Zev, I’m quite curious as to what the status of a female-to-male transsexual would be under Jewish doctrine. Could you expand, perhaps, on the proscriptions which lead to the conclusion that transsexual surgery is prohibited, and elaborate on whether they would apply to a female-to-male as well as to a male-to-female?
There are numerous problems with transgender surgery and the post-surgery status of such a person.
Firstly, there is a prohibition of sterilization. It is prohitibited to have oneself sterilized. (Of course, where there is a danger to life, this prohibition is waived. Thus, a woman who, because of cancer, needs a hysterectomy, can have the operation done). As such, since this surgery will result in sterilization, it is prohibited.
I’m sure there are plenty of other problems with the surgery itself, but that’s the only one that comes to mind at the moment (It’s late in the day. Chaim, are you still out there?)
In addition, there are no provisions to halachically change someone’s status. Thus, a man who undergoes this surgery is still, under Jewish law, a man. He cannot contract a marriage with another man, he cannot wear women’s clothing, he is still required to keep all the commandments which apply to men, etc. Any relations he has with other men (as a “woman”) would probably (although additional research would be necessary) fall under the prohibition of homosexuality.
The same would apply to females as well. They could not contract a marriage with another woman, nor could they wear men’s clothing, nor are they required to fulfill the commandments that men are required to fulfill.
Zev Steinhardt
i wonder how and where men’s and women’s clothing is defined. for example, afaict, in the biblical era men wore things that sure look like dresses to me.
It’s usually defined by the surrounding culture and society. Here in the U.S., for example, men would not be allowed to wear a skirt. However, in a place where it is common for them to do so (Scotland, for example), a man would be permitted to wear a kilt.
Zev Steinhardt
Religiously speaking, what would be the impact on marraige, etc… for those with chromosomal abnormalities? I’m thinking specifically of cases such as Kleinfelters syndrome, where the individual is XXY instead of XX or XY.
An XXY individual can look male or female and has the external sexual organs of the sex that corresponds with their appearance, but is unable to reproduce. Since they are sterile, would they also be unable to enter into a Jewish marraige, as in srs? A previous poster mentioned checking the genes as the ultimate definition of sex, but that won’t work in this case.
A study here on PubMed suggests that it might be useful to check for chromosomal abnormalities in infertile men, as the occurence of XXY syndrome is quite common.
Infertility is not a bar to marriage under Jewish law. Certain physical injuries (which usually result in infertility) are, but not infertility in general.
Zev Steinhardt
so if a male is a goth, he can wear dresses and makeup and so forth, and it is men’s clothing because that is the culture he is in??
I don’t know. Ask your Local Orthodox Rabbi.
Zev Steinhardt
my point of course was that even though everyone acts as if there were clear unchanging rules about what males and females wear, the rules vary drastically from place to place, culture to culture, time to time. it also depends on who you are. acceptable male clothing for a rock star differs from that of a banker.
the actual definition used in, as you say, “jewish law”, is not actually a law that states who can wear what. it is whatever leaders of the religion decide it is. males have to look/dress how they believe males should, and females have to look/dress how females should. it’s stereotypes and prejudice.
No, you’re wrong.
For example, in this place and time, Orthodox Jewish men cannot wear high heels, simply because it is a woman’s garment. Men do not wear high heels (not that they’d want to anyway…).
If, for whatever reason, it becomes fashionable for men to begin wearing them, they then become permitted. It has nothing to do with what the “leaders of the religion” decide.
Zev Steinhardt
i know plenty of men that wear high heels.
That may be, but high heels are still pretty much acknowledged in the U.S. to be a “woman’s garment.”
Zev Steinhardt
How many people does it take to make something fashionable?
acknowledged by whom?? those in charge i see.
you are just allowing stereotypes to rule your opinions. there is lingerie made and marketed to males. there is nail polish made for and marketed exclusively to males. i’m sure there are other products. since they are made for and marketed to males i think you would have to concede that they are men’s clothes.
I think the percentage required is socially subjective–it depends on the accepted standards of the society. But in the USA, a thing probably becomes “normal” somewhere between 22% and 46% incidence. Merely “fashionable,” however, requires a lower threshhold than “totally normal,” & there are regional variations. [stats from Out-of-My-Hat, Inc.] I’ve long thought this rule does leave an interesting loophole for fashion designers & the willfully avant-garde: “If I say it’s a pour l’homme, it’s pour l’homme!” But then, I was raised a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian, not an Orthodox Jew.
As for the OP:
Protestant fundamentalism is neither centrally governed nor doctrinally homogenous, so there is no one policy regarding transsexuals. I can’t give you a definite universal answer to your question for that reason.
Since there is no one policy, in many cases, the leaders of a local church will take a position that sounds right to them, and this position may be the opposite of one taken by another church of the same stripe a few hundred miles away. This is probably not a matter of clear church doctrine so much as personal philosophy of the pastor advising the transgendered Christian.
The attitude is also going to vary as the general moral philosophy of the church varies. Within “fundamentalism,” there are (among others) rabid legalists, inconsistent legalists, barely-legalists, libertarian-but-not-libertine moderates, know-it-alls, Know-Nothings, holy rollers, raving loonies, people-who-don’t-know-they’re-fundies, people-who-don’t-know-they’re-not-really-fundies, charlatans, sincere seekers, & folks who just wandered in to get out of the rain. You’re not really going to get total agreement on masturbation–or private property, or the relative morality of war and assassination–let alone something as outside of typical human experience as sex reassignment.
dixiechiq,
I am not “just allowing stereotypes to rule” my opinions. Surely, you must acknowledge that there are garments that are, by today’s standards, primarily female garments. I can take a bra, put sports team logos on it and market it exclusively to men, but that still doesn’t make it a man’s garment!
The bottom line, however, is this. The question was asked and I answered it. If you don’t like it, tough. I’m not asking you to follow my religious beliefs… do what you want, wear what you want. If you have a problem with it, take it to the Pit.
Zev Steinhardt [sub]who’s never had a Pit thread started about him yet…[/sub].
FTR, I don’t agree with the Jewish doctrine on reassignment surgery. But that just means that I’m not going to be Jewish (even though my mother’s mother’s mother was a Jew). Jews, in my experience, do not generally use their doctrinal rules to judge the behavior of non-Jews, nor do they seek to alter public policy to conform to their own religious doctrine. So, for me, an interest in Jewish beliefs is merely one of curiosity. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, of fundamentalist Christians.
Why not? I really don’t see how you can define anything a mans garmet, except by saying its a mans garmet. Its as concrete as the idea of race
zev,
i have no desire to go to the pit for any reason. i don’t know why you would say that.
but if a man has boobs and buys a bra, then it is a man’s bra.
**
I’m sorry. I may have misunderstood what you were saying or simply overreacted. If so, I apologize. (it’s been a loooooooong day).
If there’s a legitimate need for him to wear it, and it’s not a woman’s bra (i.e., it’s clearly different in style, etc.) then you may have a case. But in my example, that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about a person who doesn’t “need” one.
Zev Steinhardt