http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/love-triumphs-across-the-line/2008/09/05/1220121526785.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Also in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herod was a totally bewildering article by Ms Adele Horin, in which she reports on how “the Australian Human Rights Commission has undertaken a project to investigate human rights issues affecting the transgender community.” In one of those bitter ironies that this age throws up from time to time, it seems that ‘transgender’ folk are a bulwark against the dissolubility of marriage; they are aggravated that they must divorce their respective spouses in order to, in Ms. Horin’s pompous and verbose terms, “have the sex on all their documentation reflect their lived reality.”
But as far as I can tell, what these poor, sick people have might be described better as a ‘lived fantasy’. At the instant of conception, each of us has either XX or XY chromosomes, and though I am aware that one might suffer from anatomical or hormonal defects, one is either a man or a woman. Gender confusion of the sort from which these people suffer is a grave disorder. I have sympathy for them, but I have nothing but contempt for the false compassion of physicians and the G.L.B.T. intelligentsia who would co-operate in voluntary mutilation rather than advising intensive counselling. (It is another great irony that while depression, anxiety and obsessive tendencies have been elevated to recognition as psychiatric disorders, the delusion that one is trapped in the wrong sex’s body is treated as perfectly reasonable.) Furthermore, what impact do these procedures have on life expectancy? Given that there is a correlation between other amputations and reduced life expectancy, what is the effect of these bizarre procedures?
I note also that Ms Horin is well-known as a feminist. But why, then, is she so completely uncritical of a lifestyle that amounts to identifying a woman as nothing more than a castrated, œstrogen-injected version of a man? Isn’t this transgender ideology nothing but a regression to the notion of a woman as masculus occasionatus (a defective man)?
Ms Horin concludes by saying that
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Also in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herod was a totally bewildering article by Ms Adele Horin, in which she reports on how “the Australian Human Rights Commission has undertaken a project to investigate human rights issues affecting the transgender community.” In one of those bitter ironies that this age throws up from time to time, it seems that ‘transgender’ folk are a bulwark against the dissolubility of marriage; they are aggravated that they must divorce their respective spouses in order to, in Ms. Horin’s pompous and verbose terms, “have the sex on all their documentation reflect their lived reality.”
But as far as I can tell, what these poor, sick people have might be described better as a ‘lived fantasy’. At the instant of conception, each of us has either XX or XY chromosomes, and though I am aware that one might suffer from anatomical or hormonal defects, one is either a man or a woman. Gender confusion of the sort from which these people suffer is a grave disorder. I have sympathy for them, but I have nothing but contempt for the false compassion of physicians and the G.L.B.T. intelligentsia who would co-operate in voluntary mutilation rather than advising intensive counselling. (It is another great irony that while depression, anxiety and obsessive tendencies have been elevated to recognition as psychiatric disorders, the delusion that one is trapped in the wrong sex’s body is treated as perfectly reasonable.) Furthermore, what impact do these procedures have on life expectancy? Given that there is a correlation between other amputations and reduced life expectancy, what is the effect of these bizarre procedures?
I note also that Ms Horin is well-known as a feminist. But why, then, is she so completely uncritical of a lifestyle that amounts to identifying a woman as nothing more than a castrated, œstrogen-injected version of a man? Isn’t this transgender ideology nothing but a regression to the notion of a woman as masculus occasionatus (a defective man)?
Ms Horin concludes by saying that
The commission has set up a "sex and gender diversity forum" on its website to canvass a range of views, and [Human Rights Commissioner Mr.] Innes will formulate his recommendations by the end of the year.I can hardly wait. And I shudder to think what might be in store after that.
Reginaldvs Cantvar
17 comments:
At the moment of conception, daddy's sperm contributed a 'y' gene (mom never contributes anything other than an 'x', so daddy is the 'decider' of the baby's sex. But mom can carry a mutation in the genes that code for reception of the testosterone the growing fetus's testes will crank out around the 7th week of pregnancy. This flood of testosterone SHOULD cause the undifferentiated genital tissue to produce a penis. The testosterone also masculinizes the brain, instilling a preference for "snips and snails and puppy dog tails," and the typical dislike for all the things the 'icky girls' like.
