Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Seminary posed the following ethical question to his students for their final exam, and then asked them how they would respond as a pastor:
Joan is a fifty year-old woman who has been visiting your church for a little over a year. She sits on the third row from the back, and usually exits during the closing hymn, often with tears in her eyes. Joan approaches you after the service on Sunday to tell you that she wants to follow Jesus as her Lord.
You ask Joan a series of diagnostic questions about her faith, and it is clear she understands the gospel. She still seems distressed though. When you ask if she’s repented of her sin, she starts to cry and grit her teeth.
“I don’t know,” she says. “I don’t know how…I don’t know where to start…Can I meet with you privately?”
You, Joan, and a godly Titus 2-type women’s ministry leader in your church meet in your office right away, and Joan tells you her story.
She wasn’t born Joan. She was born John. From early on in John’s life, though, he felt as though he was “a woman trapped in a man’s body.” Joan says, “I don’t mean to repeat that old shopworn cliché, but it really is what I felt like.”
Joan tells you that when she was twenty she began the process of “transitioning” from life as a man to life as a woman. She underwent extensive hormone therapy, followed by extensive plastic surgery—including so-called “gender reassignment surgery.” She has lived for the past thirty years—physically and socially—as a woman.
“I want to do whatever it takes to follow Jesus,” Joan tells you. “I want to repent…I just, I don’t know how to do it.”
“I am surgically now a woman. I’ve taken hormones that give me the appearance and physical makeup of a woman,” she says. “Even if I were to put on a suit and tie right now, I’d just look like a woman with a suit and tie. Not to mention the fact that, well, I am physically…a woman.”
“To complicate matters further,” Joan says through tears, “I adopted my daughter, Clarissa, when she was eight months old and she’s ten years old now. She doesn’t know about my past life as…as a man. She just knows me as her Mom.”
“I know the sex change surgery was wrong. I know that my life is twisted. I’m willing to do whatever Jesus would have me to do to make it right,” she says. “But what would Jesus have me to do?”
Joan asks you, “Am I too messed up to repent and be saved? If not, what does it mean for me to repent and live my life as a follower of Jesus? What is right for me to do?”
While the question was hypothetical, surely this situation is not. It is real, and surely there are some churches out there who have already encountered it. What would you do if Joan/John came to you? I have given this some thought over the years, but never committed my thoughts to writing. Thankfully, Dr. Moore has done so in a series of five short posts. He has articulated my point-of-view to a tee. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5
HT: Justin Taylor
June 5, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Given that God looks at people through a male-female lens, but that life presents us with people who are both (or neither), what is God’s plan for the neuters and hermaphrodites?
LikeLike
June 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Arthur,
There’s no question that biological mishaps create some questionable individuals when it comes to gender identity, no matter how rare they might be.
So what do we do with them? We should preach the Gospel to them. One can be saved, even if they are gender-confused.
I think the more hairy questions have to do with what they are to do about their sexual relationships. And the answer to those questions will depend on each individual.
When it comes to hermaphrodites, it’s my understanding that every hermaphrodite is biologically slanted one way or the other (both in their DNA/hormonal makeup, as well as the functionality and development of their genitals). I think they should identify with whatever gender they are slanted most toward.
And for some–maybe the really hard cases–their best option may be to abstain from romantic/sexual relationships altogether. Indeed, for some, this may not be hard at all. Even for those in which this may be a burden to bear, it is not a burden that millions of people throughout history have not borne, particularly out of devotion for God.
Jason
LikeLike
June 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Some hermaphrodites are surgically assigned a gender at birth but then learn later that, through medical oversight, it actually isn’t the gender that they were hormonally best slanted towards. Is it okay for these individuals to undergo sex reassignment surgery?
And for the really hard cases, I admit that it may be best to abstain from romantic and sexual relationships altogher. I would say that this might be the best option for people who struggle with a totally homosexual orientation as well, even if their gender isn’t in doubt. The question, then, goes to which gender should a hermaphrodite live as? Whichever one they feel closest to? And who gets to decide, the parents, and then the individual himself/herself?
This is certainly a rare issue, but it’s one that Christians need to make sure they’ve thought about. It doesn’t pay to not be prepared.
LikeLike
June 6, 2009 at 11:12 am
Jay,
That is a tough one! I’m inclined to say the surgery would be acceptable in such a case. Indeed, if “its” biology is more of a she than a he, even though the parents may have left the male sexual organs, “its” physical appearance will probably look more female since the female genes and hormones predominate. It would seem to make sense, then–if the person desires to do so–to remove the sex organ that should have been removed at birth.
I agree with you about those with homosexual orientation. Let’s face it, not every homosexual convert to Christianity is able to re-orient their sexual desires. Some do lose their attraction for the same sex, but never develop an attraction for the opposite sex. Some lose their attraction for the same sex, and develop an attraction for the opposite sex. But many, and I think most, continue to struggle with same-sex attraction even as Christians, and their best bet is to abstain from romantic and sexual relationships altogether until such time they are healed of this emotional disorder (if ever).
As for who gets to decide the gender of the hermaphrodite, I think the parents decide in most cases because they “take care of it” at the hospital when the baby is born. Hopefully the doctors properly analyzed their genetic and hormonal make-up, and the parents made an informed decision. If not, we are in the situation you described in the beginning of your post.
Jason
LikeLike
June 6, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Right. Because of advances in medicine, most children born with hermaphroditic conditions are able to have them properly rectified shortly after birth. Still, there have been many cases where the individual in question felt that the gender chosen at their birth was “wrong” upon adulthood. It’s often a tricky business, because some individuals do produce both female and male hormones. I believe British author Lady Colin Campbell is one such individual.
Lili Elbe (1882-1931), who is often held up by transgendered activists as the first person to undergo sex reassignment surgery, was found to have rudimentary ovaries and other female organs during her autopsy after her death. So when she said she felt like a woman inside, she was correct.
The effects of the fall are numerous indeed. That’s one reason why I think that, for some people at least, a homosexual orientation might be mostly biological. I know that I personally have never fit any of the enviornmental causation theories held up by NARTH and other research organizations (i.e. distant father, lack of male peers, early exposure to homosexuality).
At the same time, being afflicted with a sign of the fall doesn’t mean that one should indulge it. It just means that the church needs to be there to support those who are different, and listen to their stories with patience and understanding.
LikeLike
June 6, 2009 at 6:32 pm
If there’s a hermaphrodite who is more of a “she” than a “he,” and you apparently conclude that such an individual is therefore a “she” in God’s eyes, is it acceptable for such a person to marry a Christian man and have sex with all “her” parts?
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 2:22 am
Although I think the answer in the article is a good one (Let’s face it, I would last seconds against an ethics lecturer) I feel the answer would be different if Joan/John was married to a man.
I ultimately think that the answer is not as easy as described and that the pastor would have to treat each case as it comes. For some, changing back to being manly I believe would be incorrect.
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 11:33 am
Jay,
Indeed, these are difficult issues.
As for homosexuality having a biological basis, I don’t rule that out, but to-date, no evidence for this has been found.
I do find it interesting, however, that you do not identify with any of the socio-environmental factors common in those with same-sex attraction. I would be interested to talk with you about this further, offline. I am interested in your story, and your perspective.
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 11:35 am
Arthur,
I don’t think a Christian man would want to have sex with his hermaphrodite wife’s male organ. Even if he did, however, I do not think this is morally appropriate.
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 11:53 am
Scott,
I actually emailed Dr. Moore about that. I asked him what he would do if Joan/John was married. Would he advise Joan/John to divorce? Dr. Moore did respond. While his answer was not as clear as I would have liked it to have been, he seems to be of the opinion that divorce is in order.
While he did not say so, I imagine his reasoning to be that since marriage is only between a man and a woman, and Joan/John is not a biological woman, the marriage was invalid to begin with. This is my own line of reasoning as well.
I also asked Dr. Moore whether he thought their sexual intercourse together should be considered a homosexual act, given the fact that Joan/John has a vagina (surgically constructed) rather than a penis, and “her” husband is using his penis as a heterosexual male should (in his “wife’s” vagina). My inclination was that it should be considered a homosexual act, for the following reasons:
1. The person the husband is having sex with is a male, even if his appearance has been altered to look like a female.
2. The vagina is not a vagina, but a mangled male penis surgically constructed to look like a vagina.
3. Just because they are not having sex in the same way other same-sex couples have sex (anally), does not mean it is any less of a homosexual act. What makes it a homosexual act is that it is a sexual act engaged in by two people of the same sex.
Dr. Moore affirmed my conclusion and my reasoning.
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Jason, you’re welcome to e-mail me any time with questions.
Also, it was interesting to hear Dr. Moore’s thoughts on the marriage issue. Does this mean that John could get married to a woman? It would probably be most wise for John to remain single after his conversion, yet at the same time, using Dr. Moore’s logic, he could marry a woman. I’m not sure how I feel about that, since even though John and a wife would have opposite genders, John’s false “vagina” would still require that the two would essentially have lesbian sex to achieve satisfaction.
Also, just a note of clarification: not all same-sex couples have anal sex. Lesbians certainly don’t, and I’ve met many gay men who have said that they don’t, either. At the same time, many straight couples do. I do believe it’s a sin no matter who does it, of course. Take care!
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Jay,
I don’t know what Dr. Moore would say to that. Like you, I would advise against it, but I don’t see any reason to say it would be immoral. After all, on what basis would it be wrong? Would it be wrong because he doesn’t have male genitalia? If that were true, then it would be true of the man who lost his genitalia in some accident. But surely no one would prohibit that man from marrying, so why John? If John were to marry, however, it would probably be best for him to abstain from sex, unless he undergoes another surgery to have a penis reconstructed (or unless he is willing to satisfy his wife’s sexual desires, but not be pleasured by her).
This brings up an interesting question: when men undergo a sex change, is there any sensation in their surgically constructed vagina? I think I recall seeing a program discussing this matter, in which they said the strategically place the nerves from the penis near or in the vagina so as to allow the “women” to feel sexual stimulation. Does anyone know the details?
Jason
LikeLike
June 8, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I have researched this issue a bit, simply out of academic curiosity. Using as discreet of language as I can, genitalia reconstruction surgery essentially entails taking the penis and inverting it, using the analogous stimulation nerves to create a clitoris, which, of course, is the main female pleasure center. So yes, most male-to-female transgendered individuals are able to experience sexual pleasure.
Which is why, should John marry a woman, he would be able to still experience sexual pleasure from his wife, but it would have to be in a manner that, frankly, is routinely done by lesbians (i.e. oral stimulation of his faux clitoris).
Wow, it’s really difficult to talk about this subject tastefully. I guess we are all adults here, but still…
LikeLike
June 9, 2009 at 3:37 am
I’ve thought about this, albeit overnight, and I’ve come to the opposite view than Dr. Moore. The reasoning is that as a non-christian, John became Joan. Now as a christian it is my view that The person now is Joan. Regardless of past sin, I personally do not see the sexual intercourse with husband (assuming she has one) as a homosexual act considering she is now a woman. While I believe that the transgender operation is not right, I also feel that this is one of the sins where the consequences will effect you. As it is not possible to reverse the effects of the sin (genitalia) then they have to live with the consequences. That is, stay a woman.
If the family doesn’t know, then I feel John/Joan would have to tell them.
I think the main reason for the question is that there is no clear cut answer.
LikeLike
June 9, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thanks for weighing in Jay. One follow-up question, though. Isn’t the “vaginal” cavity itself formed out of the penis? Does the vaginal cavity have any sensation?
