The sacrificial sacerdote

I don't know hardly anything about the Rev. Drew Phoenix and his/her particular case. But, I will point out that numerous people who have gone through such sex change operations have done so because they were hermaphrodites at birth or their sexual organs were ambiguous at birth and so the parents and doctors made a decision that turned out to be a mistake. Not everyone who is transgendered is so because they just decided they didn't like being a man or woman anymore and wanted to change. We should be compassionate.

I think Joe S. brings up an interesting point. How should the Church deal with those who are born with ambiguous genitalia? Also, in one article I was reading on the subject a transgendered person compared himself to the Ethiopian eunuch? Is that an accurate comparison (excepting of course that the Ethiopian eunuch didn't have a sex change operation)?

Wasn't there a Catholic bishop not too long ago who gave permission for a man surgically rearranged to resemble a woman to enter a convent as a nun? Is it a rule of this blog that every post regarding a given non-RC denomination has to include a gratuitous slam at the Catholic hierarchy? Even if it has to be accomplished by simple assertion without citation, support or factual basis, as here? You're a professional journalist?

Is it a rule of this blog that every post regarding a given non-RC denomination has to include a gratuitous slam at the Catholic hierarchy? What gratuitous slam? It really happened. I remember it -- and it was a conservative bishop, too. I'll find the link shortly.

"It really happened?" You have no idea what happened. The article cites a woman who claimed that a would-be nun was a biological male, and cites the Bishop's response, which neither confirms nor denies the claims, but does refer to the would-be nun as "she."

I find Burke's non-denial denial to be less than convincing, but that's a matter of opinion. And I happen to like Burke. Look, if you dispute the facticity of this story, by all means say so. What irritates me is your assumption that I'm "gratuitously" and intentionally slamming the RC hierarchy. It's simply not the case that anything I bring up that reflects negatively on this or that bishop comes from anti-Catholic malice. There's a blog for people who think that, you know.

And anyway, like ~TV said, all I did was ask a question, and it wasn't a question based on nothing. Asking a legitimate question, even if the answer is, "No, you're wrong," is not the same thing as a spurious attack.

Why do people have such a problem with gender reassignment? Don't we routinely correct birth defects?

"Don't we routinely correct birth defects?" Yes. Most often these defects either inhibit the function of specific body parts (e.g., closing a hole in the heart) or physical disfigurement (e.g., harelip). There are cases of gender ambiguity. My impression is that they are quite rare, and I seriously doubt they are anywhere close to the majority of gender reassignment surgeries. I am open to seeing data proving otherwise. On a strictly biological basis, it's a pretty far leap from "let's fix this abnormally functioning intestine so that this newborn can digest food properly" to, say, a person with apparently intact and functioning female parts realizing/deciding they are male and requesting surgery as an adult. IMO.

Joe S. wrote: "Not everyone who is transgendered is so because they just decided they didn't like being a man or woman anymore and wanted to change. We should be compassionate." Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, your compassion doesn't go nearly far enough. NO ONE "just decides" to get sex reassignment surgery. In cases there there are not ambiguous reproductive organs, e.g., where a perfectly formed man gets reassignment surgery in order to approximate a female body, in _100%_ of the cases it's because for as long as he can remember he's had a _profound_ sense of being female. The profundity of this sense, in opposition to his physical form, has weighed terribly on him his entire life, making him completely miserable -- almost always suicidal. And it's finally, blessedly relieved when he gets the surgery. So feel free to feel compassion at the thought of these people living all those years in the wrong body. But a better emotion would be joy that there's something that can be done about it.

Man from K Street: The post-deletion policy precludes us from replying to you as efficiently as warranted, but your protestations about Rod's post are ludicrous. First, he doesn't have to jump through 10 hoops of your devising just so he can make a perfectly reasonable, related point. Second, this is a blog, part of the enjoyment of reading it is that people don't have to stick to ostensible journalistic practices. (Which of course are broken in journalism all the time anyway.) If you really mind so much, stick to reading those exquisite newspapers where everything's always so perfectly professional.

We go to churches where men routinely wear gowns and dress-like vestments, and yet mock people who get sex-reassignment surgery? He is apparantly popular with his congregation, a strong religious leader, and apparantly a quite articualte advocate.
My question is: Why do you care? What exactly is your objection to having a transgender minister? Does your concern about failure to identify with a gender extend to men who wear dresses and robes?

