BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


"You're still a bloke: the Pope says so."

 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
21:28 / 22.01.03
[VATICAN CITY (CNS)] - After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church.

Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a source familiar with the text.


More here.

Any thoughts? A fairly expected thing, I would've thought - will it throw much of a spanner in the works of transgender acceptance/relations/exposure?
 
 
Ganesh
22:06 / 22.01.03
Given that moves are afoot in the UK to allow transgender individuals to legally alter their birth certificates, I really don't see that the Church can enforce this without insisting upon the power to scrutinise all Catholics' medical records...
 
 
SMS
22:59 / 22.01.03
I think the official stand on it is enough. I doubt many people who have had sex changes will go into the priesthood as long as this is the rule.

Marriages: Whether marriages are legal or not; whether they were conducted by a priest or not, they aren't true Catholic marriages if the Pope says they aren't. People who are happy to live with this can lie to the clergy.
 
 
Ganesh
23:32 / 22.01.03
I know of one transman working within the Catholic priesthood and two transpeople studying to do so. Hope this doesn't fuck up their plans too much.
 
 
Jub
09:38 / 23.01.03
[nitpicking]
document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church.
Vs.
Catholics who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry.

eh? So why aren't people allowed to get married if they've had a sex-change if the Church doesn't recognise it? I mean, is this just to stop a man marrying a woman who'd had the op to become a man too? Would this be too gay for them? Because I can't see how they could argue it was a gay wedding if one of them was still a woman in their eyes. And if they don't think it's a gay wedding, what other excuse have they got for not sanctioning it. By banning these marriages, they are implicitly agreeing that the person has changed gender - aren't they? And if so - what's the problem?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:27 / 23.01.03
It's meant to stop a man marrying a woman who used to be a man, or a woman marrying a man who used to be a woman I think... wonder whether they thought of that, though, Jub...
 
 
sleazenation
10:50 / 23.01.03
interestingly if i have this right this ruling would lead the road free for a trans woman to enter the catholic priesthood...
 
 
grant
14:20 / 23.01.03
Yes, if this was the only qualification. I have a feeling there'd be some other clauses about "lifestyle" or the Biblical prohibitions against tranvestitism. On the otherhand, a MtF in the seminary could potentially (from what I hear) get a lot of action before those vows of celibacy went into effect....
 
 
SMS
19:23 / 23.01.03
I know of one transman working within the Catholic priesthood and two transpeople studying to do so. Hope this doesn't fuck up their plans too much.

I stand corrected.
 
 
alexander
07:44 / 09.07.03
Only slightly off topic but... On the subject of birth certificates, would allowing alteration of documented sex, documentation of change of sex (vs. scratch f/write m), or simply doing away with the f/m documentation altogether, for all, be best in terms of official transgender acceptance? I'm not sure how it's gone about in the UK but I'm assuming it's the first rather than the second. What do you think?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
13:44 / 14.07.03
From a medical point of view the Vatican is, shockingly, correct. Sex changes don't do what they say on the tin. Neither are they Gender Reassignment Surgery as gender is performative. However, on reading the report the Vatican is making a bad decision for all the wrong reasons, such as:
A conclusion that those who undergo sex-change operations are unsuitable candidates for priesthood and religious life because of mental instability.
Because you have to ask what their baseline is for 'mental stability', because based on the numbers of people in the world today, those in the 'priesthood and religious life' already make up such a small percentage of the world's population that I don't think they can be considered 'stable' themselves. Which is not to say that it's bad, just that it's not good for the Vatican to be bandying such terms around when so much of it can probably be used to hoist themselves.
 
 
*
17:18 / 14.07.03
I've just had a convo pretty similar to this one. I have strong feelings about the whole sex designation thing.

First of all, gender is not a simple binary. I think a lot of people here might be in agreement with that. If the "sex" designation on official documents is meant to record gender, then not only should it be able to be changed to reflect a person's actual gender, there needs to be more than two options.

Second, sex is not a simple binary either. There are hordes of people with various intersex conditions ranging from slightly ambiguous internal or external genitalia to chromosomal intersex conditions, such as having XXY or XXXY or XO chromosome pairs. Some intersexed people have XX chromosomes everywhere except the ovotestes, which have XY chromosomes, or vice versa. If the designation is meant to record sex, as the folks who say it ought not to be changed seem to hold, there still needs to be a category for intersex.

Third, if the documentation is not to be changed, intersex people or those whose sex has been recorded in error cannot make that correction, and still face discrimination when prospective employers find inconsistencies in their paperwork. Not to mention the discrimination transpeople face when dealing with prospective employers, police, etc.

(rant)

Fourth, why the hell does everyone I show my driver's license to have to know what my genitals look like? Does this bother anyone else? There are three groups of people in the world who need to know this information: my parents, who saw it when I was born; my doctors, who may need to know for medical reasons; and my lovers or people who wish to become my lovers for whom the shape of my genitals might be a concern.

(/rant)

And whether or not an operation can change one's sex depends entirely on how we're defining that word. If we define it as chromosomal sex, then no. But I've already mentioned some problems with that.

Maybe here in the evil empire they'll start defining marriage as "two people, one with XX chromosomes and no noticeable genital anomalies, and one with XY chromosomes and no noticeable genital anomalies, entering a legally and spiritually binding partnership under our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..." Okay, I'm starting to get facetious. Or sarcastic.

To make it brief, I'm for doing away with the designation on all but medical documents, which need to remain confidential.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
07:45 / 16.07.03
I think it's kind of amusing. They're more likely to recognise abortion than transpeople.

And I'm with entitything on the birth certificate/documentation thing. I'm attempting to do documentational changes at the moment. Changing a name is fine, no problem. But the Health System? To get cheaper hormones, I have to change my Medicare gender to M. But the law says I can't do that unless I get surgery that I don't intend on getting. I can't change the sex on my birth certificate (unless I move interstate). So how do I change the gender on Social Security, Tax, Driver's License etc? I change my name, then wait a while and ring them saying, 'Someone made a mistake and it says Female on my driver's licence.' And hope they buy it. It's fucking insane, the whole thing. The alternative is to get about five letters of support from a shrink every time I want to have a conversation with a bureaucrat...
 
  
Add Your Reply