Jason
LikeLike
June 9, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Scott,
It seems you are taking it as a fact that John is really a woman. But clearly he isn’t. How can mutilating one’s penis, and artfully making it look like a vagina make someone a woman? It can’t. Even if you add hormone injections to the mix, it’s still just a man who takes hormone injections and has a faux-vagina. Indeed, if he stopped taking his injections, everything but his mangled penis would return to normal. He would look male again.
If gender is an objective feature of reality (as we believe it is, given that God created us male and female), then John will always be John. And since sex and marriage between two men is morally wrong, John cannot stay married to his husband.
Jason
LikeLike
June 9, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The cavity is indeed formed out of the penis in most cases, with skin grafts from other parts of the body if needed. Whether or not there is sensation depends on the skill of the surgeon, I think. It is certainly aimed for, and many transgendered individuals say they are satisfied sexually with their “new” genitalia.
LikeLike
June 10, 2009 at 1:02 am
Jason,
So the starting premise is really God made John male, therefore after surgery, John is still male even after having the penis removed??
That would start the debate on what makes a man a man and a woman a woman…….
In theory, you could argue that John post surgery is actually a non-gender. In which case it makes no difference whether you treat them as male or female as J is neither. (This does strengthen the celibacy argument though)
LikeLike
June 10, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Scott,
Yes, John is just as male after his surgery as were the eunuchs in the court of kings, or the man who accidentally gets himself castrated in shop class.
It seems to me that gender is both biological and spiritual. I doubt my soul has a penis, and yet when I die, I have no reason to think I’ll cease being a man and become an androgynous person. I will still be a man. I will retain my identity, which includes my gender.
So the soul who cuts off his body’s penis is still a male soul. Now he’s simply a male soul with a body that doesn’t look like a normal male body. Indeed, he can even take female hormone injections to further alter his body’s appearance, but it is still the body of a male soul.
Jason
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 7:17 pm
So the soul who cuts off his body’s penis is still a male soul. Now he’s simply a male soul with a body that doesn’t look like a normal male body.
So you can be a male soul trapped in a woman’s body, or a female soul trapped in a male’s body?
LikeLike
June 12, 2009 at 6:55 pm
The man who undergoes a sex change doesn’t really have a female body. He has a male body mangled and manipulated to resemble a female body, so I would answer in the negative.
Jason
LikeLike
June 14, 2009 at 3:49 am
One day the world will hear God’s message of redemption to all, not some, who have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory from my pulpit. This I can assure you. I will be living testimony of the power of God, who possesses both male and female traits, to transform not only the physical body, but the soul as well. The transformation is of course, with the grace of salvation through our savior Jesus Christ and coupled with salvation from doomed sinner to a saved saint. This is my calling. For you see, God is incapable, being a perfect God, of creating imperfect creatures, humans included. By definition, God created two, and only two perfect humans—our first ancestors. After sin entered God’s creation, perfect man became imperfect man. He populated the earth with imperfect, defective descendants born with, physical and other birth defects including the birth defect of gender incongruency. Spiritually, none of us are in possession of race, gender, or other superficial earthly attributes. God’s perception of his creation is not from human eyes limited by earthly illusion, but from a divine perspective whereby he perceives only good and evil. Both males and females were created in the image of God. Conclusion: God, that is the family of God, consists of both male and female traits. Both males and females are in need of salvation. Conclusion: being neither male nor female in and of itself is a characteristic of good nor evil. Therefore, the attribute of gender, and the physical correction thereof, serves neither to save nor condemn—shame on you for even perpetuating this logical fallacy. If I, you, or any other living person, sinners in the eyes of God, were ourselves created by God rather than products of human reproduction, then there would be no need for the savior. Descendants of reproduction that we are, we are tainted images of God. God has given us the wisdom to correct physical maladies including gender abonormalities borne as a product of sin. I have promised God, as thanks for correcting my gender malady, to serve him in the ministry proclaiming the Good News to all disenfranchised from churches such as yours that have strayed from God’s divine truth. God clearly specifies that which is sin—-being transgendered is not one of them.”
Delphi Lomeli
LikeLike
July 18, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I see alot of problems with responses of jasondulle.
First, as was decided upon extensive evaluation in the Richards case-
***according to overwhelming medical evidence, this person is now female.***
Secondly, the post-op transsexual should be allowed to marry as a woman. In regards to the vagina, if performed properly, it is not a mangled up penis.
Skin grafts to this location adjust to their
environment and become normal vaginal mucosa. In the MT vs. JT case, a post-op transsexual was declared a woman because her vagina was the ***same as a normal female vagina after a hysterectomy***
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15935544?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Third, There is an assumption that so-called hermaphrodites (I will uses the term intersexed) are slanted toward male or female. This may not necessarily be the case. One cannot go by chromoosmes either,
since an individual can be 1/2 XX and 1/2 XY or a male can turn out XX and a female can turn out XY.
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 2:47 am
It gets even more complicated – Prof Italiano simplifies things. All trans women ever examined have some of their bodies conforming to a female rather than male norm, even before treatment.
Anyone searching for a simple answer – such as the contention that “if born with male genitalia (even if other characteristics are female) then they’re male, if born with female genitalia (even if other characteristics are male)” – well, they are confounded by some Intersex conditions.
First, there’s those with ambiguous genitalia. Sometimes the difference between classified as male or female requires measurement with a micrometer. A millimeter either way makes a difference.
And it *does* matter, because 1/3 of the time, when you make an arbitrary assignment based on a coin-toss, the patient later tells you you got it wrong. You mutilated them trying to make them the opposite sex.
Second though, are those with 5ARD or 17BHDD syndromes. They are born with female-looking genitalia, but (to over simpilify) get a “natural sex change” to male, with male genitalia later. Some can even father children after their change.
About 2/3 accept or even welcome the change – they were boys, even if they were born looking like girls. But for the other third, it’s a nightmare. They’re girls whose bodies are betraying them, and they desperately seek medical attention to halt and reverse this awful condition.
Jason, how would you classify such people?
I’ll quote an e-mail I received from Prof Ecker on the subject, immeddiately after he had delivered a presentation to the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on the subject. One based not on the mind, but the body, not psychology but biology:
“Hi Zoe,
Yes, we gave our presentation to 60 plus psychiatrists from the US, AU, FR, IT, EU, UK, Holland etc.
We spoke for 2 1/2 hours on why cross gender identity was a normal inherited variation of humans. We showed how Transgender Brains think, smell, and hear like the opposite sex. We presented internationally accepted guidelines for hormonal treatment of transsexuals to be published Summer 2009.
Here are my slides and with my participants’ permission I shall send you theirs. We are now in print in the APA Syllabus and soon in the APA Journal this summer. I am checking if we were recorded.
My greatest personal compliment came from Frank Kruijver, from Holland, whose research of the human brain in TSs started it all. He thought we have taken his work very far in our understanding of the human brain. Hope you can do something with this.
Sid Ecker, M.D.”
Defining sex on the basis of genitalia – which may naturally change – or chromosomes – which may be cross-gendered so that “genetic males” give birth – or indeed any basis just doesn;t work: except for one.
Something that is set long before birth, and which can be seen at 25 weeks after conception. Something that we can now show via fMRI imaging, as well as autopsies: that is, the neurological configuration. Or we can do something even simpler than make such tests of brain function, such as smell and hearing. We can ask them what sex they are.
Unfortunately… this just dodges the issue. Some people don’t fit in either a neat male or female category neurologically, just as some don’t fit chromosomally, or genetically. The binary gender model is an excellent approximation, but it just doesn’t fit some people.
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 3:15 am
While nearly all “natural sex changes” in humans are female-to-male, a few are not.
In 1985, I was diagnosed at a Fertility Clinic as a mildly Intersexed male. That was based on a simple physical examination of the obvious anomalies, and some blood tests. Certainly I was “slanted” far more to male than female – except neurologically, but in those days, they didn’t know about that. I could never have “passed” as anything other than male.
In 2005 I had what can simplistically be described as a female puberty. My appearance changed radically, I lost 1/3 of my body mass, with changes to height, eye colour and shape. And as the result, I had whole batteries if tests by experts, MRI scans, ultrasounds, gene tests… and was re-diagnosed as a severely intersexed woman. By then, I could no longer “pass” as a man.
The thing is – I’d been married for 24 years. And with medical intervention to extract gametes from partially developed glands, had fathered a child.
My marriage continues, as the love remains, and our vows were till death do us part. Naturally it’s celibate, as neither of us are lesbian. We also have a small boy to raise, and he’s our whole world.
Unlike most Intersex conditions, including transsexuality, which are far more common than most believe, my syndrome really is rare, with only a handful of cases documented worldwide. But we exist.
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 11:36 am
Jason.
It is interesting how like many you seem more than willing to define all “hermaphrodites” as essentially “Male”. You don’t say it openly but it is obvious. Why? Perhaps the Masculine nature of some alleged forms of monotheism have something to do with it?
As for the over adhrence to the two sex system, pray tell me what was G-d doing in the books of Genesis and Job with a name like El Shaddai? If you know your ancient hebrew you will know that makes life a little difficult for our assertions.
Shalom 🙂
Sophia
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 11:37 am
Sorry the last passage should read:
“If you know your ancient hebrew you will know that makes life a little difficult for your assertions.”
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I would also like to ask the general question as to why there is this streak of what looks like arbitrary fatalism when it comes to “The gender-confused.”
The idea that someone who is intersexed, may veer towards one or the other sex is not in and of itself unreasonable, but this idea that seems to prevail; that if they exist as female, you have to call them male, or if they exist as male, you have to call them female, with “This is what G-d wants.” as the reasoning behind it, seems to make little or no sense other than to impose some belief about the two sexes above someone who was born intersexed.
If as in Genesis 1:27 we read that G-d made both man and woman in G-ds image. Then does that make G-d “Gender confused” or does it mean someone insisting that we are strictly one or the other is putting the material above G-d?
Jason, says he has a male soul, well good for him, sadly he seems to believe that anyone who is “Questionable” (Curious choice of words) also has a “Male soul”. so he knows better than G-d then? Not sure I agree with such arbitrary reasoning either. As for “The fall” well this is a bit of a get out clause because genesis 1:27 is quite clear about the way it describes El Shaddai (G-d). Is El Shaddai a product of the fall? I think not.
The baseline here is that this is between G-d and the individual who and what they are. And not for someone who places reproduction and social norms above G-d (This is potentially idolatry remember).
With all due respect, I think this debate about sexing people is wildly missing the point, it is about how you walk with G-d not whether or not you obey what genitalia you have. To be truthful for a beleif system that professes to be spiritual, I seem to find it very materialistic and focused on conforming to the flesh.
shalom
Sophia
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Hello Zoe
//Second though, are those with 5ARD or 17BHDD syndromes. They are born with female-looking genitalia, but (to over simpilify)//
Very oversimplify. but the urban myth writers want it that way.
//get a “natural sex change” to male, with male genitalia later. Some can even father children after their change.//
This is not strictly true.
//About 2/3 accept or even welcome the change – they were boys, even if they were born looking like girls.//
It is actually about 50:50
//But for the other third, it’s a nightmare. They’re girls whose bodies are betraying them, and they desperately seek medical attention to halt and reverse this awful condition.//
Thanks for pointing this bit out. The problem is this would be interpreted by the likes of Jason as “They are all boys and G-d wants them to die on sinking ships and had their bodies had not betrayed them they would have survived. So they are all M-E-N because that is the most painful, ho ho!”
