIS CASE, a consistent and determining factor in their disqualification.

 

Also some reading for you who like to conflate transgendered people with intersex people: 

https://isna.org/faq/transgender/

Stop doing it, you look ridiculous 

Edited by Credo in Deum
Link to post
Share on other sites
ReasonableFaith
On 4/1/2021 at 3:25 PM, Credo in Deum said:

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.

This is the argument as presented. The argument has been well demonstrated as false. The lack of the administration of the said sacraments is not determinative of sex/gender. After 20 pages the argument sheds not further light upon the situation. 
 

To use the same language being a poodle is determinative of being a dog, but being a dog is not determinative of being a poodle. 
 

A move away from the above argument, or an augmentation of the argument, is salutatory in recognition of better logic and reasoning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying the same thing. You're not changing anyone's mind. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding. But that's fine - your repetition doesn't change the reality, either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ReasonableFaith
15 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

A better argument isn't required simply because you fail to understand what's being said.

The above quoted argument is quite clear and explicit in its premises and conclusion. There is no lack of understanding.  
 

 

15 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

1. Age AND gender.

2  Lack of preparation AND gender.

3. Lack of disposition AND gender.

4. Any other reasons  AND gender. 

5. GENDER!

These appear to be true. The use of such premises to support the conclusion of the above quoted argument’s conclusion would be ‘begging the question.’  What is demonstrated here is the lack of administration of said sacraments is not determinative of sex/gender. Rather, sex/gender is determinative of the withholding of said sacraments. 

 

15 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Also some reading for you who like to conflate transgendered people with intersex people: 

https://isna.org/faq/transgender/

Stop doing it, you look ridiculous 

Discerning readers will note no such conflation has occurred and there is no cause for embarrassment. Other readers may ‘read in’ non existent text in pursuit of their own agenda or to support weak arguments or positions.

Readers wishing to demonstrate the sex/gender of such person should look to arguments outside the administration of sacraments as the lack of their administration is not determinative of sex/gender. The use of the withholding of sacraments as a cudgel in such cases seems to be in tensions with the grace filled and charitable nature of the sacraments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...