I was one of those who transitioned during the time of Paul VI. Had my surgery in 1972 and in fact, being Catholic, did request that the church amend my baptismal certificate. My parish priest was surprised but he did pass on my request. In a few short months I was called and asked to come to the church. It was there that the priest handed me my new amended baptismal certificate which I still have today and it is still valid and will be to my dying day.

My understanding is that the TG confusion and its attachment to the GLB with transsexuals added to that sexual orientation under the 'T' was the main reason why the church no longer even considered amending baptismal certificates. The 'T' by its attachment to GLB seemed to declare we had embraced sexual orientation and that was the primary reason for our having surgery. We all know that is farcical, except perhaps for some, but the church was simply following the lead set by the TG activists who joined the GLB and with McHugh's help totally ignored those of us who had surgery to be whole.

I was the one along with another post HBS who spoke with Dr Laub who had received the response from Pope Paul VI in regard to the correction of a part of the body to bring it into harmony to the whole of the body.

This is simply one of the area's where the TG's and our forced attachment to their banner has hurt many who have had surgery. Remember please that McHugh comes from a long line of radical functionaries at Johns Hopkins where the issue of gender has been placed in the pot of confusion not the least of which is exampled by the likes of Money who believed much like McHugh that brain sex is pliable.

This wonderful article by tssi pretty much sums up the situation.

I am a Roman Catholic and see no contradiction between my spiritual life and science. I was born HBS, as they say here, and assert my right to be RC. I am female now and the Old Boys Club can take a flying leap as far as I am concerned.

It is our Church, not a private club for the clergy. Church teachings must come up to date.

Diane Kearney, do you feel like me that our church sometimes comes off as anti-Christian in this regard?

Holly,

Not sure what you actually mean by church teachings but will try to answer as best I can in regard to HBS issues and not other aspects of biblical or church teachings. OK?

I think the church hierarchy has been influenced by extremists such as McHugh and have allowed themselves to be detoured by those who have not one iota in understanding of what a HBS born person is. I have witnessed this over the years and find the fault with those who would add HBS born to the biblical prohibitions that have nothing whatsoever to do with those like us in our search for correctness.

Pope Paul VI knew this but I am afraid that his effort at understanding has become somewhat obscured by those who make it seem our needs are somehow related to those who argue for inclusion at our expense.

I argue constantly with those in religious forums who make claim that ours is not a medical issue but one of choice. We have to ask ourselves who is spewing that fallacy and why? And also ask yourself who is it that argues against the science that does indicate a root cause for HBS...and what would be their underlying motive?

In the time of the writing of the New Testament there was told a story of St. Paul who offered to baptize a eunuch. The eunuch wondered why Paul would want to do this upon someone not deserving but Paul ignored the question and invited the eunuch to be baptised and the eunuch accepted. I have often wondered if the eunuch might have been like us and also am surprised that this was the first person that Paul actually baptised in the name of Jesus. Would it not be ironic if the eunuch had been HBS and performed the deed upon himself and Paul was aware of just that?

So many questions and so few answers it seems we face even now over 2000 years later.

The catholic church would do well to cleanse its self of all the paedophiles and homosexuals before it considers those of us born with HBS. Also it would work much to the advantage of everyone if someone like Mchugh would cease to involve his religious dogma in areas where it's totally inappropriate, next thing you know, he might advocate exorcisms for those with mental problems or a bi-polar disorder.

Phooey it stinks under any name and is an example of the "male superiority" nonsense rampant in he world.

Pamela

Count me as a renegade post-op, post-HBs, non-trans-anything, Roman Catholic. I love men, especially the man I married, our sons, and our male friends.

But will not let a bunch of world-scared pedophile-tolerant nun-chasers control my Church.

Sometimes I think the facts get misconstrued. Yes there was a major problem with pedophile priests but that number was closer to the 1 or 2 percentile and not the majority as some would infer. A study done recently,(not saved but remembered), made mention that the same proportions apply to most other churches and faiths as well although not as well advertised. Personally I think convicted pedophiles should be punished to the full extent of the law and not given a reprieve. That was the Catholic Churches error which they now accept as having been a dreadful mistake.

Yes, I agree that McHugh is a demigod in how he degrades us and I also feel the Pope is given the wrong advice and facts as they pertain to HBS. I only know I transitioned with full approval of Pope Paul VI and my baptismal certificate is in my REAL NAME and valid no matter what those like McHugh might say or wish.

Want to know who really hurts us when it comes to religions and churches look no further than our forced inclusion under the transgender banner. It is a warped tapestry and our inclusion only gives rise that we too might be other than what and who we really are.

Diane

Holly, I too was married but although I did not have any children, he had a daughter by his first marriage. We were married for 22 years and his death still causes me grief.