But that mutated gene throws a big monkey wrench into the development of this pre-born child. The testes can crank out all the testosterone they want, but the rest of the body is deaf to the signal. The external genitalia remain as is, and develop as default female genitalia. There is no uterus or ovaries, though, and often the vagina is shallow. The brain remains unmasculinized.
At birth, the doctor takes an educated look at the baby's crotch and says "Girl!" Nobody bothers to investigate further, and 'she' is wrapped in pink. As 'she' grows, 'she grows her hair long, wears cute dresses, delights in cute girl toys, and shows no signs that 'her' genotype is 46XY -- genetic male.
At 16 or 17, everybody gets concerned that 'she' hasn't started 'her' period. After much testing and seeing specialists, they determine that 'she' is really a HE with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (cAIS).
This person lacks a penis.
This person is sterile.
This person has XY genes.
By your pronouncement, that one is either male-XY or female-XX, and there is no other choice, this person is male.
Should this person start using the male restroom?
Sincerely;
Hazumu
(Next post, I'll ask about those sons whose mothers took Diethylstilbesterol (DES) (a drug shown to feminize the brains of 1 in 5 males exposed to the drug in their mother's wombs.)
You write:
(It is another great irony that while depression, anxiety and obsessive tendencies have been elevated to recognition as psychiatric disorders, the delusion that one is trapped in the wrong sex’s body is treated as perfectly reasonable.)
Clearly you have no idea what delusion means in a clinical sense. One of the most striking attributes of transsexuals is their clarity of understanding of their state and the reality of it.
In fact, the diagnostic criteria quite clearly exclude people who are suffering from clinical delusions.
The second bone I have to pick with you is your dismissal of the transsexual narrative based solely upon someone's chromosomes. Surely you can't be so naive as to think that our genetic make-up is the sole contributor to an individual's identity? One of the unique characteristics of the transsexual is the persistence of cross-gender identification - often long before any sexual awareness would emerge. Given both the dramatic range of human behaviours, and the persistence of the transsexual's condition, what is so unreasonable about the prospect that someone wound up with a fundamentally feminine personality in a male body? I know of plenty of women who do not subscribe to "traditional" stereotypes of womanhood, and plenty of men who similarly differ - there's no reason to assume that more dramatic cases would not occur naturally.
I am consistently amazed the representatives of, either alive or dead, Cardinal Pole, the Roamn Catholic Church, wish to call into questions the "morality" of other human beings at all.
For 1900 years, since the advent of Ireneaus and the "bishops" directed church, the RCC has led a sordid life, institutionaly, of represion of the right ofothers to think or act differently than they under penalty of death, dismemberment, torture, fire and sword.
The RCC has tacitly if not actively supported the Aryan Nazis of the Thrid Reich. It has effected and maintained severe pograms against Jewish people in the Roamn Empire, Spain, Italy, Poland and other countries.
It has crushed women, especially, under it's patriarchal feet and denied us any true humanity in its teachings.
It's priests and prelates have for centuries sexually and emotionally abused rangs of young men and women while enjoying the privilege's of the RCC's prtection and connaivance.
I believe, Cardinal Pole, you'd be well-advised to address the beams that apparently abound in the eyes of your Church prior to removing motes from the eyes of Ms. Horin or transsexuals.
I believe although dead you've been for sometimes that your talents might better serve the Church you are a Cardinal of as critic rather than trying to concern yourself with the morality of people you do not know or live with.
Perhaps you could use some of your extra-special grace to effect a major change in the institution of Roman Catholicism before you start lighting yet more pyres on which to burn heretics and sinners.
Dear Cardinal P.
Before making moral pronouncements on an issue, it's necessary to have more than a superficial knowledge about it, is it not?
Unfortunately, you appear to have a grasp of the science that is not completely adequate for the task at hand. Perhaps I can help by pointing out some facts, and we can then proceed from there in a spirit of seeking the truth, and being guided by Church Doctrine.
Your article contradicts Church doctrine, so is by definition in error. In your defence, the letter containing this doctrine was originally sent out sub secretum to bishops in 2000. (Source: Catholic News Service).
It has however since then been made public, and you should be aware of it before giving novel, radical and reformist interpretations of traditional belief.