Many years ago, I read an article in the LA Times (I believe) about a man from San Francisco who elected to have the surgery to become a woman. He later regretted it and realized that it wasn't necessary for him to be himself. Also, I happen to know someone personally who believes he is a woman, but I have my severe doubts, as he seems to be more interested in dressing up as a woman and showing himself to people. He seems more like a confused exhibitionist than a true transexual.
I believe in the future, except in cases where there is true hermaphroditism at birth, society will rightly regard sex-change operations as a form of self-mutilation, which is what I believe they are in many cases.
If people feel truly accepted as they are, they won't need costly and (sometimes) hard to reverse operations in order to fit in.

I believe in the future, except in cases where there is true hermaphroditism at birth, society will rightly regard sex-change operations as a form of self-mutilation, which is what I believe they are in many cases. I think what you have is a lot of opinions. Which may or may not be worthwhile. We could use more scientific data to make a judment call like that. I have know 3 m-to-f transsexuals. They did not become pretty women. They were not showing off. What they did become was content.

Oh, by the way, the little blurch on the Bnet homepage that "Methodists Support Gender Change" is misleadiing. It makes it sound like the denomination has adopted some specific policy on this matter, when it has not. The church has taken no official stance. Perhaps because there are so many issues of vastly greater significance.

My question is: Why do you care? What exactly is your objection to having a transgender minister? Does your concern about failure to identify with a gender extend to men who wear dresses and robes? The amusing thing is that you think this is a serious question.

The story about the transexual nun was from a while ago. Where is she now? Has she been a good nun since then? Did she leave the convent? Did all that bluster and protest do any good-- besides give Rod the pleasure of being able to snark over it?

"The amusing thing is that you think this is a serious question." So you aren't going to explain why your knickers are all wadded up by this story? Just another drive-by snark and snip, I guess.

I'm actually interested in your reasoned argument, Rod. I probably won't agree with you, but it'd be interesting to hear. Mini-lecture: if you don't want the snark, don't invite the snark by engaging in it yourself. Ya gotta cop to your own guilt, dude.

"if you don't want the snark, don't invite the snark by engaging in it yourself." Exactly. Physician, heal thyself. Maybe you get such attitude from commenters because you bring such attitude and snark to the table. Every post is slathered in sarcasm and condescension, yet when you are challenged on it, you complain that there isn't reasoned argument.

Daniel, I can't speak for others but my objection is that a man cannot make himself into a woman. "Gender reassignment surgery" is the subjection of the body to surgery and large doses of hormones in order to satisfy a fetish.
There's a guy in San Diego who has been undergoing various kinds of surgery and body modification because he wants to be a tiger. (Something about him here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,,531386,00.html) You and I know that, no matter what surgery he undergoes, this guy will never be a tiger but a human being who has mutilated himself in order to fulfil a fantasy. The same applies to gender modification--a man can make himself look like a woman, but, biologically speaking, he's always going to be a man. Such people may not hurt others with their self-mutilation, but they're hurting themselves and it is morally wrong for others to participate in their self-destructive delusion.

Robert, perhaps it is a "sin" in the original meaning of the term - a mistake.
I don't think people who choose to change their sex should be ostracized or laughed at for their choices. Nor do I think they should be "defined" by mental health professionals as mentally ill.
I just think their choices should be probed and considered and questioned carefully to see whether they are truly healthy choices.

What, ultimately, is your point, penitent? So they're not really women, men or tigers. What about their situation makes it "morally wrong" (your words, not mine) to "participate in their self destructive delusion?" I mean, no one is "morally wrong" for allowing religionists to believe the delusions of their religions, so what exactly are you arguing for? Against?

penitent... You argue that somehow a transgendered person is not a woman or a man, presumably because their genetic makeup has not changed. If I am wrong about this, please feel free to correct me. The problem is that tigerman will never have a tiger's brain, with the identity of a tiger. I would submit that a human male has far more in common with a human female than with a male tiger. Transgendered people maintain that their brains have somehow been wired for the opposite gender and that they have always felt profoundly out of synch with their bodies throughout their lives. You may chose to disagree with their analysis; but I have not lived with this struggle and I am assuming you haven't either, so we lack the ability to truly judge or understand it. You continually use the word "mutilate" which indicates your conviction that the bodies of these people have been disfigured in some way which renders them dysfunctional. The only function it seems they would lack is that of procreation. Some of these people have procreated before undergoing surgery, but even that did not lead them to feel comfortable or right in their own skin. Others refused to procreate because they felt it would only compound their misery. It's unlikely they would have kids, even if they didn't have the operation. Is procreation the issue here for you? It seems to be the only function this process renders impossible. Other physical functions and intellectual functions do not appear the be impeded. In the case of Rev. Phoenix, it seems that the surgery has not severed faith in God any more than it did for the Ethiopian eunch.

