|
|
Post by jimg on Sept 16, 2022 17:45:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 16, 2022 18:29:22 GMT
Just out of curiosity, I have to wonder if the same principles would apply to those who have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS). These are chromosomally male persons who give no outward signs of being anything other than female. In fact, they can be incredibly beautiful women --- it varies --- very striking in appearance, and it is only discovered that they are chromosomally male when they reach puberty, do not have periods, and further investigation reveals that they have no uterus and internalized testes in place of ovaries. DNA analysis further discloses that they have XY chromosomes. I do have to wonder how the Church proceeds in such a fashion, if one of these people wishes to marry, and the reality of the situation is known to them. My common sense (such as it is) tells me that "male and female created He them" is "big enough" to accommodate this "creating" as being about more than merely chromosomes and having a complete, normally functioning female reproductive system. Again, the only "clue" is lack of ovaries and a uterus, and DNA analysis was unknown until a few decades ago. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 17, 2022 16:53:14 GMT
The Church is in the not too distant future come up with its own definition of male and female and not rely on science. I have found this transgender issue somewhat confusing and have tentatively started to look at the science. Biology is discovering that it can no longer really support the idea that every human being is definitely male or female. I'm afraid the science simply doesn't support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Sept 17, 2022 18:49:12 GMT
From the article: "And yes, my friends, we Catholics do know what a woman is: simply, the female of the human species, whose body is ordered toward the procreation and nurturing of children. Those suffering from PAIS do not fit the bill."
Marriage is an institution ordered to the union of a man and a woman, with male and female reproductive systems, respectively. If they are male and female, and not permanently impotent, thus capable of marital relations, they are eligible for marriage. Otherwise not.
The fact that there are rare genetic anomalies does not change the fact that human beings are created male and female. Neither marriage nor children are guaranteed for every person.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Sept 19, 2022 0:29:14 GMT
The Church is in the not too distant future come up with its own definition of male and female and not rely on science. I have found this transgender issue somewhat confusing and have tentatively started to look at the science. Biology is discovering that it can no longer really support the idea that every human being is definitely male or female. I'm afraid the science simply doesn't support it. The Church has been dealing with biologically intersex people for years. I'm personally aware of at least three intersex Catholics. One of them used to post on CAF. The Church has a lot of bioethics experts and is not stupid about matters concerning human biology, although perhaps individual clergy and religious who are not schooled in bioethics may be less than expert. I'm pretty sure the Church could understand situations of people who have an actual chromosomal issue affecting their physicality or presentation as male or female. But if it's just a matter of feeling in your head like you are gender A but the body you are born with is gender B with no chromosomal abnormality, then science would need to explain further why some people have this feeling (for example is it genetic though not chromosomal) while most others do not. There is also a possibility that it is mentally driven, as there are people who are transgender at least partly as a result of being raised in some dysfunctional manner. I would think if two people are getting married, the Church is primarily concerned that, without any mutilation of organs, one possesses sufficient female equipment and the other possesses sufficient male equipment to complete a normal marital act of intercourse. And that's about it. The Church is not going to do a bunch of medical tests on its members, other than perhaps those seeking to be clergy. If you find gender issues interesting, here's a story you might want to read. longreads.com/2016/08/18/the-life-and-murder-of-stella-walsh-intersex-olympic-champion/Stella Walsh was a Catholic (though perhaps a sinful one). IDK if she was married in the Church when she got married, but she had a Catholic funeral and is buried in a Catholic cemetery. I've been to her grave - I always felt bad that she was murdered so stupidly in the parking lot of the local discount store. I also forget sometimes what the city I was born in was like in 1980 when I spent many of my days and nights traversing dodgy hoods on the bus or in my then-boyfriend's succession of old cars. It's not like that nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 19, 2022 0:39:45 GMT
