Film to Examine Transsexual’s Church Ordination Quest

There is no such thing as one sex's mind in the other sex's body (i.e., as long as the body has not been modified). This is a Hollywood fiction that people have swallowed. And to the extent that a person of one sex is *like* a person of the other sex (which is never as much like "one sex's mind in the other sex's body" as people think it is), that is a disorder that needs to be addressed by dealing with the mind, not unnaturally altering the body.

Dear DCM,

I think everything comes from how you define sex. Examples in the sport world showed that female athletes, behaving like women, and in some case maried to men, were actually only phenotypically (that is to say on the outside, physically) female, but that their genetic sex (means XX or XY) was trully male (XY). There was thus a discrepancy between their body (that looked female even in intimate details) and behaviour, and their true sex (XY according to the genes).
Some of them after discovering that they were male based on genetic tests later changed, and became male (behaving like men, and in some case carying out chirurgy to be changed into a male).
The example that come to my mind is Erika Schinegger, gold medal in 1966, that later was discovered to be XY and changed to become a man "Erik".

So, it is possible to have one sex's mind in the other sex's body. I think sex is defined on three level:
-your gene.
-your physical appearance.
-your mind.

Then it is up to everybody to decide which level he/she want to follow don't you think?

Julien - Interesting information (in fact I was expecting to hear something of the sort in response), but I'd be curious to know what percentage of "transsexual" cases it has any relevance to. I think it's safe to say that such clear, physical criteria very rarely come into play when someone has mental gender-identity issues.

Dear Bob,

Actually, regarding sex (gender) determination, nothing is simple I am afraid. You may (or may not) know that human embryo (either XX or XY) display female genitals early in their development, but that later, upon hormone induction in the XY embryos, the female genitals are re-shaped into functional male one. In some cases, this reshaping do not occur, or occurs incompletely: in such cases which gender should be chosen, the genetic one, or the one that is on evident display?

The case or Erika is quite interesting in this regard: by simply "watching between her legs" societyt decided she was a woman, and was thus educated as such, and behaved as one. Later on genetic tests and in depth examination determined that she was actually a man, so she changed mentally and physically to become one.
It teaches us that one's gender is maybe more the product of one's education and own mindset that only the result of genetic (called primary sex) or physical (secondary sex) characteristics.

Dear DCM,
I agree with you, cases like Erika are pretty rare in the world of transexual. But from this example, it is hard in my opinion, to decide which one, between the genetic, physical and "spiritual" gender, should actually predomine.
Only society normalization has set up that because you are born with male or female genitals you should be automatically assigned to this gender. For most people this determination is fine and not questionned, but for some it is an issue.

With the reconstructive surgery available today (which is mostly misused) there is no reason whatsoever it couldn't be used (appropriately) to correct any of the rare developmental anomalies so that the physical appearance matches what they are genetically.

We wouldn't look at a cleft palate and decide "An ear should go there." We would determine what biology determines would normally go in the deformed area and do our best to reconstruct that. A partial presence of sex organs can help determine that for rare deformities of the sex organ, as can the presence/absence of other organs such as ovaries, etc.--and if all else fails, the chromosomal information will make it clear.

It. Just. Isn't. Complicated.

A healthy, well-adjusted person plays the cards you're dealt whether you like them or not

"A healthy, well-adjusted person plays the cards you're dealt whether you like them or not"

This is actually an interesting question: now with the progress of surgery, and more globally medicine, there is a choice. Should your mind change to be consistent with your body, or can your body be modified to become what you believe it should be?

I imagine you would stick to the first solution, then should women doing surgery to enhance their breasts, or other operations (eyes, hips...modification) be called unhealthy persons?

As long as these changes induce no harm to others, and when performed well don't put your life at risk, why should it be refused?

There is a false choice. You can cut your penis off but you're still a man.

The psychological inability to live with a body that is otherwise perfectly functional indicates mental dysfunction, and mental dysfunctions should be cured, not indulged. Indulging an illness rather than attempting to rectify it is immoral.

And such indulgence does do harm--harm to the individual and harm to anyone who may develop a serious relationship with them. Anyone who may consider entering into a romantic relationship with them will be harmed by their psychological problem(s), and if they engage in a sexual relationship with this person, they will be committing the immoral act of homosexuality.

We shouldn't be leading others to commit immoral acts, either.

Seeking to surgically alter a perfectly functional body in this manner indicates an illness that should be cured, and arrogance against their Creator, and a self-centeredness that entices others (doctors who may perform the operation, and people who might become romantically involved with them) to compromise their character and morality.

Maybe people seeking gender modification suffer from "mental dysfunction" as you call it (but then women doing breast/lips surgery, or men having hair implanted on their bald heads too according to your definition...yet society completely accept it). However, I have not heard of a completely psychological treatment that was proven to help people truly seeking gender transformation change their minds. If you know of a cure for this "mental dysfunction" I would be interested in learning about it.