That is the real nightmare of being born with 5 alpha, you never have a say when people decide “What is best” and how much demeaning urban myth gets printed. 5 alpha is probably the most stigmatized condition on the planet. And when they inflict this pain in the name of a mockery, or a golden calf. (It is not the G-d I read about). They have no idea how painful these debates are to read.
I am not by nature a hateful person but sometimes I feel intense anger when I read blogs like this with comments about whether or not I am human enough to go near a church.
They don’t understand Zoe, and some probably don’t want to understand they think they were born perfect. and that is the problem because that is not what the bible says.
Shalom
Sophie
LikeLike
July 19, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Shalom Sophie, Toda!
Yes, I did over-simplify. But to give the whole truth, I’d have to write paragraphs. And with the 2/3 figure, I simplified there too, aggregating both 17BHDD and 5ARD. And even there I simplified, as the figures differ between the 3rd world guevedoces, the neolithic turnim-man, and the 1st/2nd world.
Rather than “urban myth”, it’s more like “sound byte”. As accurate as saying the world is round, when it’s actually approximately oblately spheroidal with irregularities. No, as accurate as saying that the world is flat, locally, as when walking to the corner shop.
People are people. They are who they say they are. And it is incredibly galling for them to be arrogantly told, nay, commanded, that they’re actually different.
Yes, I know you know that better than I do, considering how you’ve been treated. Others don’t though, and we face a credibility problem with them.
I wonder how Jason would respond if someone in authority told him “We’ve just had the results of your gene test – you’re actually female, so any attraction you have to women is lesbianism, and you should start wearing female attire immediately and stop this sinful cross-dressing! Oh yes, you need to get your documentation changed, and pray for forgiveness, you pervert. We can’t have your kind polluting our church, out you go! Better yet, go kill yourself!”
As some of us have. Sometimes by catholic clergy, advising us that while suicide is a sin, in our case it would be understandable and absolution is granted beforehand.
Priests are only human too – fallible. And just as scared and xenophobic and transphobic as the rest of the population. They see our existence as a threat to their theology. The Holy Father himself stated that anyone blurring the line between male and female is a threat to all humanity.
As if there was a line. As if it was possible to say whether yellow is actually red or blue, since red and blue are the only options, theologically speaking.
Now he didn’t mean us – I hope – but some people have interpreted him that way, and suited deeds to words.
Shalom,
Zoe
LikeLike
July 20, 2009 at 3:40 am
Aleichem Shalom Zoe 🙂
“As some of us have. Sometimes by catholic clergy, advising us that while suicide is a sin, in our case it would be understandable and absolution is granted beforehand.”
Why commit suicide when I was born in the image of El shaddai, the All sufficient, these people talk the religion but they have no clue about the text.
El Shaddai when translated correctly from paleo hebrew dialects reads something like
“The G-d of the Strong and breasted one” And the root word “Shad” does refer to milk and mammary glands. What do these modern Christians do? They claim it means “The Almighty”. Another example would be the hatchet job they did on the Shekinah, it is a feminine word which means presence or dwelling. It also means “Living presence”.
What do I read when looking at modern christian literature? “He is the Holy Ghost!”.
So we go from living feminine named spirit or presence of G-d to some floating male corpse. Not clever really.
Makes a lot of sense when you read priests claiming it is OK for intersex and trans folks to commit suicide, I think they have been saying the same about G-d for a very long time.
But as someone who is an ascetic, and considers being born intersexed a part of my faith (Matthew 19). I will not be told by petty minded idolaters (Especially from Rome) that I have no right being alive.
As for Jasondulle what can I say? he means transsexual folks but his fatalism is aimed at everyone.
And the fatalism is the mistake, to claim that the soul is a reflection of the body is a materialistic absurdity. And I would like to point out to him that when G-d was in zapping mode, El-Shaddai was a name that cropped up. It was while using that name G-d zapped Sodom and Gomorrah. And this happened (If they bother to read the narrative properly) because these cities were the first greed driven social engineers, having made a fortune out of bitumen and salt, they decided they would create a society which oddly enough resembles the modern church a little too closely. But no they pick out one passage and it is about zapping gays or something.
While we are on that subject, I do wish they would stop mixing everything up with “Same sex relationships”. They are only doing that so they can say they have the right to pass judgment, well they don’t have that right.
Here’s an awkward question for them, (in their terms). Queen Jezebel was a member of a royal house that presided over a culture that was heavily into penis worship, (The Philisties, Archeology confirms this). The culture in question were “Phallocentric”. what instrument of Wrath did G-d use to bump her off after Elijah held the barbecue contest?(Sorry Sacrificial burning challenge). And why?
Well considering that Jezebel wanted the Israelites to worship one of the local Baalim (A particularly macho one with a big member in which she was his “Priestess”) El Shaddai was having none of that.
It was not Elijah, (Who’s name is a combination of Eloh and YH-H) but a “eunuch”. The could not wipe that from the translation and hide it behind euphemisms.
Funny given that Jason has the interest in some form of much macho fatalism.
Shalom 🙂
Sophia
LikeLike
July 20, 2009 at 6:35 am
Sorry “Philistines” (I need a new keyboard.
LikeLike
July 20, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Zoe,
I had never even heard of your condition before. That is a very difficult case, indeed.
I am appalled that a priest would say the things to you that you say the priest did. That is not even a human response, yet alone a Christian response!
To answer your question, if someone told me I was female I would say they are mistaken. My biology is distinctly male, and my psychological/sexual desires match it.
Jason
LikeLike
July 20, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Sophie,
Obviously and understandably, this is personal for you. And yet, I don’t know where you get the idea that this blog is questioning your humanity (assuming you have 5-alpha). First, this blog post was about people who have perfectly normal biology, but feel that they are the opposite gender and thus undergo a sex change so that their body conforms to their sexual self-image. In the comments the subject was broadened to discuss those whose biology itself is confused (hermaphrodites), but no one ever addressed your particular condition (again, assuming you have it). I had never even heard of it. So I don’t see how anyone could be questioning your humanity. No one was even questioning the humanity of those who have sex changes or those who are hermaphrodites. Of course they are human. The questions posed were centered on whether sex changes are morally appropriate, and what sexual activity is appropriate for those in such conditions.
When did I ever say that all hermaphrodites are essentially male, or that they all have a “male soul”? I never said any such thing. I discussed the issue of souls in the context of speaking about Joan/John, implying that his soul is still male even after his sex change (and by extension any other male that undergoes a sex change), but I said nothing about humans in general. In fact, I wasn’t even speaking of hermaphrodites. I was speaking of men who undergo a sex change. Concerning hermaphrodites, I wrote that “I think they should identify with whatever gender they are slanted most toward.” This is a far cry from saying they are all male.
As for your theological claims, they are too outrageous to respond to.
Jason
LikeLike
July 20, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Dear Jason, I think that Zoe was referring to the following-what if you found out that
you had XX chromosomes instead of XY chromosomes and thus were labelled a genetic female and since some believe that DNA represents true sex, that your appearance, thoughts, brain sex, hormones or anatomy didn’t count? This does happen to
some individuals with the XX sex reversla syndrome.
Regards,
Prof. M. Italiano
LikeLike
July 20, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Dear Jason, In regards to your comment to Sophie, I don’t think you can accurately claim that so-called hermaphrodites are
slanted toward a particular sex.
For instance, some individuals are XX/XY chimeras. They started out as two embryos-a typical male and a typical female who then fused early on. (By the way, I don’t believe that the soul has a sex, so I don’t think that when the male and female embryos fuse, that the one person has two souls, one male and another female. I also don'[t think that one of the souls becomes extinct). But my point is, not only are half of their cells XX and half XY, but often they have one testis, one ovary, one Fallopian tube, one Vas deferen, and ambiguous genitalia.
Do you really think that when a male and female embryo fuse into one person, that a slanting toward one then occurs?
No. It doesn’t. But even if we take
less so-called extreme cases, what about someone born with androgen insensitivity syndrome? They are XY and have undescended testes, no ovaries or uterus, only a blind vagina and are externally female in appearance and feminize
at puberty. Some have stated that because they are XY and have testes and not ovaries that they are slanted toward being male. Others would state that the external morphology slants them toward being female.
So again, it depends on arbitrary criteria if we want to try to project a slanting toward one or the other. But these types of intersexed individuals can be gonadectomized and have the vagina (sometimes only a dimple) deepended. They are not physically different from an XY transsexual with testes who then has feminizing genitoplasty.
In regards to your comment about someone who is biologically a normal male and gets a sex change, I don’t think that Russell Moore’s example applies at all. The reason is that someone who is truly transsexual (in the brain) is not going to regret having sex confirmation surgery.
Someone who is not truly transsexual is likely to realize that their brain sex was not in neural discord with their genitals way before living 30 years as a woman.
LikeLike
July 21, 2009 at 2:02 am
Hello Jason
The good news is I am using a keyboard that works this time.
After the way I have been treated by some of you people because I have 5 alpha, yes it is very personal. But I will be fully open and honest about that.
When I read blogs like this the self same logic is used. G-d made man and woman and that’s it. G-d made people either one or the other and that again is final, then along comes the real catch, it is the sex you and those like you say people “Should be” and often it seems to be the sex that causes most distress to the individual, why?
I will admit I worded the argument about “Male Souls” badly, but again it comes across the same every time on blogs like this, why is it almost always about people who are “Male” being female? The condition I have means I have XY chromosomes, so to someone such as yourself my being female is an “Aberration”. So yes given that people always cite chromosomes when talking about transsexual folks, my humanity is also being brought into question too, even though I am not a transsexual. I could be no more male than you could be female. But those chromosomes are like some sort magic marker to you people.
But asking why is it that most of these discussions seem to be about “Feminized males” is a valid question, why do Christians do that? what is it about masculinity that is so important to you.
As for my theology, you don’t understand it, but then since the council of Nicaea, Ebionite theology (Which is essentially what it is) was branded as foreign anyway. Why does Christianity describe a “Male Trinity” (When it is supposed to be monotheism? I know you will say “Arian heresy” in response to that) And why is the church so focused on sex? I don’t really like repeating the theological basis I work from because, you will not understand it and I will not understand yours.
And yes you are questioning my humanity, because with 5 alpha reductase-2 deficiency, people end up either as male or female, but for some reason there is this attitude, which as a Christian commentator you do represent, that believes we all identify as male. It is like the claims we have a “Male soul”. Of the 8 people I know personally with this condition only one does identify as male.
As for transsexual folks, I do not feel I would have the right to proclaim on what sex they are, if they were born one but ended up as the other, and went through all that surgery to get there, I don’t see how it can be sexual. It seems to me they are removing or destroying what would be considered sexual. How can the removal of some sexual aspect be regarded as a sexual act? that does not make sense?
And reducing people to bits of sexual meat, is something that is open to question. You all talk about “The sins of the flesh” and there you are imposing the flesh on some people.
In fairness to you I was a little blinded with anger when I first commented, I was angry with some of the comments and apologize for not reading what you said clearly. And I do appreciate you responding. However my questions about the male bias in the present day Christian church are valid, As is my charge about putting the two sexes above G-d when scripture it does not work like that, and yes I do find a religion that seems to be about judging people and reducing people to the flesh very strange to my cultural tastes. The fatalism is perhaps the most abhorrent to me, “G-d intended you to be this, even if it causes suicide, accept it and suffer!” Why? What purpose does that serve? I look at what you people say of transsexual folks and find it painfully unjust.