The Church is in the not too distant future come up with its own definition of male and female and not rely on science. I have found this transgender issue somewhat confusing and have tentatively started to look at the science. Biology is discovering that it can no longer really support the idea that every human being is definitely male or female. I'm afraid the science simply doesn't support it. The Church has been dealing with biologically intersex people for years. I'm personally aware of at least three intersex Catholics. One of them used to post on CAF. The Church has a lot of bioethics experts and is not stupid about matters concerning human biology, although perhaps individual clergy and religious who are not schooled in bioethics may be less than expert. I'm pretty sure the Church could understand situations of people who have an actual chromosomal issue affecting their physicality or presentation as male or female. But if it's just a matter of feeling in your head like you are gender A but the body you are born with is gender B with no chromosomal abnormality, then science would need to explain further why some people have this feeling (for example is it genetic though not chromosomal) while most others do not. There is also a possibility that it is mentally driven, as there are people who are transgender at least partly as a result of being raised in some dysfunctional manner. I would think if two people are getting married, the Church is primarily concerned that, without any mutilation of organs, one possesses sufficient female equipment and the other possesses sufficient male equipment to complete a normal marital act of intercourse. And that's about it. If you find gender issues interesting, here's a story you might want to read. longreads.com/2016/08/18/the-life-and-murder-of-stella-walsh-intersex-olympic-champion/Stella Walsh was a Catholic (though perhaps a sinful one). IDK if she was married in the Church when she got married, but she had a Catholic funeral and is buried in a Catholuc cemetery. I've been to her grave - I always felt bad that she was murdered so stupidly in the parking lot of the local discount store. I also forget sometimes what the city I was born in was like in 1980 when I spent many of my days and nights traversing dodgy hoods on the bus or in my then-boyfriend's succession of old cars. It's not like that nowadays. Per usual, you bring the voice of reason and common sense to this matter. Unless someone simply doesn't have the anatomical ability to perform the marital sex act, then as long as you have a naturally occurring, physically presenting male and a naturally occurring, physically presenting female, then the question answers itself. The CAIS women to whom I referred are clearly women, just with male chromosomes and lacking a uterus and ovaries. As a side note, my mother told me of a farm hand from the rural settlement where she was raised --- this was the 1940s and 1950s --- and he was intersex, or as they said back then, a "morphodite" (i.e., hermaphrodite). It was common knowledge, and she said nobody really gave it much thought, "that's just the way he is". It was never an issue, was never raised as a negative by the other farm hands. I would say he probably never went to high school, 6th to 8th grade was seen as an acceptable completion of education there in those days. |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 20, 2022 14:17:04 GMT
The Church is in the not too distant future come up with its own definition of male and female and not rely on science. I have found this transgender issue somewhat confusing and have tentatively started to look at the science. Biology is discovering that it can no longer really support the idea that every human being is definitely male or female. I'm afraid the science simply doesn't support it. The Church has been dealing with biologically intersex people for years. I'm personally aware of at least three intersex Catholics. One of them used to post on CAF. The Church has a lot of bioethics experts and is not stupid about matters concerning human biology, although perhaps individual clergy and religious who are not schooled in bioethics may be less than expert. I'm pretty sure the Church could understand situations of people who have an actual chromosomal issue affecting their physicality or presentation as male or female. But if it's just a matter of feeling in your head like you are gender A but the body you are born with is gender B with no chromosomal abnormality, then science would need to explain further why some people have this feeling (for example is it genetic though not chromosomal) while most others do not. There is also a possibility that it is mentally driven, as there are people who are transgender at least partly as a result of being raised in some dysfunctional manner. I would think if two people are getting married, the Church is primarily concerned that, without any mutilation of organs, one possesses sufficient female equipment and the other possesses sufficient male equipment to complete a normal marital act of intercourse. And that's about it. The Church is not going to do a bunch of medical tests on its members, other than perhaps those seeking to be clergy. If you find gender issues interesting, here's a story you might want to read. longreads.com/2016/08/18/the-life-and-murder-of-stella-walsh-intersex-olympic-champion/Stella Walsh was a Catholic (though perhaps a sinful one). IDK if she was married in the Church when she got married, but she had a Catholic funeral and is buried in a Catholic cemetery. I've been to her grave - I always felt bad that she was murdered so stupidly in the parking lot of the local discount store. I also forget sometimes what the city I was born in was like in 1980 when I spent many of my days and nights traversing dodgy hoods on the bus or in my then-boyfriend's succession of old cars. It's not like that nowadays. I am not suggesting the Catholic Church tests people prior to their marriage. I was responding primarily to the cited article at Catholic Answers which said science supports what the Church says about sex. This is no longer true.