Your article contains at least one error of fact. Kleinfelter (47xxy) and Turner (45x) syndrome people exist, as do mosaics and chimerae. Not everyone is 46xy or 46xx from conception.
Those born with 5ARD or 17BHDD look female at birth, but those who are also 46xy masculinise in body at puberty. For many, this is a blessed release from being transsexual, but for a third, they become transsexual as the result.
There is now sufficient evidence for the Australian Family Court to rule that transsexuality is the result of a congenital anomaly in the lymbic nucleus of the human brain. Catholic Doctrine is that men and women are born different, and that no surgical intervention can change that. Science agrees.
However, just because someone has been labelled male on a birth certificate does not mean they are. Gender is not a matter of documentation. It is a matter of mind, and of the physical biology of the brain. Autopsies and fMRI scans have shown that men and women are different when it comes to the lymbic nucleus. And that transsexual women - those born with male (or mostly male, as many are physically intersexed in other ways too) bodies have feninine brains.
May I ask you to have a look at the Catholic Answers Forum which has a discussion of such matters, and includes many URLs to the doctrine and science.
Wow, I suppose this is the blogging equivalent of a schoolyard ‘stacks on’. Hmm, where to begin:
Firstly, a corrigendum. Yes, you quite correct Zoe, there are also the XXY and X configurations. (I have seen Alien 3.) But the latter is a woman and the former is a man, if I am not mistaken. So the essence of my point remains.
But as for “making moral pronouncements on an issue”, the only thing I condemned as immoral was the false compassion of the clinical/L.G.B.T. intelligentsia. And as for “Gender is not a matter of documentation. It is a matter of mind, and of the physical biology of the brain”, this is the definition that the L.G.B.T. community might use, but it is not mine. Sex and gender are synonymous.
Now, MgS:
“have no idea what delusion means in a clinical sense.”
I never purported to know. But I suspect my definition is a lot more realistic than that of the clinical fraternity.
“One of the most striking attributes of transsexuals is their clarity of understanding of their state and the reality of it”
Irrelevant.
“In fact, the diagnostic criteria quite clearly exclude people who are suffering from clinical delusions.”
Don’t make me laugh. Would these ‘diagnostic criteria’ have been concocted by the same clinicians who caved in to the militant homosexual activists in the 1970s?
“Surely you can't be so naive as to think that our genetic make-up is the sole contributor to an individual's identity?”
This is also laughable. I am certainly no genetic determinist.
Hazumu:
Your comment has little bearing on the matter at hand. As the article says, it is not just a metter of a correction of documentation; surgery is also a requirement.
Finally, Nichole:
“the RCC has led a sordid life, institutionaly, of represion of the right ofothers to think or act differently than they”
Don’t talk to me about ‘sordid’. Keep in mind also that, by definition, one can only ever have a right to what is true and good.
“The RCC has tacitly if not actively supported the Aryan Nazis of the Thrid Reich. It has effected and maintained severe pograms against Jewish people in the Roamn Empire, Spain, Italy, Poland and other countries.”
Lies.
“It has crushed women, especially, under it's patriarchal feet and denied us any true humanity in its teachings.”
I would be fascinated to hear what your idea of ‘true humanity’ is. Fascinated, and a little bit scared.
So, the good "Cardinal" finds my words "lies?"
Quite an intelligent response, basically a lie itself though. Perhaps a close reading on the Law Code of the Emperor Theodosius and discover that anyone not calling themselves Catholic Christians were to be punished legally.
Jews were singled-out for particular persecution, such as if a Jew were to spit on a street that was used by a priest the Jew was to be slain. They were to leave the streets when priests walked through.
Need I also refer you to the various recipients of the love of the Dominicans during the period between 1228 & 1805 and something that was known as the Inquisition?
Also to Polish legal codes regarding Jews and the reasons for their treatment? The record of Pius and the church on Nazism is pretty well-established. Especially the roles played by the Curia and the German Church in the obliteration of German Jews, Italian Jews, French Jews, etc.
Sex scandals involving minors needs no refrral, to have missed those you would have to be blind to anything you could even begin to term "true and good."
Like most institutions that strive for political power and wealth while maintaining it's own interest The Church has done much good and also done much evil in the name of 'god," Msgr.