Some of those points are about the differences between religious traditions. I accept that we will never agree theologically. However, I know people by their fruits, and fatalism, cruelty, judgmentalism, androcentrism and sexual materialism are not what I understand to be good fruits.
Please explain your reasoning.
Shalom
Sophie
LikeLike
July 21, 2009 at 8:18 am
Jason
“First, this blog post was about people who have perfectly normal biology, but feel that they are the opposite gender and thus undergo a sex change so that their body conforms to their sexual self-image.”
Such people may exist. I think they probably do. But we have no evidence of it.
Every transsexual person ever tested has been found to be partly male, partly female in their bodies. Every single one. None have normal biology.
The trouble is that it’s not obvious. It’s the brain that is affected – though other parts may be too – not the external genitalia or chromosomes.
Until very recently, we didn’t know this. We strongly suspected it, because transsexuality was completely resistant to all psychiatric intervention. It behaved more like a physical problem than a mental one.
The first evidence came in the 1960’s, but it wasn’t until 1995, when autopsies were carried out on nearly every single trans person who had died in the Netherlands over a 6 month period that we found out for certain.
See
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
“Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones”
The experiment was repeated later, this time including trans and non-trans samples who had both received, and not received hormonal treatment.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
“The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.”
There’s now quite literally hundreds of papers on the subject. Many involve experimentation on animals, where we can reliably induce cross-gendered neurology, and observe the resultant behaviour patterns.
You are male-brained, with male instincts, emotional responses, and body language. Trans women are not. It is a horribly uncomfortable congenital condition, and has surprisingly little to do with sexual orientation. About half those women who transition late in life are lesbian, so to say that they are aligning their bodies to match some gay male prurient desires is self-evident nonsense.
This next bit is heavy going, but I think you;ll get the gist. It’s the abstract of a presentation given to the recent American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.
Title of Presentation: Brain Gender Identity
Abstract:
“Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and “think” as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects.”
People with such a biological anomaly have great difficulties just from a medical viewpoint. But greater even than that is the persecution they face from people who are unfamiliar with the facts, and see transsexuality as homosexuality plus deception.
Oh yes, one more thing, Jason. While we can probably rule out CAH syndrome – though perhaps not if you’ve never fathered a child – unless you’ve had a Karyotype (genetic test), we cannot rule out the possibility that you have 46xx chromosomes – “genetic female” – and De La Chapelle’s syndrome. You quite genuinely could be considered female in Kansas and parts of Texas. It’s most unlikely, but possible. More likely is that you could have 47xxy chromosomes, as such people look male in the main. Though some have given birth. In that event, your legal sex would be unclear in some jurisdictions.
LikeLike
July 22, 2009 at 12:38 am
A quick comment about a delicate subject. I’ll only cover male-to-female surgery here, rather than female-to-male, which is *far* more complicated, and the techniques less well developed.
There are a number of different techniques used. The most common one in the past has been penile inversion. These days, a different and more complex procedure is growing in popularity.
First, penile inversion. The glans is separated (though still attached by nerves and blood vessels), the urethra disected out and re-plumbed, and the erectile tissue discarded. Some of the glans is discarded, though nerves are not, and used to fashion a sensate clitoris. The hollow tube that was the penis, still attached by blood vessels, is inverted and inserted in a cavity between the legs. The testes are disected and discarded, and the scrotal sac used to fashion labia. A later operation may use skin grafts from elsewhere to imprive labial cosmesis, and grafts may also be used to extend the vagina, as it may not be big enough.
A variant disects only part of the glans for the clitoris, the rest residing deep with the neo-vagina as a secondary sensate area, similar to a G spot, but placed at the end instead of near the entrance and anterially. Most of the nerves in a natal vagina are in the first 5 cm from the entrance.
This technique is shown at http://www.grsmontreal.com/anglais.html section 4b
The advantage of this is that the majority of the neo-vagina retains blood flow, so is less likely to necrose. Prolapse may be a problem though, as the neovagina may not adhere properly to the cavity.
The newer technique uses scrotal tissue and penile skin to fashion a vaginal wall, with tissue from the mucosal tissue of the inner foreskin layer to form the labia minora. The penile skin is not kept attached, and blood flow is interrupted. The vaginal skin is temporary, and will slough off, with new skin growing underneath, so there is no possibility of prolapse. Variations include using parts of the glans to form the vaginal entrance, which is sensate, and positioned similarly to sensate tissue in a natal vagina.
See http://www.supornclinic.com/restricted/SRS/SRSTechnique.aspx
In all cases, where donor material is insufficient, additional skin can be harvested from inner thigh or abdomen.
After about a year, the skin cells of the neovagina are indistinguishable from those in the vagina of a natal woman. They change, and as they are renewed, the environment causes mucosal tissue to grow.
A good surgeon can give a result indistinguishable to an OB/GYN from the natal vagina of a woman who has had a radical hysterectomy.
While no-one can be certain, it’s likely that the first procedure gives a more sensate clitoris, while the second gives a more sensate vagina, and comes close to matching the sensations a natal woman feels during intercourse.
A good surgeon will have 90% of his patients orgasmic post-operatively, compared to 80% of natal women. For those who were anorgasmic before surgery, it’s about 40%.
LikeLike
July 22, 2009 at 4:11 am
Hi Zoe
That is an interesting point to consider, I mean what man would put themselves through what you have just described unless they are not actually a man after all.
I get the feeling that what you have said may well be met with “This is too outrageous to respond to” because it is something that is difficult to comprehend.
This has certainly been my experience dealing with the more religious, you say something they really find hard to refute and you will get a dismissive comment or total silence.
I think there is a broader issue here, and that is how the more religious seem to materialize every time something like this enters the public domain and they are there, ready to place the most harmful alternatives to what is actually in place (In this case they would probably suggest some sort of reparative therapy instead of hormones and surgery) And I think they would suggest this because they know it would hurt.
I believe it is down to some distorted idea of self sacrifice, where they would have people believe that in this life G-d wants it to be as painful as possible and after dying you would be so happy, it would not mean much. But then you would probably feel robbed of a life you could have led, had G-d not been a little lax when handing out chromosomes and had “his” followers not been happy to use chromosomes as a stick to beat you with.
Of course this is all disjointed from reality where DNA is placed as a matter of natural selection and chromosomes (Or rather the 23rd pair) are far from reliable when it comes to being sex markers. Most sex specific genes lie in the autosomes.
There are at least 20 MSRs (Mainly SOX genes/regions) that are nowhere near the Y or X chromosomes.
Their claim that Chromosomes are the last word is also outrageous. A good analogy would be a library: How do bookshelves define the information in a library? it is the books that carry the information. And at least twenty “Girl or boy” books are not on the 23rd pair of bookshelves.
But no they look at bookshelf 46 and if it is pink they go “It’s a girl” and if it is blue (Despite there being a lot of pink books with the instructions to make a girl in the library) They want to burn the library because the books don’t look right.
I am truly sorry to Jason but all I see is malice on the part of the religious, driven by a need to make everything conform to arbitrary standards. It is a destructive petty mindedness that refuses to allow an individual to be an individual, but a piece of meat to be reduced to a few molecules and tissues.
I hope Jason takes something positive from what I have said, because even though I am being a little confrontational, I am also saying in all honesty that I have had enough of reading the same cruel and dogmatic diatribes against people who cannot conform to their unrealistic standards. They think they are OK because they do conform and are all “Normal after the fall” (They always quote “The fall” as a reason to define someone as less than themselves). But they should read Matthew 7 21-23, it is about people placing burdens on others, while being self righteous. In this case the burden is dogma about chromosomes and sex differentiation.
Shalom 🙂
Sophie
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 12:54 am
Prof Italiano,
How could I have an XX chromosome, and yet have a male physiology? Doesn’t a male physiology require the presence of Y chromosomes?
All that aside, I admit that it would be a very distressing situation. There’s no question about it. It’s not that I am unsympathetic toward those who find themselves in these sexually confusing situations. It’s just that the psychological effects of dealing with such a problem are separate from the question of sexual ethics.
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 2:25 am
Jason
“I admit that it would be a very distressing situation. There’s no question about it. It’s not that I am unsympathetic toward those who find themselves in these sexually confusing situations. It’s just that the psychological effects of dealing with such a problem are separate from the question of sexual ethics.”
Ethics? Can you show me any part of your original argument or those that followed to be ethical? And not fatalistic dogma?
If you are aware of the suffering why add to it? Are you man enough to answer that question?
Sophie
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 9:23 am
Dear Jason,
You asked a very legitimate question and so I would like to provide an answer for you.
All embryos whether XX or XY have the capability to develop as either males or females. There are 44 other chromosomes besides the X and Y chromosomes. The Y chromosome does not produce maleness per se, but instead turns genes on or off on the other chromosomes. But sometimes genes on these other chromosomes will
get turned on without the influence of the Y
because
A) a mutation will turn one of these genes
(which is usually off) to the on position.
B) a factor such as a pollutant or
teratogen (or other agent) will turn a
gene (which is
usually off) to the on position.
So in an XX male, a gene on one of the 44 other chromosomes got turned on directly and didn’t need the Y chromosome to do it. The Y is always an indirect regulator.
The reason that someone can be a female despite having XY chromosomes is based upon the same idea. The Y chromosome again is an indirect regulator. It turns genes which are on the other chromosomes in an on position. But if one of these genes on the other chromosomes is
A) so-called mutated
or
B) turned off by a pollutant or teratogen
(or other environmntal agents)
then even though they have a typical Y chromosome and are XY, they become a female
because the other genes don’t respond to the Y (which again is an indirect regulator).
Please ask any more questions which you feel would be helpful.
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 9:41 am
Hi Professor Italiano
Another interesting point would be the actual size of the Y chromosome itself when compared to others, It is actually remarkably small carrying only a few MSRs, Analogues to which can be found on the X in particular regions.
Most people seem to think that the 23rd pair of chromosomes are about regulating sex differentiation when in truth most of the genes on the X chromosomes are linked to many things.
Which is why we have situations such as those X Linked genetic conditions that have no bearing on sex at all. Thouh CAIS, which does involve sex is X Linked due to mutations in the Xq 12 region.
I am going to have to reconstruct the full polygenic model and write a table of how all this regulation pathways you mention work, Do you think it may be an idea to do a joint publication on this? I do think we need such a table to illustrate all this.
Shalom
Sophie 🙂
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Sophie,
I don’t know if you’re comment about religious people responding by saying “This is too outrageous to respond to” was directed at me or not, but if you’ll notice, when I made that comment, it was not in regards to the sexual identity issues at hand, but to your theology.
As for your mention of 20 “MSRs,” I don’t know enough about genetics and chromosomes to comment. I can only say that everyone recognizes the existence of genetic defects, and that disease abounds in the human race. But just because cancers develop in the human body, that doesn’t mean cancer is a good thing. The same is true of hermaphrodites, or those whose body undergoes a natural sex change like Zoe’s did. It’s not normal. Something is wrong. Of course, in the same way that we would not blame the cancer patient for developing cancer, we do not blame the hermaphrodite or intersexed for their condition. And similarly, in the same way we would not consider cancer to be good/normal (or God’s inention), neither should we consider “intersexism” or hermaphroditism to be good/normal.
And let me also say that I don’t think there is one way of responding to any and all of these various sexual identity issues. Each is different. I don’t think any should be blamed on the person suffering from them. But an intersexed person is in an entirely different situation than the person who chooses to undergo a sex change because they think they are a different gender. A hermaphrodite is entirely different from either, as he-she was born with a mix of both genders. How we should respond to each, and the sexual ethics each should abide by, will be different.
