What’s Wrong with the World

Reminds me of the old satirical crack about progressivism, one of a series: "To be a progressivist you have to believe that gender is a social construct to be redefined at will, but sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable."

More seriously, gender identity dysphoria does appear to be a real psychiatric condition that creates an intolerable tension between physical self and self-perception, a tension that in at least some cases seems unable to be alleviated by anything other than altering the body to match that perception. In some sufferers, this tension has driven them to suicide when it couldn't be resolved.

Whatever our well-founded and legitimate criticisms of the psychiatric establishment and the politicized alt-sexuality movement, and the undeniable tendency to incompetent, hasty, indulgent or politically-biased diagnosis their interaction produces, we shouldn't forget that there *are* people who are genuinely in torment from this condition, nor should we make the mistake of talking as if it doesn't really exist. Part of the tragedy of cases like this is that the adults involved may well genuinely think they are doing what is best to ensure their child's happiness, or even save his life.

(That said, if there is at bottom some darker motive in these women's hearts -- an angry wish to make some kind of "point" to a narrowminded world, or an unadmitted wish for a daughter rather than a son, or gratified ego at a child who wants to switch sex to be more like them -- then they well deserve any coals that may be heaped upon their head. But most of us have bad reasons as well as good for wanting to do the things we do.)

SB: Wow, you really lost me on that last paragraph. (I haven't been following the case, but what's being done is giving him hormone treatments and raising him as a girl, right?) How does support for that imply belief in some kind of Female Essence transcending biology and culture?

In fact, one possible argument in support of these actions would be based on exactly the opposite claim: that gender is constructed anyway, that it's largely a matter of subjective identity, not essence - which does not mean it's unimportant or malleable. Therefore, there's no essential reason why someone should not express their identity.

Also, one powerful intuitive argument against this transsexual treatment also raises an argument against your humble opinion. That's the comparison with people who want to amputate a limb because they feel strongly that that's how they "really are" and were "meant to be" (this is an actual phenomenon). Your humble opinion would be, analogously, that anyone who supported this kind of amputation must believe in some metaphysically real essence of Three-Legged Humanness, analogous to the Feminine, or else his support doesn't make sense. But that humble opinion would be absurd. And I think it's absurd in the transgender case for some of the same reasons.

So, I think your basic error is the belief that strongly felt identification depends on essence.

I doubt that the guardians of Thomas have a philosophical grounding on which to defend their claim that he's "a girl". I'd guess that any version of "essentialism" would be the last thing on their minds.

What to do when a child who is physically a male identifies mentally and emotionally with females is not to be decided on the basis of essences -- or any other of a host of philosopher's fictions.

Don't forget this guy! He's convinced he's really a tiger, inside, and so he's been transforming himself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html

"But what of Stalking Cat's personal life? How do real-life Cat Men find Cat Women?

It's difficult - but not impossible: 'I'm seeing a couple of women at the moment,' says Cat. 'They understand that being a tiger is more important to me than humanity, which is difficult for many women to cope with.' "

I said I was done with this topic, but let me repeat something I said in the prior post on this topic that might add to what Steve said. I was commenting on comments made by Zoe Brain on the First Things blog and posted in the comments at wwwtw.

Zoe: 2. Gender isn't binary, it's not a single measure, it's multi-dimensional. People can be "masculine" in some ways, "feminine" in others.

Chicken: Gender is binary. There is no third gender, although there can be admixtures to a limited degree. The perception of gender, on the other hand, while still binary (since no one has yet defined a third gender), may admit of more subtle interpretations in qualia for different activities. Some people, when they play music, have a feminine quality and some a masculine quality, but does that make a male musician less masculine? Not really. These perceptions, to some extent, belong to the Platonic Ideals, not on-the-ground gender facts. Many Feminine sounding male musicians have been known to make excellent fathers and maybe even football players. This, however, is not a gender issue. It is an aesthetic issue.

Aaron wrote:

So, I think your basic error is the belief that strongly felt identification depends on essence.

This is a very thorny issue in philosophy of mind. Do sense perceptions integrate into an essence or do pre-existing essences shape perception (classic Plato/Aristotle distinction)? Well, there is an essential biology which pre-exists perception in the case of gender and this simply cannot be ignored. What no one has commented on is that there is a feedback loop between biology and psychology, such that, ideally, the biological essence is reinforced by observation of others, the environment, and self. When this does not happen and there is a fully normal biology, one suspects a defect in either the perceptual data (biased evidence), the perceptual apparatus (one receives false gender signals in a fashion similar to a phantom limb), or the coupling between the biology and perception so that correct data from the environment is not passed to the biology or biological signals are not passed to the perceptual apparatus.

