Yes, we do know that. That does not actually change a man or woman’s sex. That’s built-in, genetic more or less, and even post-hoc hormone treatments won’t actually change the underlying issue. It’s not possible to be a “man in a woman’s body” or vice versa. We are what we are; male and female humans. We can no more change the former than the latter.
So you simply deny that transgendered people exist?
No, but surgical or chemical alteration of the body does not change the man or woman to the other. Their perceived or desired identity is simply not something they can have, any more than I can be a 13th century Italian noble or the fox living in my backyard. I don’t even make such a specific distinction between men and women anyhow.
Well, I guess the OP has been answered…
Surprise, surprise…
That seems to be in contradiction to everything else you’ve written in this thread, which hinges on a very sharp distiction between the sexes.
I believe the official Catholic line is that they will not bless ANY marriage where the participants are known to be incapable of bearing children.
There have been cases were a man has a sex change and stays married to his wife. In many cases they change their sex on their birth certificate to Female. So is that marriage now considered to be a gay marriage and thus invalid?
From what I’ve seen of the anti-SSM people I’ve spoken with and read statements from, the answer typically is one of the following:
a) Never marry (in fact, never have any physical relations with any other human being). Optionally, pray to Jesus to somehow have her genetics change to be “right”.
b) Go off somewhere and die, because we don’t want anyone to question our ignorance of medical science.
Which of course is not a surprise. Transgendered folks are one of the last minorities that it’s generally OK to mock and hate, even being subjected to a not insignificant amount of distancing and even hatred from the lesbian and gay communities.
This isn’t true, infertile heterosexual couples are considered acceptable. Actually there are multiple infertile couples (read ‘barren women’) in the Bible, many of whom are miraculously blessed with (male) children later.
I think the woman with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome gets classified as a ‘eunuch by nature’ and would be told not to marry at all.
There was some Catholic bishop somewhere that said a guy in a wheelchair could not get married since he could not have kids.
This article seems to contradict you here (as Bijou Drains points out its a case of disabled man wanting to marry):
A sharp distinction in biological function, from which I take the purpose and fulfillment of marriage. If other people want to hang out or even live together, I’m not going to bust in the door. While there are differences in cognition between men and women… these are not huge. They are tendencies, not any clear difference. In my eyes, the modern world (while worshipping the body) errs in viewing people as naked mentalities or even isolated brains.
What mental help would that be?
Psychologists and Psychiatrists might not hold the opinion of gender for such people that you think they do.
I am sure because I just asked the psychologist who sleeps next to me yesterday wrt another transgender thread.
Probably will not make your case to really head down that road, so let’s just stop at the fork here, OK?
Because unless you understand the positions of mental health professionals first hand, it might not me a good idea to relay on those same positions to support yours.
Yeah much cheaper if they go to church camp and have their gayness fixed by Jesus.
And you define “man” and “women” how again?
I think the key is here: “Steve’s disability made it impossible to consummate the marriage and have children”. Infertility isn’t a problem so much as the inability to have heterosexual sex.
The best cite I can find at short notice is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
“The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.”
Even if that is the case, it still applies to the OP. And personally I can’t understanding the theological reasons for this distinction (miraculous cures for “cripples” occur in the bible, just as much as miraculous cures “barren women”).
My understanding was that while its perfectly ok (according to Catholic doctrine), if a couple realize after they are married that they are infertile, it is NOT ok to go into your marriage knowing you cannot bear children.
That is somewhat supported by the line a few items back from the one you quoted (not unambiguous, but seems to draw the line between DISCOVERING you are sterile after marriage and going into knowing you are sterile):
Ah, you might be right about that. They didn’t exactly cover the finer points of sexuality in my Sunday School classes.
As to the OP - the official Catholic position is a lot like smiling bandit’s, that one’s sex is innate and cannot be changed by surgery or homones.