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Sophie,
I don’t know what you mean by “fatalistic dogma.” I don’t see how anything I have said could be construed as fatalistic.
How am I adding to anyone’s suffering by discussing what the appropriate moral response should be to those in such conditions? Have I ever said that such people should be ostracized? Have I ever said that they should be persecuted? Have I ever said that they are sub-humans? No. So in what way am I adding to their suffering?
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Prof. Italiano,
That was helpful information. Thank you.
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hello Jason
Thanks for taking the time to answer, I genuinely do appreciate that. “MSRs” or “Male Specific Regions” are basically portions of DNA that have been found to be involved with male sex differentiation. I mentioned one to The Professor called “Xq12” which is on the X chromosome (Xq) at a particular location (12) which is also known as a gene called the “Androgen Receptor Gene” Which codes for the proteins to build an androgen receptor. (Androgen receptors make tissue able to respond to male hormones such as Testosterone etc).
When this is not working the resulting condition is known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
On the subject of “genetic defects” this gets complicated. Would a woman with AIS for example be seen as a woman? Or (Wrongly) be seen as a man with a defect that makes “him” a woman? But she is a woman was raised as a girl, such women are often OK with being women, would you call their womanhood a “Disease”? (I know I wouldn’t) So clearly they would not be a “Man with a disease” but a woman.
If you met a woman with AIS I sense you would not call her womanhood a disease. In many ways sex differentiation is remarkable in that you do most of the time end up with someone who is one or the other sex. It is just it is not always as expected. Sometimes it is not so straightforward, with the condition I have you can be born looking fully female, or be born with ambiguous genitalia but turn male or female later on in life. When I was faced with the stark choice am I male or female? I found it best for me personally to be female, so I underwent treatment to prevent further mascilinisation. Others with the same condition (As Zoe has pointed out) decide to be male and seek treatment to help them complete this. In this sense you were right to point out that people who are intersex often end up as one or the other sex. The thing is it is not predictable, two children with the same condition could end up as the opposite sex to each other.
Transsexualism (Something you have discussed) is more about how the nervous system differentiates than it would be the reproductive tract. Let’s look at my situation again for a moment, There were some biological reasons that would make me accept being female and someone with the same condition I have accept being male.
Noe back to transsexual folks, I think transsexual folks are similar to someone like myself in the sense that they have some neurological bias to being one or the other sex, only in their case there are no ambiguities in the reproductive tract, unlike how it happens with 5 alpha for example. But there is some biological issue going on which is complex to explain, but I will try, it involves a part of the nervous system called the Bed Nucleii od the Stria Terminalis and how that responds to the presence of certain hormones during development. It basically froms and then starts shrinking, if it continues to shrink regardless of the presence of androgens in the uterus, in other words androgens do not curtail a process of selective cell death (Apoptosis) as they normally do, in that part of the central nervous system, the result is a female body image being confronted with a male body. (Or Vice versa if it does not shrink despite the lack of female hormones in the case of a female to male transsexual man).
As you can understand most of this involves processes of sex differentiation that affect the individual’s sense of self in profound ways. This is where insisting that someone who is a Male to Female transsexual has a “Male soul” could do more harm than good for example. If you could attribute a soul to a gender identity, it is more likely that such a person would have a female soul. but how much would you attribute the physical to the spiritual?
While these conditions all involve some level of treatment or medical intervention, are they diseases in the same sense as Cancer? I would be wary of saying they are because in saying they are you could potentially be defining a part of who someone actually is, like their gender or sex as a disease. The fact that a woman with AIS is a woman, or the fact that I decided for good reason to accept being female or the fact that someone who is transsexual turns out to be female is not a disease but an attribute of that individual that is a consequence of their biology, not a disease in the classical sense.
I can understand why you would find it difficult or confusing because none of it is as straightforward as you have traditionally been led to understand.
With medicine you have to understand the best way to proceed in order to manage any long term condition or set of characteristics is to relieve harmful symptoms or a cause of distress. So a more realistic and pragmatic approach would be to say that because someone has say AIS and are female from birth, but have XY chromosomes they are genetically female because that was the outcome of what their genetics made them to be. The basic point being that sex is not a matter of two chromosomes but the genes in the entire genome that is packaged in 46 chromosomes arranged in 23 pairs.
I hope my attempt at explaining has helped, it is difficult to describe to someone who is not a geneticist. (I am in truth trained as a geneticist).
Personally I think a good place for Christians to start from would to be to understand that these situations are simply biological variations from a norm, and often it requires some understanding of why things happen the way they do will explain how someone who is affected copes with it. I consider my having 5 alpha to be a genetic condition, but I don’t consider my being female to be an illness, but just a part of who I am.
This is what I meant by saying it is a bad idea to reduce people to disjointed bits of meat or molecules. Because how an individual’s biological make up works as a whole, influences what they become. You cannot pin it to a chromosome or a bit of flesh. Life is far more complicated than that.
shalom
Sophie
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Prof. Italiano,
What the result of such fusing is, I cannot be certain. But I tend to think there is no such thing as a perfect fusion. Of course, I could be wrong in this. I am no geneticist. At best, it would only complicate trying to determine what gender someone is. It does not make it normal, and it does not mean they can have sex with any gender they want.
As for your comments on my original scenario, I don’t think any of us are in the place to know if someone will have regret, and whether their regret is sincere. Someone who undergoes a sex change because they feel as if they are a woman even though their biology is male, they do so because they think their psychology takes precedence over their biology; i.e. their psychology is normal, while their body is not. But if they experience a religious conversion, and adopt a different worldview in which they come to believe that their biology takes precedence over their psychology, then they may identify their psychology as abnormal rather than their biology. This would produce regret for their past action of seeking to conform their body to their psychology, rather than the reverse. That is an entirely conceivable scenario.
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Sophie,
I would prefer you speak to me as an individual, rather than “you people” as though all religious people believe and act in one way, and I am just another faceless name in a monolithic group. There is no Biblical/Christian teaching on hermaphroditism or 5 alpha. The only Biblical teaching Christians can go off of is that God created humans in two distinct sexes, and that sexual relations in human beings are to be between those two sexes in the context of marriage. Anything outside these parameters is a matter of trying to apply Biblical principles to non-biblical issues such as hermaphroditism or intersexism. Not only will Christians differ in how to apply such principles, but they will also differ in how they think of and treat such people. And I would venture to think that it’s not just Christians or religious people that may react negatively. People tend to react negatively to things that are foreign and strange to them. Since even atheists are people, they could be just as negative about this subject as any religious person can. So it’s not very fair to lay the charge of nastiness at the feet of religious people.
Christians are not into masculinity, and neither does Christian theology identify God as male. God has no gender (although when God became incarnate, He assumed a male human existence). The Bible speaks of God in both male and female terms, although admittedly, male terms and metaphors dominate. But that does not mean God is male. He is an asexual spirit being.
I am no more questioning your humanity that I question the humanity of those with Down Syndrome. We’re all human. Of course, I don’t think their physiology is normal, and neither do I think your physiology is normal. But I don’t suspect that you or anyone else does either. I think it is clear that it is abnormal in the plainest sense of the word (wholly apart from any moral evaluation). Being abnormal does not mean one is non-human or sub-human. It means they are humans suffering from an abnormal condition. Whether that condition be cancer, Down’s, or 5 alpha does not matter.
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Zoe,
There is a debate as to whether behavior affects the brain, or the brain affects behavior. There is evidence for both, which always invites the question as to what caused what. Was it the thinking of the individual that produced the brain structure, or the brain structure that produced the thinking? I doubt that the tests you speak of could even begin to answer this question, even if they could show a constant correlation between transgenderism and biology. And of course, there is always also the issue of hormonal treatments, and how they affect things.
I don’t have access to any of these studies to know if they say what you claim they say. But even if they do, it only shows that the gender confusion is biological in nature (which is not really my concern). It doesn’t address what I think the main issues are: (1) Is this normal?; i.e. is this a normal expression of human sexuality?; (2) What is the proper application of sexual ethics to those suffering from such conditions?
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Hell Jason
I think you are responding to an earlier post, in which case I apologize for presenting my argument the way I did. I was unfair on you.
“The only Biblical teaching Christians can go off of is that God created humans in two distinct sexes, and that sexual relations in human beings are to be between those two sexes in the context of marriage.”
Well I personally live an ascetic lifestyle, according to the biblical principles you speak of, but this is a natural state of being for me personally, it probably would not apply to someone else in a similar situation (It is pretty much the point you have made, people are different from each other).
I am no saint, and there are many biblical rules I break on a regular basis, it is just that sexual morality is not an issue for me as I have no sexual feelings or emotions.
I will be honest with you when people knew of my medical history, within the church I sometimes faced what can at best be described as horrific bigotry, not always, there were people who had a more reasonable outlook, but the rationalizations the more prejudiced used did involve rigid definitions of what male and female were about. I was fortunate in that I was raised with an understanding of what is essentially Ebionite theology, which does focus on G-d as “asexual” (For want of a better expression).
I consider my health to be “abnormal” but not the fact that I ended up female or the fact that I am celibate (Again for want of a batter expression).
Every time I encounter blogs of this vein, it does feel like people are preparing to throw stones, I have in the past been called the “Product of incest” and “The eternally condemned that can never be forgiven due to a generational curse”.
In fairness to yourself, no you have not done this, and yes I can appear on these blogs in a very defensive manner.
It is like people do talk a lot about homosexuality and who can have relationships with who, talking as if “hermaphrodites” (Intersex) are somehow pre destined to act in ways that the church does not like. I am an ascetic how can this be?
Because I am intersexed there ius often this assumption that I am going to get up to some biblically questionable sexual antics. And if feels like people have to tell me to do what I already do, lead an ascetic life. Intersex people are different from each other as well, Like it is wrong to stereotype Christians as bible thumping bigots, (And I apologize for doing that), it is also wrong to assume that all intersex people are in some way promiscuous or out to sexually deceive people etc.
It is a point of principle that is important to me, I do practice what I believe to the best of my abilities, but on the one area I seem to get singled out over, I am probably more conservative than most conservative Christians when it comes to sexual morality. And to me this is important because my asceticism is also part of who I am and my walk with G-d.
Shalom
Sophie
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Dear Jason, Thanks for your question. it is excellent and I see where
the difficulty in understanding it may be. In regards to two embryos fusing
what we mean is that they become stuck together. This happens in typical situations as well. In a single embryo, let’s say an XY male, it starts out as a fertilized egg. There is one XY fertilized egg called a zygote.
Then cell replication causes there to be two XY cells which are stuck together (cohesive bonds). Then they multiply and there are 4 XY cells and then 8, then 16 and so on.
If there are two embryos (as is the case in fraternal twins) and one embryo is an XY male zygote and the other is an XX female zygote, and they are located near each other, they will get stuck together (again cohesive bonds). When each then replicates, instead of an XY bonded to another XY, an XY cell will be bonded to an XX cell, then there are 4 cells (2 XY cells and 2 XX), then there will 8 cells (4 XY cells and 4 XX cells), then 8, then 16 and so on. The cells themselves do not lose their identity. Instead of the cells developing as two groups of cells (fraternal twins)-one male and the other female, there is one conglomerate of cells with half being XX and half being XY. Picture each of the cells as marbles (some pink for female and some blue for male)
which are each stuck to each other by glue. The blue one gets stuck by glue to the pink one (one blue-one pink, second blue second pink). Each marble doesn’t lose its type as you would think of by the idea of marble fusion. Instead of opposite sex fraternal brother-sister twins, each fertilized egg when they became stuck together became 1/2 male and 1/2 female. So it does not complicate trying to determine what gender the person is because quite simply the person is 1/2 male and 1/2 female
because they actually started out as two seperate people.