As for women's true humanity go back and read your "Fathers," Reg, I believe you will find numerous references and outright declarations that women can only be saved by "becoming men" and such like tripe.
"True humanity" would found itself on the recognition that Divinity is not the prerogative of a man in a red dress or a white dress. Nor does Divinity makes no distinctions between the members of a Creation that even your Holy Book declares to have been "good." However your dogma and traditions do so. I was catechised and am well aware of them.
You confuse dogma with righteouness and tradition with truth.
I'd suggest a horde of high-pressure fire-hoses be your weapon of choice as you attempt to cleanse the Augean Stables of your Prelacy of the accumulated grunge of 1900+ years.
Beams before motes, Reg. Get the beams and then be concerned with the motes. Perhaps in that work you can discover the institutes of the man of love that you claim to represent.
"Sex and Gender are synonymous".
Very well, I'll accept that for the sake of argument, but please explain such papers as:
Clinical, endocrinological, and epigenetic features of the 46,XX male syndrome, compared with 47,XXY Klinefelter patients. - Not all people with 46xx chromosomes are female. Not all with 46xy chromosomes are male either.
Swyer syndrome: A five-cases report - Swyer syndrome women have 46xy chromosomes. Also vagina, cervix, womb, but abnormal gonads.
Swyer's syndrome is a distinct type of pure gonadal dysgenesis characterized by a 46 XY karyotype in female phenotypic patients. It shows an abnormality in testicular differentiation. The disease is a sex-reversal disorder resulting from embryonic testicular regression sequences.
Can Klinefelter patients be female? (and the article it comments on)
Spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male phenotype and a rare 46,XX/47,XXY Klinefelter's mosaic karyotype. - I know a similar case personally, BTW.
Seven pregnancies and deliveries from non-mosaic Klinefelter syndrome patients using fresh and frozen testicular sperm. - Proving that some 47xxy people can father children.
An SRY-negative 47,XXY mother and daughter. - and some 47xxy people can give birth.
45x (Turner syndrome) people usually look female. 47xxy (Klinefelter syndrome) people usually look male. But not always.
Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency - showing that 2/3 of them, when they spontaneously change sex, also change gender.
Gender role changes were reported in 56-63% of cases with 5alpha-RD-2 and 39-64% of cases with 17beta-HSD-3 who were raised as girls. The changes were usually made in adolescence and early adulthood. In these two syndromes, the degree of external genital masculinization at birth does not seem to be related to gender role changes in a systematic way.
Sorry to contradict you about the sex and gender thing. The article's written by an endocrinologist, not a psychiatrist, so she has no particular axe to grind over " homosexuality - Mental disease or Perversion". Sexual orientation wasn't examined in the study.
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality
The BSTc volume in heterosexual men was 44% larger than in heterosexual women. The volume of the BSTc of heterosexual and homosexual men was found not to differ in any statistically significant way. The BSTc was 62% larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual women. A small volume of the BSTc was found in the male-to-female transsexuals. Its size was only 52% of that found in the reference males and 46% of the BSTc of homosexual males.
In that one, sexual orientation was considered.
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
The number of neurons in the BSTc of male-to-female transsexuals was similar to that of females (19.6 ± 3.3 x 103). In addition, the neuron number of the FMT (the single female to male transsexual) was clearly in the male range. The number of neurons in transsexuals was 40% lower than that found in the heterosexual reference males and 44% lower than that found in the homosexual males.
Women - even women with partly or completely masculinised bodies apart from the brain - are not gay men. Gender, sex, and sexual orientation are three separate issues, albeit correlated.
In 1968, I chose my new name, Zoe, because it was obvious to me some silly mistake had been made. I wasn't a boy, despite the clothing I wore.
In 1973, I had to choose between believing my internal feelings, or the objective reality as shown by the mirror. I believed the mirror. I wasn't attracted to guys anyway.
In 1985, I was given a physical examination at a Fertility clinic, and given the tentative diagnosis of "undervirilised fertile male syndrome" - a form of Intersex. So I was male, but partly female in body. I looked male then.
In 2005, as the result of what can only be called a metabolic meltdown, I had a whole battery of tests ($5000 worth in co-payments after Medicare), Ultrasounds, MRI scans, gene tests... and the diagnosis was changed.