He was buried from the Catholic Church and I was invited to the yearly 'Remembrance Ceremony' in the company of his brother's daughter. When leaving the church the priest asked Mary who she might be and her answer was simply, 'I am Diane's niece'.

In time I will also pass away but I know that my funeral will be in my church and I will be buried with Bill in the near-bye National Veterans Cemetery where he now lies.

I will not turn my back on my church but will continue to explain through emails and letters the truth about who we are in an attempt to support those who argue for our return to acceptance by the church that was given to me in the early 70's. Again, that means we have to divorce ourselves from the shotgun marriage that joined us mistakenly to the tg variant behaviors.

I argue constantly with those in religious forums who make claim that ours is not a medical issue but one of choice. We have to ask ourselves who is spewing that fallacy and why?

But you seem very happy to spew that same fallacy with regard to those transgender individuals who - like you - have had to grow up in a world that doesn't recognize their nature. You were lucky enough to have Harry Benjamin and Pope Paul VI, and to have a destination (that of transition to physical womanhood) that gave you a place recognized by the world at large. Yet your own feelings towards transgender individuals seems uncharitable, to say the least. "Who really hurts us when it comes to religions and churches"? Surely it is those within the Church who identify you and condemn you as a homosexual: wrongly on both counts. Blaming other victims of their prejudice really isn't the answer.

I can only speak for TS-Si: we do not condemn transgender people. We simply state they are not - by definition - HBS.

We have been open to dialogue but too often confronted with hostility. Any questions and requests for definitions have been interpreted as opposition. Not so.

We fully support scientific research into transgenderism, cross-dressing, and transvestism to look for physical causes. We just need some subjects willing to be researched and some postulate or theory to test.


Regards,
Sharon

Ms. Sharon Sinead Gaughan
TS-Si VP & Executive Director
Managing Editor, TS-Si.org
http://www.ts-si.org

Charlie,

Yes, I did grow up, transitioned and had my surgery during the time of Dr Benjamin and Pope Paul VI. And I did benefit from their understanding and acceptance of me as a person with a driving need to correct a birth problem. I do wish both of them were here today to see how much their understanding has been turned topsy turvy to wrongly include those who have no idea of what I and so many others underwent in the need to be whole.

Are my feelings uncharitable toward the transgender? Not toward the individual perhaps who lives under that banner but when it comes to attaching me to their lifestyle and includes me in their political demands making it seem I too am joined with them, then I am uncharitable. I am even angry if you want to know the truth.

Let us understand my feelings. I do not hold the church at fault. Yes I have said that. I do hold at fault those who placed my medical condition of birth as part of the GLBT with the emphasis on the 'T'. When the church was faced with the inclusion of transsexual under the glbt banner and worse still when many so-called transsexuals who were actually autogynephilics had surgery then the confusion reigned. The church was facing a not so simple a problem in recognition of who had surgery to be whole and who had surgery to satisfy a psychological disorder that even Pope Paul addressed. It was impossible to separate the real from the unreal and the medical community instead of defining the transsexual was instead adding them to the misdirected intent of the transgender lexicon. So before we had been accepted as not being driven by behavior or sex but that understanding became rather different under the TG umbrella.

At one time there was a clear and distinct difference between a transsexual and a transvestite/transgender. We did not have the same goals nor did we need to address our medical condition within the framework of the transgender lifestyle. I did not demand that the crossdressers have surgery so that we might be cousined. But on the other side, the transgender have continually included me as if I shared with them their lifestyle of behaviors, fetishism, sexual fantasy, mimicry and even in the furtherance of their demands so that they be allowed to identify as the opposite sex legally all the while still in possession of their birth genitals, (non-ops and even full time transvestites). Do you see a difference yet?

Charlie, I might suggest to you that the world sees our 'nature' as being distorted because of our perceived attachment to the 'nurture' of the trans-folk. You and your friends want understanding and acceptance then may I suggest you go your separate way and not include those of us who have need for surgical correction and not include us as your link to understanding. If you want understanding from us then release us from the connective chains that falsly bind us to transgenderism. It is the transgender who forced transsexuals under their banner as a sub-set; it was not us who demanded you join us in our quest for surgical correction. Can you see the difference yet?

Understand, I do not ascribe to Leviticus and don't really understand why that section of the Old Testament was ever in the bible except perhaps for health reasons as they might have been understood then. But, in not only that section but in others there are clear prohibitions in regard to sex and crossdressing. Nothing in the bible says a thing about someone who needs to have surgical relief in order to bring their brain and body into conformity; correcting the part to the whole as Pope Paul VI put it. The church at one time agreed with that recognition and for me it applied since all I wanted was to correct a birth condition and the church accepted that. The transgender though have upset the applecart.