The biology of sex is far more complicated than was once thought and that isn't just about people classed as intersex. The reason I said the Church needs to acquire its own definition is because it can no longer rely on biology to support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Sept 20, 2022 14:38:08 GMT
With respect, the Church does not go around disagreeing with well-founded science, which includes biology.
Why would the Church suddenly start doing so now? They won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Sept 20, 2022 19:44:13 GMT
I doubt that physicians who deliver babies will, instead of remarking, "it's a boy," or "it's a girl," will start saying, "your guess ia as good as mine." Biology, anatomy, and genetics are pretty clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 22, 2022 12:40:12 GMT
With respect, the Church does not go around disagreeing with well-founded science, which includes biology. Why would the Church suddenly start doing so now? They won't. Because as research into biological sex continues it looks very clear that the Church's definition and science's definition of sex are going to become very different. |
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 22, 2022 13:26:46 GMT
With respect, the Church does not go around disagreeing with well-founded science, which includes biology. Why would the Church suddenly start doing so now? They won't. Because as research into biological sex continues it looks very clear that the Church's definition and science's definition of sex are going to become very different. Aside from intersex cases, where it can be very difficult sometimes to come down on one side or the other, how is "research into biological sex" going to disclose anything other than 46XX=female and 46XY=male? I refer purely to the biology, not to any psychological concept of "being born the wrong gender". |
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Sept 23, 2022 14:01:21 GMT
Because as research into biological sex continues it looks very clear that the Church's definition and science's definition of sex are going to become very different. Aside from intersex cases, where it can be very difficult sometimes to come down on one side or the other, how is "research into biological sex" going to disclose anything other than 46XX=female and 46XY=male? I refer purely to the biology, not to any psychological concept of "being born the wrong gender". Because the reality is far more complex than most people know. Not everyone is 46XX or 46XY.
I am a college Biology lecturer but if people wish to not accept what I am saying that is fine. I shall simply not post in this thread again.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Sept 23, 2022 15:10:50 GMT
Aside from intersex cases, where it can be very difficult sometimes to come down on one side or the other, how is "research into biological sex" going to disclose anything other than 46XX=female and 46XY=male? I refer purely to the biology, not to any psychological concept of "being born the wrong gender". Because the reality is far more complex than most people know. Not everyone is 46XX or 46XY.
I am a college Biology lecturer but if people wish to not accept what I am saying that is fine. I shall simply not post in this thread again.
And that's all I'm talking about. 46XX is female, 46XY is male. I fully understand there are anomalies, such as Kleinfelter syndrome, and in those cases, simply saying "male" or "female" doesn't tell the whole story. There is also, as I noted, CAIS where you have 46XY, but the person outwardly presents as female, with the anomaly only detected when she fails to have periods, and it is determined that she does not have ovaries or a uterus, but instead has internal testes (and, very often, these present a potential health hazard and have to be removed). Distance runner Caster Semenya would be a case in point, and while, unfortunately, she looks far more masculine than feminine --- many CAIS women are utterly feminine in appearance, sometimes dramatically so --- she had no reason to think she was anything other than a biological woman until the sports authorities forced her to be examined. I also have to note that she was the epitome of class and dignity all the way, in the face of such scrutiny and being subjected to the media in a matter that was ultimately her own private situation. |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Sept 23, 2022 19:03:31 GMT
What percentage, if any, of those who claim to be transgender, have some specific genetic anomaly which substantiates the claim? As far as the law is concerned for now, a claim of transgenderism is simply accepted at face value, with no biological evidence whatever, and even if the biology and genetics specifically point to the opposite of the gender claimed.
|
|