To "severely androgenised non pregnant woman". By then, my internal feelings and the external reality coincided. I looked female, albeit a masculined one. 2/3 the mass and somewhat shorter than I had looked just 3 months earlier. Plus the usual change of shape from an exceedingly late and exceedingly rapid puberty.
Male to Female spontaneous sex changes are rare, only 1% of the more common Female to Male ones. But they're not unknown. 3 cases (with 3 different etiologies) are known in Australia. My gender has always been female though. Mildly Lesbian for most of my life, but that changed too, as it does in 1/3 of such cases.
The Church has always recognised Intersex conditions. See Matthew 19:12, about Eunuchs being born "from their mother's womb".
Until comparatively recently, doctrine was as spelt out in Peter Cantor's De vitio sodomitico from circa 1180, which you are doubtless familiar with. But for lurkers and other readers, here's a partial translation:
The Lord formed man from the slime of the earth on the plan of Damascus, later fashioning woman from his rib in Eden. Thus in considering the formation of woman, lest any should believe they would be hermaphrodites, he stated, “Male and female created he them,” as if to say, “There will not be intercourse of men with men or women with women, but only of men with women and vice versa.” For this reason the church allows a hermaphrodite — that is, someone with the organs of both sexes, capable of either active or passive functions — to use the organ by which (s)he is most aroused or the one which (s)he is more susceptible.
If (s)he is more active [literally, “lustful], (s)he may wed as a man, but if (s)he is more passive, (s)he may marry as a woman. If; however, (s)he should fail with one organ, the use of the other can never be permitted, but (s)he must be perpetually celibate to avoid any similarity to the role inversion of sodomy, which is detested by God.
I have shown that chromosomes are hopelessly inadequate as a guide to sex and or gender.
I have shown that external appearances are also inadequate, not when a seemingly normal male can ovulate, and little girls grow up to be big boys.
I have also shown that the one thing that appears constant is the lymbic system of the human brain. That is the touchstone to determine gender (and if you like, sex). The cross-gendered brain is just as much part of the body as the genitalia, albeit less obvious.
I guess what I'm trying to ask is - how do you define "male" and "female" with such wonderful certainty that you can condemn others for violating Church law?
To me it seems to go against 1 Corinthians 13. It lacks charity.
I honestly believe though that you are trying to do what is Right, no matter how difficult that may be to determine, and no matter what the consequences.
I'm trying to do the same. Reading Isaiah 56:4-5, and trying to determine what is required of me in my unusual situation.
Over to you.
My apologies for a "stacks on". We who have been so often on the receiving end of similar indignities - though in our case often involving crowbars, knives, rape etc - should be more, not less, sensitive to others.
More apologies again for the length of my last post. But please have a look at the URLs I gave. It really is not that simple for us.
And although technically I'm Intersexed (and how...) rather than Transsexual, I see the latter as being CNI - Congenital Neurological Intersex, sometimes called HBS - Harry Benjamin Syndrome. So my transition was natural, rather than assisted. In my head (literally) and my mind, I'm no different from any other woman. Be they the standard factory model or the HBS one.
Just please don't mention 1 Timothy 2:11-12. I have no answer to that. I comply with 9 (because I can't afford to do anything else). I try to comply with 10 as best I can. I've been told I've saved a few lives.
To my sorrow, 15 was never biologically possible. Any bits I did have were removed when I was 20 without my knowledge, I have a scar running from bikini line to breastbone to prove it.
I do have a son though. That took technical help, as it does for those who are normally 47xxy. Not so much a Dry Tree as a Bonsai.
When I took my marriage vows, they were "For better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part."
No cavils about 'but only this medical condition, or that one apply, not others'. No "unless we find it inconvenient to continue".
It was a solemn vow. Our marriage is necessarily chaste, neither of us are lesbian. We are co-parents of a little boy though, and our love - agape not eros - for each other remains undiminished.
To quote from your original post:
At the instant of conception, each of us has either XX or XY chromosomes, and though I am aware that one might suffer from anatomical or hormonal defects, one is either a man or a woman.
That sounds pretty determinist to me.