Actually, changing sex is not something taken lightly, and is the results of several years of therapy with a psychologist (when done properly). Only then, is it determined that only this modification could relieve the person suffering.

Once the decision has been taken, transexual don't go to next corner doctor for surgery, but seek teams with proven experience in this field. The doctors who help them change do it on a routine basis, because they want it. Therefore they wont feel morally compromised.

Finally, if somebody get involved in a romantic relationship with a transexual, he or she will quickly knows what is the status of their companion (because the transexual will tell them, or because anyway they won't be able to hide it from the other person once they become intimate). Then it is one's own choice to decide whether he/she should keep going or stop the relationship. Yes, he/she can be hurt in the process, as it can happen in other kind of romantic relationship. Or he/she can find true happiness and love with the transexual, as it also can happen. So there is no reason to forbid gender transformation based on that ground.

Finally, the arguments based on personnal beliefs like "homosexuality is immoral", " you should not be arrogant with your creator"...are not very convincing since they do not rely on facts.

So to summarize, except your own personal, religious beliefs, I don't see any fact based arguments that goes against gender modification in your answer.

You do not see any "facts" because you refuse to see them. Your personal agenda for sexual license obscures your view.

Homosexual behavior is immoral by the code of ethics of every major religion and has been recognized as a deviant behavior in almost every civilization throughout history. That should tell you something.

Why should there be such widespread recognition of this behavior as immoral? Beyond God's law being embedded in us from the beginning, it is also an obvious misuse of the body. Our sex organs were clearly not intended to be used in a homosexual manner. Additionally, the drastically elevated health risks that come with this behavior should and does remove any reasonable doubt that homosexual behavior is simply not an appropriate or positive practice.

As for the denial of one's obvious sexuality, it is also glaringly apparent that if one believes they must cut up their body, they have serious mental issues. And society--including not only medical professionals but all of us--has an obligation not to indulge serious mental delusions, but to work to help the individual correct those mental delusions, even if success is never fully achieved.

After all, we don't look at hard-to-cure physical ailments and say, "Well, the odds are against curing this person, so we won't even try."

That would be reprehensible moral cowardice and disregard for the welfare of a fellow human being, as is indulging the delusion of someone who thinks they need to cut off their penis or construct one where one was obviously never intended to be.

Dear Bob,

First of all, thank for your constructed answers, it is a pleasure to see somebody sincerely interested in debating on issues.
I don't have an "agenda for sexual license", since I actually care very few about the sexual behavior of others as long as it does not interfere in a harmful way with my life.

Having said this, I think the discussion we have has shifted from "should gender modification be forbidden?" to "should homosexuality be forbidden?" Your point being that transexuals, after gender modification will have companions of the same sex there were before surgery, thus committing homosexuality.
Homosexuality, according to you is condemnable, so since gender modification leads to homosexuality it should be forbiden.

First of all, after surgery and hormonal treatment, transexual loose their previous physical sex, and gain a new one. So they become men or women, regarding morphological criteria. Since in one of your previous post you said that "by watching between the legs" you can determine one person sex, then by your own criteria, transexual become the gender they wanted after operation.
Therefore, if, for example, a Male to Female transexual is involved in a relationship with a man, it is not homosexuality anymore.

Secondly, even if it was homosexuality, there is no reason to condemn homosexuality, at least not based on your points:

-"Homosexual behavior is immoral by the code of ethics of every major religion"
What about if people don't believe in religion? Should religious rules still apply to them? I though the developed world was characterized by democracy, not theocracy.
-"Homosexual behavior [...] has been recognized as a deviant behavior in almost every civilization throughout history"
WRONG: in ancient greece for example, homosexuality was common things among the intellectual elite (the love between Socrate and Alcibiade), or among warriors like spartans. In ancient China, taoism and confucianism did not consider homosexuality as a sin, and there was an extensive litterature on homosexuality (see Dream of the red Chamber). Nowaday, homosexuality is accepted in most countries of western europe, and as a matter of fact is also accepted by a slight majority of american people (49%, according to Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2007). You can check all these facts easily on google.
Moreover, women were considered as inferior to men in many civilizations and by most monotheist religions: does it mean they should not have rights equal to men in modern societies?

-"Our sex organs were clearly not intended to be used in a homosexual manner"
Was the man intended to fly? Yet we do it! Our body is intended for nothing: natural selection made us what we are now.

-regarding elevated healt risk of homosexual: it is not due to their homosexuality, but, for some of them, to unprotected sex with many partners. You would have the same risk having unprotected sex with many women (see STD rate among female prostitutes).

Finally, the goal of doctors is to relieve their patient sufferance. Only them are able to decide what is suitable: if currently only gender modification can relieve transexual sufferance, then I see no objection against it, since it does no harm to me (you still haven't PROVEN gender modification was harmful to society).