And the church does not condemn someone because they are homosexual or even if they have the desire to crossdress. What the church considers as sinful is to act upon those inclinations. And no Charlie, I never was considered a homosexual; in fact I might better be described as asexual before surgery. The church did not amend the baptismal certificate of a homosexual or crossdresser. But now with the confusion generated by the transgender the church is forced to withhold any and all changes since transsexuals have been added voluntarily or involuntarily to the elements under the transgender behaviors.

Since that time of Paul VI and Benjamin though we have been forcibly included under the GLBT acronym as if we should be accepted as having had our surgeries because we were homosexual and/or a transvestites; two terms, if one acts upon them, that are considered abominations in the bible. That is still the belief of many faiths only now because of the transgender political machine it is forced down peoples throats the mistaken connection of HBS born as being part of the transgender dichotomy. We mistakenly are seen as nothing more than men or women who had surgery to enhance our sexual or fetish fantasies. Are you getting the drift yet why I and so many others are very, very angry, Charlie?

If you want our understanding and support then disconnect yourself from us and argue your own case for acceptance without mirroring it to ours. Can you do that or do you consider your battle unattainable without linking us to it so as to provide our legitimacy to your own? Have you the message yet, Charlie?

Diane

Thanks, Sharon, for the clarification.

Diane, I wasn't trying to fight anyone's battle so much as figure out why you seem so angry about transgender people. Your reply has explained that somewhat: in short (if you'll forgive a paraphrase) you see them as having muddied the waters and retrospectively brought your own status into question. From the latter part of your answer it seems that in addition you see them as engaging in sinful acts. (I'm not a Christian myself, and admit that aspect hadn't occurred to me.)

First, I've absolutely no wish to tell anybody else how to define themselves, or to include them where they don't want to be included. If you're HBS and not transgender, fine - you'll get no argument from me. What I found objectionable in your earlier post was the way in which you seemed happy to define and condemn transgender people. They're a pretty diverse group, as you know (I think you see that as part of the problem?) - far more so than your dismissive references to fetishists and 'autogynephilics' would suggest.

On reflection, though, I think the more fundamental problem is that you see your condition as real, and transgender as the result of 'fantasy'. "It was impossible to separate the real from the unreal", as you put it, making the transgender condition by implication a matter of choice or "lifestyle", or mere "mimicry". But it is not experienced as such; and really, that's more relevant for this purpose than whether the aetiology of the condition is physiological or psychological, nature or nurture (something I've no strong opinion about). To use a very simplistic analogy, whether I was born without a leg or lost it in a childhood accident, I'm still going to need a prosthetic! Why valorize the physiological in this way? Certainly I see a big difference between you and, say, a man who has a compulsion to dress in women's clothes but still identifies as male. That doesn't mean the man's compulsion is any less real than the condition of an untreated HBS woman. The rate of depression and suicide amongst crossdressers, and the fact that (if closeted, which most surely are) they are at risk of losing family, friends and career, strongly suggest to me that they aren't it for the fun of the thing. And much the same could be said of other transgender conditions.

And no Charlie, I never was considered a homosexual

I know little about the Church's attitude on the matter: I took that idea from the article above, which states: "People born with HBS are closely aligned, in the Church's view, with homosexual acts to the extent that many Church authorities refer to such people as homosexuals." I'm happy to accept that the article was mistaken.

Charlie

Hi Charlie,

I gave the biblical definition and believe me, I do not have the right to judge anyone a sinner. I would not do that. I am a Catholic and have been from birth. The church even changed my baptismal certificate but I have explained that before. That and the fact I am a woman is simply just that.

But, that does not mean I accept all of the teachings of particular members of my faith whether a Bishop or even the Pope except perhaps for those issues I accept as being infallible. Sexual discussion is opinion and not a matter of infallible thought or even doctrine. I firmly believe the following message from the apostle Matthew: 'Matthew 5:10, Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.'

Charlie, you must understand that many of us have had to deal with the transgender imposition whether it be transvestism, crossdressing homosexuals, she-males, drag-queens, etc. and find that because of their inclusionary elements we too are somehow added to them.

You may not be aware of how often so many of us are demeaned for declaring ourselves to be women. Often we are simply told that once a transgender, always a transgender and that is how many of the public also now see us. That is criminal or at least an act of defamation of another persons acceptance of themselves. I have no argument with transgender as long as they do not include me in their social construct. Ok?

I don't hate transgender but I will not allow men who dress in feminine finery link me to their behavior under the transgender banner as if I too share in their fetish by association. That sir is what our linkage to transgenderism allows others to assume. That is why I project anger at times toward the transgender social construct. I hope you might understand that?