I note also that Ms Horin is well-known as a feminist. But why, then, is she so completely uncritical of a lifestyle that amounts to identifying a woman as nothing more than a castrated, œstrogen-injected version of a man?
Have you ever known someone who has transitioned? Or do you simply draw your conclusions from the vacuum of your imagination?
BTW - contrary to your blithe dismissal, it is extremely important to recognize that transsexuals are quite clearly NOT delusional. The fact that you choose to be ignorant and dismissive of the mental health research involved is a key flaw with your argument.
I suggest, sir, that you go out into the world and come to know some of its citizens who don't fit into your narrow little view of normal. It might surprise you to learn how real and human they are.
I will respond to each of the new comments with separate comments.
Firstly, Nichole:
My accusation of lies was directed exclusively at your accusations regarding the Church, the Nazis and pogroms. (Read the comment again and see.)
“Perhaps a close reading on the Law Code of the Emperor Theodosius ...”
Erm, that’s “Law Code of the Emperor Theodosius”, not “Law Code of the Church", right?
“Need I also refer you to the various recipients of the love of the Dominicans during the period between 1228 & 1805 and something that was known as the Inquisition?”
Presumably here you are conflating the Spanish Inquisition and the Papal Inquisition. Until you recognise the distinction between the two I can’t add much more.
“Also to Polish legal codes regarding Jews ...”
Right, Polish codes, not Ecclesiastical codes.
“The record of Pius and the church on Nazism is pretty well-established.”
Yes, it is, and in His late Holiness’ favour. By the way, do you really fail to understand how inimical to each other Nazism and Catholicism are?
“I believe you will find numerous references and outright declarations that women can only be saved by "becoming men" and such like tripe.”
Name one. This is another flagrant lie. The idea of a woman as masculus occasionatus is not part of the Deposit of the Faith, nor is it a corollary of it. Just because some Doctor or other held an opinion does not make it de fide.
“"True humanity" would found itself on the recognition that Divinity is not the prerogative of a man in a red dress or a white dress.”
If I said that about a cross-dresser then I would be accused of vilification. By the way, a cassock is an outer garment; trousers and shirt are worn underneath. A cassock is essentially an ankle-length jacket. (Trivial, I know.)
Now, Zoe:
“My apologies for a "stacks on".”
No apologies necessary.
“how do you define "male" and "female" with such wonderful certainty that you can condemn others for violating Church law?”
In light of my earlier factual error, I would say male = an ovum that has received Y-chromosomes, female = no Y-chromosomes.
“Gender, sex, and sexual orientation are three separate issues, albeit correlated.”
I think we can only agree to disagree as to just how profoundly connected they are. Sex = (see previous answer). Gender = sex (‘engender’ means ‘produce’; gender is concerned with reproductive capacities). Sexual orientation = conjugal attraction of one sex to the other. Other attractions are sexual disorientations.
As we know, ‘sex is not in the soul’. So given that a human is a unity of body and soul, sex must be in the body. I take these propositions as axiomatic.
“doctrine was as spelt out in Peter Cantor's De vitio sodomitico”
Was Cantor a Pope, Bishop or Doctor of the Church? I can show you late-eighteenth century moral theology manuals that admitted the liceity of abortion in some circumstances. That went out the window with the discovery of the ovum. An analogous situation exists with regard to chromosomes and sex.
As for the literature, I’m not sure I’ll have time to read it. I'll see.
Final, MgS:
“At the instant of conception, each of us has either XX or XY chromosomes, and though I am aware that one might suffer from anatomical or hormonal defects, one is either a man or a woman.
"That sounds pretty determinist to me.”
No, your original statement was about individual identity, not sex. Sex is a bodily characteristic and is biologically determined and is only one component of identity; identity taken in its totality is clearly not a product of genes. By ‘genetic determinism’, I mean genes as the determinant of all thought and behaviour, i.e. no free will.
“BTW - contrary to your blithe dismissal, it is extremely important to recognize that transsexuals are quite clearly NOT delusional.”
My understanding of a ‘delusion’ is a mental perception of reality that does not correspond to objective reality. As for the objective reality, see my second answer to Zoe.
Nichele,
The inquisition, whether Roman, English diocesan, Spanish or whatever, is something the church need never apologise for, anymore than the state should for its court system.