1/2 of their cells are XY, the other 1/2 are XX. They have one ovary and one testis and ambiguous external and internal genitalia. Note that
the process of two fertilized eggs-one male and one female-
developing as one individual doesn’t mean they have double the numbers of cells of a person any more than identical twins (which start out as one embryo and then split in to two) have 50% of the cells of one human.
In each case the person is a wholly formed individual.
Now in reagrds to transsexualism, I mentioned that I didn’t think that
Russel Moore’s example was a good one because I do not think that
someone who is a true transsexual would ever regret having a sex affirmation surgery. I also don’t think that someone who is not a true transsexual would fare well for 30 years living in the opposite gender role. Let me explain. There are all types of people who request sex reassignment surgery and call themselves transsexual. There are individuals who are psychotic, who have personality dieorders, who are
gay and not truly transsexual, or who have fetishisms such as transvestism
who think they are truly transsexual. They have convinced professionals also and have gotten sex reassignment surgery. Their other issues
creates alot of problems for them and certainly if they are moral, it would conflict with their religious beliefs. But in true transsexuals
we have a situation where the genitals devlop as one sex but the brain develops as another sex. We have a female brain in a person with a penis and testes. Now I don’t see this as a mental disorder, but as a physical
disorder. Certainly what we call psychology does not exist outside of the brain and we know from non-transsexuals that men and women have brains
which are typically specific to their sex. For many years, true transsexuals have claimed to have genital organs of one sex but the
brains of the opposite sex. We were not able to validate this until
nowadays when autopsy results and now neuroimaging (such as MRI) results
indeed show that a person who seems to be a male because they have a penis and testes in fact has a female brain. Areas of the brain which are male and female involve brain networks important for survival. So since we can’t do brain surgery and change the sex of the brain without possibly killing the person, it has been thought of as humane to use techniques of surgery on a person which will make the genitalia match the brain.
(Since either brain surgery or genital surgery is needed for harmony, I don’t see how denying both is very ethical).
When this is completed, then the apperance and function of the genitalia matches the person’s brain sex. I don’t see it as psychology versus body, since in these cases the psychology is clearly defined by the brain and has a sex. As invasive as genital reconstructive surgery is, a female brain sex won’t regret living as a female, even if assisted by genital modifications. It is only those who don’t have a female brain, have convinced themselves that they are transsexual and get a sex reassignment surgery who will then find
Regards,
M. Italiano
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Dear Jason, I think that hermaphroditism is not entirely different from intersex, because hermaphroditism is one form of the broader umbrella of intersex which encompasses hermaphroditism.
Reagrds,
M. Italiano
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Dear Sophie, Of course. It would be fine. I would help in whatever whay I may. There are so many genes involved whih are not on either the X or the Y chromosome. I think that understanding alterations such as a change in the coding sequence of these genes is important.
I also find it fascinating
that in some cases such as envrionmental agent disruption that there may not be any way of finding a molecular trail for an alteration in the way these genes were EXPRESSED. For instance, let us compare an XX male (with environmental agent perturbation) with an XX female. The DNA coding sequence and reading frame would be the same. It is just that in the XX male that a gene was expressed (turned on) which wasn’t turned on in an XX female during a window of time (let’s say 4 days). If you analyze it
in those 4 days, although the DNA would have the exact sequence, you would find differences in messenger RNA synthesis. BUT this would only be in that window of time. The gene expression of the XX male would then get turned off in the typical way and match that of the XX female (no current RNA expression).
Thus when examined outside of that window of time, there is not one iota of a molecular or biochemical difference in the sex determination pathway in the DNA on any of the chromosomes or in the RNA expression between the the XX male and the XX female.
I mention this because on another forum
(and perhaps here) it is sometimes stated or suggested that “well an XY transsexual may have the same sex chromosomes as an XY born female with Swyer Syndrome who has a mutation on chromosome number 17, but the transsexual’s chromosome 17 is not mutated so the transsexual has no
complaint or contention)”. Therefore, although I think it is VERY important to highlight a multigene and downstream map of non (so-called) sex chromosomal genes involved, I think it is just as important to state that even the whole genome in biochemical imprinting and also in gene expression and RNA expression may not differ at all in the two examples if we consider environmental agents.
Regards,
M. Italiano
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Dear Jason, Here are a few examples of female brain structures in transsexuals.
There are reports not just from one study group. Included are reports from Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Japan.
As you see, there are adequate controls groups. Also in most of the studies, the transsexuals were not taking hormones when evaluated. About the chiken or the egg argument, all I can say, is that in non-transsexuals it is known that sex differences in these areas (BSTc, amygdala, hypothalamus, orbitofrontal cortex, and insular cortex) are known to arise not from
social factors.
Regards,
MI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056697?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761592?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19341803?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10843193?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 1:48 am
Hello Professor 🙂
As it happens explaining environmental influence of the sort you describe is a lot easier if you take a leaf out of an oncologists book. The very mechanisms you describe, let’s say temporary somatic mutations are not unknown to oncologists. Oncologists have often taken more interest in what I was doing six years ago than gender experts. The problem is explaining it, but I think Jason has presented one possible way of doing that by mentioning cancer.
When I was trying to explain steroid regulated apoptosis with regards the way the BSTc works, perhaps I should have explained Steroid Regulated Apoptosis better as it applies to certain types of cancer.
What we do need, is a means of saying “Well this is how sex differentiation actually works” that most people can readily understand, I think the reason most people look at the 23rd pair of chromosomes as some simple marker is because it is very easy to see it that way.
Perhaps a polygenic expression chart or something, The problem is the complexity of it, I had this crazy dream last night where I had designed this along the lines of Beck’s underground railway maps. And you can disconnect or connect the pathways to each of the sex differentiation genes in this diagram and name the connecting lines after the most probable outcome. So if we call a connecting line “Not CAH” it would mean that that line if missing would result in CAH.
I think something like that would convey the complexity in a way most people can grasp. It would certainly add some clarity to debates like this.
Shalom 🙂
Sophie
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 2:40 am
Hi Jason
“But an intersexed person is in an entirely different situation than the person who chooses to undergo a sex change because they think they are a different gender.”
Transsexual people *are* Intersexed though. The Brain is part of the body. Leaving aside completely the question of psychology, Trans people have parts of their bodies more in accordance with one sex than the other, and other parts more in accordance with the sex opposite to that. That’s Intersex. Moreover, it’s a part of the body that we have very good reason to believe *defines* their gender, their personality, their very self.
We have observed that those with a mostly or completely feminised brain have a female gender identity, and those with a mostly or completely masculinised brain have a male gender identity. This is regardless of what the rest of the body looks like. This also appears to be a universal, with no exceptions that have been found as yet.
There also appear to be a minority of people who are BiGendered – able to function with to a greater or lesser degree as either gender. It is hypothesised that measurements of their neurology would show neither a completely masculine or feminine pattern of development, but until we do the experiments, we can’t be sure.
Because of this, if we tossed a coin every time a baby is born, regardless of external appearance (so not just including intersexed children), and assigned them as male or female based on the coin toss, about 2/3 of the time the children would accept the assigned gender. This fits both the data we have on intersexed children who have been assigned an arbitrary gender, and those intersexed people who get (to over simplify) a “natural sex change”. Note that “2/3” doesn’t mean “66.666666666%”, it means “slightly under 50% to maybe 80% or so, depending on circumstances”.
Example:
“Individuals with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) are often raised as girls…..However, an estimation of the prevalence of gender role changes, based on the current literature, shows that gender role changes occur frequently, but not invariably. 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.”
That’s from “Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency” by Cohen-Ketternis.
About half to two-thirds accepted the gender change to male, as their bodies masculinised.
Actually, I’d put more credence on what Sophia has to say, much as I respect Cohen-Ketternis as one of the better researchers. Sophia has 5ARD herself, and is in contact with more people who also have 5ARD. A significant fraction of those with 5ARD who live in her area, it’s not exactly a common condition in the general population.
Some of the evidence:
Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/8/1900
…the data implicate that transsexuality may be associated with sex-atypical physiological responses in specific hypothalamic circuits, possibly as a consequence of a variant neuronal differentiation.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034
The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15724806
Solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking. In the human brain, structural diferences have been described that seem to be related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones
A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961?dopt=Abstract
We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identity.
I’m trying not to blind you with Science.
But you have been continuing to make an unwarranted distinction between “people who are intersexed” – and thus have biological anomalies – and “people who are transsexual” – who supposedly do not, it’s all “psychological”. Moreover, even when it can be shown that trans people have cross-gendered brains, you seem to believe that if they just tried hard enough, they could overcome this “tendency” to cross-gendered behaviour.
In which case, you could overcome your own “tendency” to be male, and magically acquire typically female emotional responses, sense of smell and hearing, body language, sexual orientation, and a great deal more. The evidence is though that you can’t, even if “aided” by constant torture, electric shocks to the eyeballs and genitalia unless you succeed, psychotropic drugs, even brain surgery such as lobotomy and leucotomy.
All of the above have been tried on trans people in order to “cure” them – with a zero success rate over 5 years. Also tried, exorcism, spirit release therapy, gestalt therapy, cognitive therapy, psychoanalysis…
Social sanction, religious pursuasion, and prolonged torture and brainwashing *can* alter behaviour, to some extent. For example, I pretended to be male with some success (though not complete success) for over 40 years. There was not one second of those 40 years though that I knew for certain I was male. There were times I thought I was, rather more times that I tried desperately to convince myself I was, and that I should be, but not a single instant that I truly believed it.
I think it would be inhuman to insist that a person continue to live a lie like that, purely because, well, because it simplifies things for everyone else, and because, well, um… just because. To discourage Homosexuality perhaps. To preserve the natural order of male and female.
It would be kinder just to kill them. But making their lives so miserable that half commit suicide, and the rest are afraid to let their condition be known is easier on the conscience of the persecutors.
Here’s a quote from a Gender Specialist:
““Dysphoria,” defined by Marriam-Webster’s Collegiate dictionary as “a state of feeling unwell or unhappy,” or in the American College Dictionary as “a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting” is simply too soft a word to describe the angst most clinicians see on intake with this population. At best it may be an apt descriptor for individuals who, despite strong evidence to the contrary, are making an extraordinary effort to convince themselves that they are sex/gender congruent. These individuals make life decisions such as getting married and having children not only because they may find it appealing to have a spouse and have children but with the added hope that this activity will ease or erase their obsessive cross gender thoughts. Although there may be instances where these special efforts succeed, (i.e. the incongruity is mild) the more likely outcome is a realization they have actually made matters worse. Typically, at time of presentation these individuals report that either their lives are in ruin, or they are very afraid that if their gender variant condition was to become known they would loose all that they cherish and be ostracized from family, friends and the ability to support themselves. High anxiety and deep depression with concurrent suicide ideation is common. One of the most extreme cases I have treated was that of a 50 year old genetic male, married and the father of 3 grown children with an international reputation as a scientist who reported to me that the reason he finally sought out treatment for his gender issues was because the number of times he found himself curled up in the corner of his office in the fetal position muffling his cry was increasing. That is not dysphoria, that is pure misery.”