One additional thought. Circumcision is considered self-mutilation in many cultures, and it certainly involves changing one's natural form in a way which does not necessarily make you more functional. Why would God advocate self-mutilation for many centuries if it is so morally wrong? Paul has declared it no longer theoloigically necessary, but there is now evidence that it could be a surprisingly effect means of helping to prevent the spread of AIDS. Should Christians abandon the practice, even though it has potential health benefits because it is self-mutilation? Most of the time, it is parents who make the circumcision decision. (We did for our son) This goes a step further than entirely voluntary TGS.

1. "You continually use the word "mutilate" which indicates your conviction that the bodies of these people have been disfigured in some way which renders them dysfunctional. The only function it seems they would lack is that of procreation." "Mutilate" = "to injure or disfigure by irreparably damaging body parts." That is precisely what is done when a man's genitals are removed and what is left is shaped surgically so that it looks like female genitalia. 2. "The only function it seems they would lack is that of procreation."
When a man has his genitalia physically altered to resemble female genitalia, he does not now have the genitalia of a sterile woman. Rather, he merely has surgically altered male genitalia. The underlying biology has not changed, nor can it be changed. No reputable surgeon or scientist will claim otherwise. 3. "I would submit that a human male has far more in common with a human female than with a male tiger." A human being has far more in common with a tiger than with a cockroach, but that's not evidence that a particular human being might really be a tiger.
4. "Transgendered people maintain that their brains have somehow been wired for the opposite gender and that they have always felt profoundly out of synch with their bodies throughout their lives." Tigerman also feels that his brain really is wired to be a tiger. However, this conviction does not make him a tiger. 5. "it certainly involves changing one's natural form in a way which does not necessarily make you more functional." Circumcision is not the removal of a healthy organ with the aim of cosmetically altering what in order to make it appear to be an organ of the opposite gender. Indeed, circumcision is not the removal of an organ. Rather, it is the removal of a part of an organ that is not vital to the operation of that organ. Furthermore, as you suggested, there are good health reasons for practicing circumcision.
6. "Most of the time, it is parents who make the circumcision decision. (We did for our son) This goes a step further than entirely voluntary TGS." If you had your son's penis removed and cosmetically chaped to appear to be something that it is not, I would agree that you went 'a step further.' But that's not what you did.
7. "If you don't have any scientific understanding on a topic, don't weigh in with an opinion (short of the fact that it makes you feel icky" My comments are motivate precisely by my scientific understanding of human biology. GRS makes me "feel icky" only because it is grave physical harm to a perfectly healthy human body.

I work for a university that offers a PhD in Gender Studies and has public restrooms specifically reserved as "transgender," so I know that this an area where there's a lot of intellectual activity. This being the case, I'm hopeful that somebody can give a skeptical layman something that approaches an intellectually honest answer: What objective criteria can somebody use to claim that they feel like their "gender identity" is out of synch with their biology? Richard

GRS makes me "feel icky" only because it is grave physical harm to a perfectly healthy human body. And, again, it is none of your business. If you think someone is self-mutilating, just think "there but for the grace of G-D go I" and walk on. I find your ability to live in other peoples' heads astonishing. Perhaps you should write a book.

And, again, it is none of your business. If you think someone is self-mutilating, just think "there but for the grace of G-D go I" and walk on. But we as a society have already decided that some things that people do to themselves *are* society's business, even if they don't hurt anyone else. People whose behavior seems to indicate grave mental illness are routinely hospitalized without their consent if they seem to constitute a threat to themselves, let alone to others.

Is it a rule of this blog that every post regarding a given non-RC denomination has to include a gratuitous slam at the Catholic hierarchy?/i Yes. it is. Hadn't you noticed this before, Man from K Street? ;) Even if it has to be accomplished by simple assertion without citation, support or factual basis, as here? Especially in such a case. Beats dealing with the increasing mess in Rod's own communion: viz. ocanews.org You're a professional journalist? Kind of gives one pause, dunn't it?