After all, I'm sure you would appreciate that the philosophy of liberalism has its inquisitions (Anti-discrimination boards, etc). But I suppose, you being a liberal, can't see the hypocrisy of your position? Liberalism using force of "law" to impose itself upon the unwilling?
In fact, those who believe in liberalism are even greater fools and hypocrites than I at first thought, given that the inquisitions were only used to punish apostate catholics, not those outside of the church (unless they breached the precepts of the moral law, which binds all men everywhere, whether catholics or not - therefore, the inquisition could justly punish a Jew or Muslim for sodomy).
But please don't take this wrongly - I realise rational thought is not the forte of liberals, who are addicted to poorly researched, bloviating, emotively based re-hashes of nonsensical protestant black legends and other rubbish.
Oh well, any form of intellectual bankruptcy will do when opposing Catholicism, won't it??
+ Thomas Wolsey
Archieps. Eborac.
Card. Presbyter Sae Caecilia trans Tiberim
Legatus a latere
Thanks for the courteous reply, your Eminence. :)
Re Peter Cantor : Article on him in the Catholic Encyclopedia here.
...professor of theology of the cathedral school at Paris...designated Petrus Cantor, Cantor Parisiensis, or simply Cantor...frequently chosen by the popes as a judge, e.g., at Troys in 1188, and also during 1196 and 1197 at Compiégne for the royal divorce case with Ingeberge.
So not a Pope (though a papal justiciar), arguably a Bishop-Elect, and certainly a highly respected Doctor of the Church. An expert on Theological law.
Has been described as "The most learned man of his age" at, for example, The INQUISITION & the Church :
Responding to Anti-Catholicism on the Internet.
It might save your valuable time if you just pick a few of the abstracts at random, to verify I'm not purveying a Furphy. Then have a look at the post BiGender and the Brain, which has appeared in "best of" collections of medical and neurological web articles.
For what it's worth, my blog has been officially determined to be of "national significance" with "lasting cultural value" by the Australian National Library, and they archive it.
I think the bar must be set pretty low, myself.
I would say male = an ovum that has received Y-chromosomes, female = no Y-chromosomes.
This definition has the virtue of simplicity, but little else to commend it.
It would mean that a chimera, a fusion of two separate fertilised ova, would qualify as both M and F if the ova were opposite sexed.
It would mean that there are some women who can impregnate other women, and some men who could be impregnated by other men. I mean unions that result in children. It would even be conceivable (pun intentional) that some woman (by your definition) could get some men (by your definition) pregnant.
It would mean Miss Teen USA 1991 is male - she has 46xy chromosomes, but has CAIS so is apparently female, albeit sterile.
I think you will agree that some at least of these consequences are undesirable.
By ‘genetic determinism’, I mean genes as the determinant of all thought and behaviour, i.e. no free will.
Unfortunately, your stance still fundamentally asserts a biology=identity argument, which both the intersex and transgender experience flies in the face of, while still being naturally occurring conditions.
It's very nice to argue that a transperson should 'suffer nobly' with their condition and live life as you think they ought, but it condemns an individual to a kind of inner turmoil that few can understand because they have never experienced it.
My understanding of a ‘delusion’ is a mental perception of reality that does not correspond to objective reality. As for the objective reality, see my second answer to Zoe.
By objective, you mean external - your objectivity on my reality, in essence. Unfortunately, your ability to inspect the goings on in my head "objectively" is extremely limited, and thus I would argue that your "objective reality" claim is lacking a key part of the information required to make such a claim authoritatively.
BTW - you have not once addressed the fundamental point I made in the first place. Namely that there is no objective reason to believe that a fundamentally female mind can occur naturally in an otherwise masculine body.
May I request that all discussions on the various Inquisitions be given a new post to comment on?
My own view is that the Protestants had the printing presses, so most of what is commonly known is based on hostile partisan Propaganda of the time.
Ironic since the word "propaganda" comes from the counter-reformation "Congregation for the propandisation of the Faith", but history's full of such ironies.
I request that both critics and apologists go back to original sources on the issue. It's not a simple one. But please take it elsewhere, and I hope his Eminence will post an article on the issue. Thanks.
Post a Comment