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 2:57 am
“There is a debate as to whether behavior affects the brain, or the brain affects behavior. There is evidence for both, which always invites the question as to what caused what. Was it the thinking of the individual that produced the brain structure, or the brain structure that produced the thinking? I doubt that the tests you speak of could even begin to answer this question, even if they could show a constant correlation between transgenderism and biology. And of course, there is always also the issue of hormonal treatments, and how they affect things.”
OK, first the chicken vs egg question –
Israeli scientists Reuwen and Anat Achiron have found that if you do a regular ultrasound examination when a woman is 26 weeks pregnant, you can distinguish a female brain from a male brain.
Source: Reuwen Achiron, Shlomo Lipitz, & Anat Achiron. Sex-related differences in the development of the human fetal corpus callosum: in utero ultrasonographic study. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2001, 21:116-120.
This in utero study confirmed the findings of a previous anatomical study in which investigators examined the brains of babies which had died before birth.
See: M. de Lacoste, R. Holloway, and D. Woodward, “Sex differences in the fetal human corpus callosum,” Human Neurobiology, 1986, 5(2):93-6.
One research team recently compared brain tissue from the brains of young girls and young boys. They found that sex differences in the structure of the brain were obvious, even in babies — especially in babies. The differences in the photomicrographs of the brain tissue are so dramatic that they are readily visible to the naked eye.
Source: María Elena Cordero, Carlos Valenzuela, Rafael Torres, Angel Rodriguez, “Sexual dimorphism in number and proportion of neurons in the human median raphe nucleus,” Developmental Brain Research, 124:43-52, 2000.
I think it would be highly fanciful to imagine that a male foetus at 26 weeks after conception could change its own physical structure by “thinking feminine thoughts”. Or the reverse for a female foetus.
As regards hormones, the papers I’ve referenced, and Prof Italiano’s references, make it clear that hormones, while they do affect brain structure in other areas, don’t affect the parts we’re looking at. That’s why we concentrate on them, to avod this problem.
I’ll quote Prof Ecker, MD, a Urologist with experience in treating cancer patients with cross-gendered hormones. He recently gave a presentation to the American Psychiatric Association on the subject of Brain Gender Identity:
“Gender Identity is that innate sense of who you are in this world with reference to your sexuality and behavior, not necessarily corresponding to your genitalia and reproductive organs. Transgenders are atypical and “think” as the opposite gender. Certain areas of the brain have been shown to be sexually dimorphic. They are different in structure and numbers of neurons in males versus females. Protein Receptors for the sex hormones in different areas of the brain (limbic and anterior hypothalamic) must be present in sufficient numbers to receive those powerful hormones. There are androgen receptors (AR), Estrogen Receptors (ER), and Progesterone receptors (PRs). ARs or ERs are predominant at different times in different parts of the human brain. Hormone receptor genes have been identified in humans, which are responsible for sexually dimorphic brain differentiation in the hypothalamus. The groundwork in brain gender identity is gene-directed and takes place by forming male and female hormone receptors in the brain before the gonads and hormones can influence them. Multiple genes acting in concert determine our sexual identity. The human brain continues to make neurons and synaptic neuronal connections throughout life. This contributes to Gender Role Behaviors making individuals in the continuum of gender identity. Gender behaviors must be differentiated from gender identity (Hines). Gender Identity cannot be predicted from anatomy (Reiner). Brain gender identity is determined very early in fetal development, but gender expression, expressed as behaviors requires hormonal, environmental, social and cultural interactions, which evolve with time. One cannot deny the profound effects of Testosterone, Estradiol and other steroids on genital differentiation in-utero or their effects on behavior from birth or the physical and mental cross gender changes caused by exogenous hormones, but gender identity is determined before and persists in spite of these effects.”
His powerpoint representation, and the list of correspondence I’ve had with him, is available via http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/05/brain-gender-identity-presentation-by.html
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 3:48 am
>>”I don’t have access to any of these studies to know if they say what you claim they say. But even if they do, it only shows that the gender confusion is biological in nature (which is not really my concern). It doesn’t address what I think the main issues are: (1) Is this normal?; i.e. is this a normal expression of human sexuality?; (2) What is the proper application of sexual ethics to those suffering from such conditions?”
You do have access – as does anyone with an Internet connection. Of course, it helps to have a “native guide” who can give you the URLs… otherwise your “access” is purely theoretical. Anyway, you have some URLs now, enough for a start, anyway.
Now the other questions – is this normal?
In one obvious sense, no, of course not. Neither is red hair, or blue eyes, or left-handedness, or colour-blindness, or having 6 fingers on each hand.
A better question would be to ask whether it is a “normal variation” or a disorder.
I’ll quote Prof Ecker again:
“We spoke for 2 1/2 hours on why cross gender identity was a normal inherited variation of humans. We showed how Transgender Brains think, smell, and hear like the opposite sex.”
I’m not sure I agree. It’s not as normal a variation as red hair (though may be more common). It’s not as normal a variation as left-handedness, also an unusual condition with a neurological cause, and which is highly resistant to reprogramming by torture or psychotherapy. Though both were usual “treatments” until comparatively recently.
I consider it to be more like colour-blindness – an advantage when trying to see camouflaged objects, but generally a disadvantage, and usually considered a “disorder”. Or like having polydactyly, extra fingers, which may or may not be functional. Are we justified in removing such supernumary digits just to normalise appearances and “cure” a disorder?
Such issues are matters for debate, and opinion, rather than fact.
Is this a normal expression of human sexuality? Um… is Left Handedness a normal expression of Human Sexuality? Or is it a completely different thing?
About half the women who transition late in life are lesbian. Most of those were attracted to women before transition, and remain attracted afterwards. In fact, only about 1 in 3 have their sexual orientation change during transition. They may appear gay before, but be lesbian afterwards. Or appear straight (actually lesbian) before, but lesbian afterwards. Or appear straight (actually lesbian) before, and straight afterwards. Or appear gay (actually straight) before, and straight afterwards.
A large proportion are asexual, and remain celibate their whole lives. About 1 in 4 are celibate after transition.
It’s not about who you want to go to bed with, it’s about who you want to go to bed as.
Of course, for the 1 in 3 whose sexual orientation *does* change, it can be psychologically very difficult adjusting to that. Many have severe ethical issues about it. It comes as a complete surprise, they think it can’t possibly happen to them. But while you have control over your actions, you don’t have control over your attractions.
There’s various theories as to the cause – the removal of a pre-existing psychological block, the re-wiring of the brain from hormones, or the removal of blockage of cellular receptors by vassopressin. None of which is any comfort.
What is the proper application of sexual ethics to those with such conditions?
I’m a scientist, not a theologian. I can correct misperceptions of fact. I can point out unforeseen consequences, and the likely effect in terms of misery or happiness, in feelings of normality or perversion, but apart from that, that’s your department, not mine. I can show you where your philosophy is inconsistent, or inhuman in its effects, but I can’t say what God wills. Just what has been said in scripture, and what has been said by theologians on the subject of Intersex conditions in the past. I can recommend Peter Cantor (12thC) on that one.
I don’t recommend the 4th century theologians, whose advice was to nail us into boxes and throw us in the river, so that our souls would be recycled – our existence being an affront to God.
>>Lawgivers of all nations took cognizance of the hermaphrodite. He is called “tumtim” in the Talmud. The Hebrews excluded the “tumtim” from the priesthood.
>>But not from Heaven according to one Heretic – see Isaiah 56:3-5:
3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say,
“The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let not any eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”
4 For this is what the LORD says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant-
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will not be cut off.
Unfortunately, later followers of His tended not to heed the message, but abide by long-established custom instead:
>>According to the laws of Romulus, founder of Rome, hermaphrodites were placed in wooden caskets and cast into the sea. The Emperor Constantine ordered them to be executed.
This wasn’t just a Christian thing, or even a European one. Ok, the execution was, but not the persecution.
>>They were proscribed in Egypt. The Florida Indians imposed upon them the hardest of labors.
Later, Canon Law was more humane, and arguably more humane than Catholic Canon Law today:
>>”John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Appendix Two) has a translation of Peter Cantor’s De vitio sodomitico — or On Sodomy (d. 1192 AD). Here’s the excerpt on hermaphrodites (or as we’d call them now, intersexuals) were viewed historically by a prominent, Catholic Theologian:
—
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.”
>>In Prussia (under Frederick the Great) a person of dubious sex could decide to which side of the fence he wished to belong on reaching his eighteenth year.
I’d refer you to the debates in various state legislatures in the USA from 1955 onwards. It was in Illinois in that year that it was decided that anyone who had “sex change surgery” was legally and actually of the target gender. Most other states followed, 47 in all.
1955 wasn’t exactly a time of sexual license and permissiveness. Neither was homosexuality deemed a “lifestyle choice”, rather something perverse and dangerous, like pedophilia. The backlash against the “Gay Agenda”‘s advances since then has rather caught Intersexed and Trans people in the crossfire.
It should be a source of moral disquiet for Christians everywhere that Trans people in particular now find more acceptance within the GLB community than their local church. And that the Democrat controlled NH senate recently voted in the best PC fashion to allow Gay Marriage, and on the same day, unanimously voted against extending to Trans people the same human rights Gays have enjoyed in that state for ten years.
You see… Gays are just as transphobic as the rest of the population. Ironic, isn’t it?
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 5:39 am
Sophia –
“Perhaps a polygenic expression chart or something, The problem is the complexity of it, I had this crazy dream last night where I had designed this along the lines of Beck’s underground railway maps. And you can disconnect or connect the pathways to each of the sex differentiation genes in this diagram and name the connecting lines after the most probable outcome. So if we call a connecting line “Not CAH” it would mean that that line if missing would result in CAH.”
Excellent idea!
BTW – I was talking with my mother last night, and she let me in on a few of the family peculiarities. I had no idea she had a third kidney. Also that my sister never lost her milk teeth. My own dental peculiarities I knew about, and the really unusual cholesterol metabolism we all have.
And it seems all 4 lots of her grandparents are from families from Eyam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyam
Derbyshire is notorious of course for the fact that it’s one of the few places on Earth not on mountain tops with no free iodine in the environment. Families that have lived there for centuries have very interesting thyroids, and some most unusual gene sequences.
Add a few catastrophic population crashes and genetic chicanes from Plague, a lot of inbreeding (as they were Catholic families in an Anglican society)… and in the last two centuries, resistance to marrying “Chesty people” (ie from Chesterfield) because of the high incidence of oddities…
I wonder what interesting gene sequences I’ve bequeathed to my son? Maybe he got off lucky with a relatively mild Intersex condition.
I wish my mother would have told me this *before* I got married though. I did think it odd that so many of my relatives on her side, my cousins, nephews and nieces had some unusual (and often beneficial) syndromes, but never connected the dots.
Oh well, look on the bright side. He’s got a good chance of being immune to Plague, Smallpox, Ebola, HiV…. even if there are downsides.
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 6:51 am
Hi Zoe
He will most probably have some immunity to Ebola, as the plague may not have been Yersina Pestis, but a hemorrhagic fever virus not unlike Ebola. Which is a good thing because bacteria are easier to tackle because of antibiotics. But a Virus is another matter. Localised gene pools are a fascinating subject, at the moment I am faced with trying to trace the ancestry of someone who appears to be a pool recursion relative to my own family. That is when genetics gets really interesting, trying to trace where genetic similarity occurs in non connected gene pools. How can two families share traits when they have never come into contact with each other and don’t have common ancestors? that is real fun trying to figure out, very much a detective story.