Of course, if a cure existed that could give results as good as gender modification in relieving these people sufferance without altering their bodies, I would maybe reconsider my thinking. Do you have this cure?

You are in error when you say that men who cut off their penises are no longer men. If you'll check their genetic structure, you'll find they are still a man, even though they have intentionally cut off the the most notable physical manifestation of their manhood. Men like this can try like foolish children to change who God created them to be, but they will always be men.

This is an affront to God, to say that they know better than God what sex they should be.

It is also a clear sign of mental dysfunction, to be incapable of dealing with reality, the reality of their own body. As a matter of principle as well as practicality, those who have a firm grasp on reality have an obligation not to entertain and indulge dysfunction and psychosis, but to help the individual adjust to reality. Helping them cut off their penis, et al, is joining the deranged individual in their derangement.

Regarding the morality of homosexuality, even those who don't hold to a particular religion usually hold to science as a measure of what is correct and incorrect. And science makes it obvious that homosexual behavior is contrary to any valid use for the body. Our sex organs and rectums were obviously not made for homosexual behavior (and no, we don't fly; we built machines that fly). What's more, it provides no useful biological function whatsoever. Therefore to engage in homosexual behavior is ludicrous even from a purely secular scientific perspective.

Then there are the tremendous health risks that are associated with homosexual behavior. And no, the health risks that come with homosexual behavior cannot merely be dismissed as " for some of them [having] unprotected sex with many partners." Promiscuity has been documented in study after study after study to be the dominant and overwhelming behavioral characteristic of the homosexual community; there are some who have few partners and enter semi-committed relationships, but the majority have up to hundreds of sexual partners during their lifetime. What's more, the very nature of homosexual sex and the bacteria present on and in certain areas of the body make disease and disease transmission a foregone conclusion. And no, in direct contradiction to your contention, homosexual disease rates exceed even those of prostitutes. A statement by a WHO official earlier th is year indicated that homosexual sex was driving the transmission of AIDS in Asia, with homosexuals having an AIDS risk rate 45 times that of heterosexual men. And about a year ago, the Chinese version of the CDC found the AIDS rate in Bejing was 10 times that of prostitutes. And homosexuals only make up about 3% of the population.

And again I'll say no, homosexual behavior HAS been recognized as a deviant behavior in virtually every society throughout history--even ancient Greece. It was tolerated in that and a few other cultures, but even in those it was recognized as abnormal and a deviation from normal sexual behavior. With regard to modern cultures, again, it is tolerated widely in many, but still not accepted as a normal sexual behavior. And even that "tolerance" level is suspect, since the "mainstream" media has made it quite clear that anyone who doesn't parrot the glowing company line about homosexual behavior will be branded a homophobe, etc. and so many in the public go along because they lack the courage to speak the truth.

No, you're relying on bad logic and bad facts to attempt the justification of a dangerous, aberrant and immoral behavior. It's painfully obvious.

There is simply no logical, practical or moral justification for either homosexual behavior or the disfigurement of properly functioning human bodies.

Ok, I believe you must be a quite busy man, so I am glad to read such a long comment from you, and I will keep my answer as short and focused as possible.

-According to what you say, now, sex should be defined according to genes (and not anymore on physical criteria as you said previously). However...

You're right, Julien: I am quite a busy man. And I have no more time to try to convince someone of the obvious when they are determined to ignore all evidence in favor of their delusion. I publish the information I do for the benefit of those who seek to learn something or otherwise have some measure of an open mind; I simply don't have the time to spend on those who don't fit that category.

I hope someday you can forfeit your self-centered attempts to bend reality to your own image and get with the program. You'll find life infinitely better if you do.

Ok, what a pity, I don't have many opportunities to discuss issues with people like you...there are so rare in the place where I use to work (Europe and Asia).
But I don't understand why my last answer doesn't appear completetly...

Have a nice day though.

It's amazing how liberals manage to make something astonishingly simple seem so complex (but then, one has no other choice when one aspires to fight reality).

Take one's sex. In most cases, you can look between the legs: if you see a vagina, you have a female; if you see a penis, you have a male. For the few remaining anomalies, the genetics can tell you.

Failure to adjust to reality has traditionally been identified as a mental defect, and we usually try to help such people adjust to reality so they can live a healthy life. The current pop-culture trend where professionals join in the delusion of such disoriented individuals is dereliction of their professional duty and should be considered malpractice. After all, we would think the counselor who affirmed or encouraged someone's delusion that they were Napoleon Bonaparte to be engaging in malpractice...or delusional themselves.

We don't get to "decide" what reality is. We are all obligated to adjust to reality, and professionals' purpose is to help those who have difficulty doing that to bridge the divide.