On the polygenic map for sex differentiation, I do think we need something like that, if only of offer as an alternative to the now outdated and inaccurate “XX = Girl, XY = Boy” It should have been made clear in 2000 when the Human Genome Project was up and running that Chromosomes mean little more than the possibility they may contain certain genes. Rendering the term “Sex Chromosomes” meaningless and putting the role of the 23rd pair in some perspective.
I have to admit (And this is not aimed at Jason) I do feel that some people hide thier malice behind the simplification, some people seem to get great pleasure out of “outing” a woman with C.A.I.S as a “Man” when she was born and raised as a woman and identifies as such.
Hopefully a polygenic map would put paid to the excuses for such stupidity.
Shalom 🙂
Sophie
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Thank you, all who have posted thus far. I’ve learned a lot more about the under-the-hood mechanics of the various flavours of transsexualism (using the word in its medical/scientific sense, rather than the politically-neutered ‘transgender’ (which I do prefer when conversing with people who might wish to nail me in a box and toss me in the sea in order to please god…))
I have copied this webpage to keep handy — it’s chock-a-block full of ammunition for refutations.
Zoe, I’ve been a fangirl for a while now, and you’ve reached a new pinnacle in your fact-filled, reasonably-presented and readably-written posts.
Sophia — we need you in the fray. I know how hard it is to make an alien subject understandable to a non-initiate (my forte is television, and I struggle to discus the subject with non-acolytes without appearing either condescending or inaccessible.) But those who would nail us into boxes need simplified tools so they can accept, understand and ‘own’ that sometimes the results produce transsexuals.
Prof. Italiano — are you a hetero-cisgendered ally (I may have missed a declaration of membership back there — I do a lot of skim-reading…) Anyway, we need your reasoned voice, too.
Jason — allow me to introduce myself.
I’m a retired Sergeant First Class. I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1975, and became an Aviation Ordnance Munitions technician. I finished my four-in-the-corps and did various odd jobs for 5 years before enlisting in the Army.
I was a company clerk, then Supply Sergeant in Combat Engineers, before reclassifying as a Military Journalist/Broadcaster. In 1999, my unit was sent to Bosnia (while it was a combat zone.) I got paid $900 combat pay and paid no federal income tax for the nine months we were there. I was aware that my broadcast videocamera was an attractive bullet-magnet whenever our mission took us outside the wire.
I was on duty on 11 Sep 01. I coordinated liaison with local broadcast and print media, scheduling access to subject-matter experts, facilitating the flow of critical information to the public.
I retired in late 2002 and went to college. But I found a civilian position at a nearby military installation, and am once again a broadcaster/journalist.
By the way, about three years ago, I (finally) had my epiphany, and began the long process of changing my gender. I still have the same job (with a couple of promotions) that I had when I started. But I now have a new gender-appropriate name, and use the other restroom.
Three other members of my old active-duty major command have also made the gender switch. Four of us. That we know of. In a 2000-soldier command.
That’s another counterintuitive thing. The military, and police, and fire brigades, attract the transgendered. See, we don’t really want to be who we are, what with all the crap we receive from society. We just want to belong. We’re hoping the promised hyper-masculinity will ‘fix’ us. But it doesn’t
So the military and para-military end up with about 3 times the concentration of transgenders in denial, compared to the population at large. I’ll say her that the figure of 3 times more transsexuals is mostly drawn from anecdotal evidence. But when trans-girls get together, they often tell their war-stories to each other.
Jason, pleased to make your acquaintance.
Hazumu
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Dear Zoe, You mentioned the study by Cohen-Kettenis on 5 Alpha Reductase 2 deficiency and 17 Beta HSD 3 deficiency. I might add that this study was in the infamous ASB journal and Cohen-Kettenis seems to be
adversely influenced by some of those people. For instance, she noted that some
individuals develop a male gender identity and some develop a female gender identity
in each of the two conditions and that this
is independent of the severity of the mutation. She cites the noted endocrinologist Jean D. Wilson and his research on this. She then goes on to attribute the difference in the gender outcomes which are independent of the severity of the mutation to social factors,
while completely OMITTING that Dr. Wilson suggested that the difference in gender identity outcomes which are independent of the severity of the mutation, are the result of variations in the compensation of alternative enzymatic pathways.
Regards,
M. Italiano
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Dear Zoe and Jason, You should note that there are more studies. I just gave a few examples. For instance, Talaya-McCright-Gill
has just published her undergraduate
thesis where she investigated transsexuals and have found that the transsexuals respond in accord with their gender identity and brain sex and not according to their genital anatomy on a verbal memory task in the amygdala which is the seat of
human emotional memory. Numerous studies by Larry Cahill (UC Irvine) have demonstrated that men and women differ in the response of the amygdala as demonstrated by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
The transsexuals brains typed according to the sex they think they are and none of them were treated with hormones. It should be noted that the BSTc connects the hypothalamus to the amygdala.
Another study which will be out is another one by Eillen Luders group (with Arthur Toga). They have found in untreated transsexuals cortical thickness which corresponds to the brain sex and gender identity with which the transsexuals felieve that they are and in discordance with the genital anatomy. Their group
(number is 24) have not been treated with hormones either.
Regards,
MI
LikeLike
July 24, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Dear Hazumu, I guess you can say that I am a heterosexual ally (my main interests are in a) the area of intersex and b) in the area of human brain affective/emotional sex dimorphism). I am heterosexual, although I am celibate.
I am not married and don’t believe in sex before marriage. I am a fundamentalist Christian.
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 3:03 am
A quick thanks to Jason. I hope he doesn’t think my description on my blog of this thread is inaccurate:
“Jason of Theosophical Musings attempts to deal charitably with the issue of Transsexuality from a Theological perspective. Poor guy, he’s so far out of his depth he must feel like he’s been run over by a bus. One driven by Sophia Seidelberg of OII, and with one Zoe Brain as conductress. And Prof Italiano along to give commentary.”
Jason’s responses to some sometimes unfair criticism, based on a misunderstanding of his position, have been models of grace and courtesy.
As I said, he is “attempting to deal Charitably”. I value that highly, as 1 Corinthians 13 is something I try to live by.
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 4:55 am
Hi Hazamu
It is an interesting point to consider the number of transssexual women who started out as men putting their lives on the line so people have the freedom practice their beliefs and have the freedom to write blogs like this.
And these are hard won freedoms. This is one of the main reasons I think people need to think a little before denying transsexual people their rights or treating them badly. I will say that despite my “Bus Driving” I do think Jason has shown a lot of patience and made a lot of effort to understand how things are. I am thankful you are here to say what you have because you have raised a profoundly important point.
Shalom 🙂
Sophie
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 4:58 am
Hi Zoe
I second that, Despite the somewhat overwhelming response, Jason has spoken with dignity and caused me to question some of my approach to debates like this.
Shalom 🙂
Sophie
LikeLike
July 25, 2009 at 9:47 am
Hi, again;
Jason, Sophia and Prof. Italiano; I’m pleased to make your acquaintances.
And thank you for allowing me to interject my own personal and human story into the dialogue here. It’s my hope that it leavens the discussion here, and is a reminder that the biological conditions discussed are attached to real people who must live with them.
I’d like to suggest a thought experiment. This blog posting and discussion was precipitated by Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Seminary posing the ethical question of ‘Joan’ the post-operative male-to-female transsexual to his students for their final exam, and the ‘best answer’ Prof. Moore later provided.
The moral question made assumptions about ‘Joan’s’ free will in her decision to transition, and the assumptions were made without the evidence our ad-hoc panel of experts has thus far presented here.
My questions:
If the rare but possible variations discussed here did not exist, and the only two possibilities were XY=Male and XX=Female, what is then the likelihood of a ‘Joan’ question being posed on a religious seminary’s ethics final exam? Does it increase, decrease, or stay about the same?
What other changes would we see comparing our present world with one where the variations were not possible? Would this alternate world be, on the whole, better, worse, or unchanged?
CAVEAT: Ultimately, the above questions may be distractions. We have to deal with what we have now. And absent powerful gene therapy (who knows what the unintended consequences of that might be,) the best answer to tidying up the garden we’ve created still appears to some to be culling the ‘weeds’, throwing them in a box, nailing it shut, and tossing it in the river (pardon the overlong metaphor.)
I was trying to put this post to bed, but one more question. Is transsexualism a bug, or is it a feature?
Hazumu
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 11:30 pm
The comments have been pouring in! There are too many for me to keep up with. I have read them all, but cannot respond. I have so little time to dedicate to this blog, and need to move on for the sake of other readers.
With that said, I do want to say a word about Zoe’s and Sophie’s comments regarding my response to all of this. I appreciate your comments. I am trying my best to understand all of this, and I can honestly say that all of you have helped me to better understand the biological/medical issues at hand. If there is one thing I have learned from all of this, it’s that this is not as black and white as I once thought. There are many variations and biological complexities. Of course, as I’ve said before, so I say again: biology is distinct from ethics. But if we hope to get a true understanding of these conditions, we must understand the biology of it all. And I appreciate all of you for contributing to this discussion with that information.
Jason
LikeLike
October 24, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I was just researching the history of Madam Blavatsky’s Theosophy movement and stumbled upon this blog long after the debate ended.
It made me think of Abraham.
I always wondered why Abraham would faithfully try to obey God when God commanded commanded him to do something that was *obviously* a morally horrifying act like killing his own son.
The best answer I ever heard was that it was not God just testing Abraham, but also Abraham testing God. That is, Abraham would be able to see if God was really worth following by agreeing to obey God completely and then *really do* whatever God commanded no matter how insane. That is, he really *would* have killed his son in obedience to God, but then afterwards his test would have a clear negative result and he would have rejected God, because God (in not staying Abraham’s hand at the last moment) would have thereby revealed himself to actually be some sort of *evil* supernatural entity. A supernatural entity who didn’t stay Abraham’s hand would have been an evil demon rather than a benevolent deity.
I think Joan may have been in something roughly like this position with the pastor. When she honestly submitted to his authority she was like Abraham agreeing to do whatever God commanded.
If the pastor, on the basis of some form of moral insanity (and ignorance of biblical passages like Acts 8:26-40 and Isaiah 56) commanded her to destroy the lives of her husband and child, and to stop taking estrogen and go into menopause, and to violate the core truths of her own soul that she knew *better* than the back of her hand, all because of ignorance about tragic but rare biological conditions…
…that pastor would be approximately as evil as an evil demon that would not have stayed Abraham’s hand.
LikeLike
October 25, 2010 at 1:27 am
Unfortunately, in the 5 cases I’m aware if, the Priest or Pastor advised them to quietly commit suicide so as to spare their families distress, embarrassment, and dishonour.
This is no doubt an artefact of sampling bias – those who received more humane treatment did not seek help from outside the church.
LikeLike
August 2, 2019 at 6:53 am
I ‘d personally likewise prefer to state that many individuals http://google915er_221.com that find themselves with out medical insurance are generally trainees, self-employed and those that are laid-off. More than half on the uninsured are truly under the age of 35. They do not experience they are desiring health insurance considering that they’re young in addition to healthy. Their particular income is normally invested in property, food, and entertainment. Numerous people that do go to work either full or part-time are not made available insurance coverage by their jobs so they get along without due to the rising expense of health insurance in the u.s.a. Thanks for the pointers you discuss through your blog site
LikeLike