In none of these cases (and I think this is an exhaustive list) is the solution the "correction," of the biology, since it ain't broke. There are three licit ways to address this problem: 1) remove or correct the false data from the environment (this, certainly, would not hurt in the case of Thomas Lobel, who, even at an unconscious level, is being feed a distorted view of gender by his, "whatever they are," guardians), 2) it is possible to deal with perceptual matters via feedback mediation as is now done with phantom limbs due to the work of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. That no one has thought to apply this to gender differences is sad, but I think it would show great success, if tried, 3) at this stage in history, this is the hardest of the three defects to treat because we simply do not understand much about how sexual perceptions are processed in the brain. Feedback processs tend to be nonlinear, so simply forcing either side of the feedback loop can cause all sorts of unintended effects. Removing a false perception, as in 2, is not the same thing as modifying the link between the brain perception and bodily biology. This may, I repeat, may be done surgically in about 100 years, but we are nowhere near there, now. Stressing either the biology or perception in the case of a link-defective situation is very dangerous because of the nonlinear processing involved. In these cases, at this time, the only thing that can be do is meta-processing of the data which encapsulates the link and circumvents it. In other words, the biological boy simply admits that because of a screw-up, his brain perceives the input from his sex organs in the wrong way, much as a person with cerebral palsy's brain mis-interprets the neural feedback from his limbs. One acts according to biology and lives with the distorted signals. Indeed, one sign that there is a link-defect and not a mere psychophysiological phantom sense is that, as the boy matures, he, in fact, will correctly process the effects of the sex hormones, regardless of his "feelings,". For instance, he may "feel," like a girl, but when, in the course of normal development, he begins to have erections, he will properly associate this with a sexual sensation or place it in the arena of a gender response, without, necessarily being told this. This would indicate that he is receiving at least some correct passage of information within the feedback loop. Some or all of the information might be weak or distorted or even totally blocked, but until there is a better understanding of how to correct the link-defect, the only really prudent thing to do is realize the problem and that, because of this problem, one is, essentially a functioning eunuch. One may choose to live celibately or marry for the sake of offspring with gratification being merely at the thought of the good of children. In any case, it will be a difficult life, but at least it can be a reasonable one. Gender surgery, which does not actually make the person a member of the opposite sex by any sense of biological essence, is, I contend, unreasonable, especially since other treatments, as I've outlined, go untried because of the easy access to the knife and because, while they might make the person feel better in one sense, they do damage in an ontological unity which is supposed to be present. Thomas is male, ontologically speaking. Until we can modify DNA, that fact will remain. That he cannot perceive this ontology properly is a shame, but treatment lies in the perceptual arena, not the biological one.

This IS my last post on the subject. This is not my area of expertise and I have no desire to do the research necessary to acquire it. I have a background in neural processing in the brain, so I can go this far in making comments, but I am not going to start researching and doing work in how the brain processes gender issues. That is for people with large research grants who haven't given up on actually fixing the problem instead of hiding it by surgery.

The Chicken

P. S. Just for Al, so that he can accuse me of bringing religion into the discussion: the only ontological statement made about man in the entire Bible is that God made them male and female.

Mike writes: "What to do when a child who is physically a male identifies mentally and emotionally with females is not to be decided on the basis of essences -- or any other of a host of philosopher's fictions."

it is, ironically, second nature for Mike to reject essentialism. :-)

Although the specifics are quite different I cannot help but be reminded of another famous case of childhood gender-reassignment surgery. The subject, David Reimer, was a boy born here in Winnipeg back in the 1960's. He was the victim of a botched circumcision and his parents took him to John Money at John Hopkins in Maryland, who recommended that gender-reassignment be performed and that the boy be raised as a girl. Reimer rejected his new "gender" and the experiment traumatized him. When his parents finally told him the truth about it he resumed a male identity in which he found a degree of happiness, although he eventually killed himself.

Obviously, there are huge differences between the two cases, the main one being that Thomas Lobel is opting for the surgery himself, having chosen a female identity for himself, rather than having it imposed upon him by others.

What I wonder, however, is what part of this story is being left out? John Money wrote up his experiment on Reimer as a complete success and for years that is what it seemed to be. What is going to come out about this new case, 20 years down the road, that we are not being told now?

I guess we will have to wait and find out. In the meantime, the obvious question to be asked here is are we really expected to believe that a three year old boy's assertion that "I am a girl" has nothing to do with the fact that he is being raised by two women who have rejected men for each other?

What to do when a child who is physically a male identifies mentally and emotionally with females is not to be decided on the basis of essences -- or any other of a host of philosopher's fictions.

You would be hard-pressed to define what is male and what isn't without delving into some philosophical work. Nature certainly doesn't provide a solid answer for rational observation. Penguin males have problems with homosexuality, lionesses do most of the hunting, many species rely on mostly single mother parenting and many insect species have females that are outright superior to the males.

Or, you know...he was THREE! I just think back to when I was a kid, my sister and I played Lord of the Rings characters (my dad was reading to us out loud). Most of the time we pretended to be the male characters (there were more of them with cooler parts). I shudder to think what may have happened to us if our parents had been like these horrible women.

Good article by the way...my rant wasn't critiquing you, just ranting about how awful that whole situation is.

South Park answers it all. Click my name.

@Stephen J.: "gender identity dysphoria does appear to be a real psychiatric condition that creates an intolerable tension between physical self and self-perception, a tension that in at least some cases seems unable to be alleviated by anything other than altering the body to match that perception. In some sufferers, this tension has driven them to suicide when it couldn't be resolved."

My question remains: just exactly what is the statement "I am a girl" supposed to *mean* when asserted by someone who is both physiologically and chromosomally male? How are we to interpret that statement so that it turns out to be anything other than (a) straightforwardly false, or (b) meaningless gibberish?

I'm trying to figure out what one would have to believe to justify taking "gender identity dysphoria" any more seriously than somebody's insistence that he's Napoleon.

@Aaron: "...one possible argument in support of these actions would be based on...the...claim...that gender is constructed anyway, that it's largely a matter of subjective identity, not essence...Therefore, there's no essential reason why someone should not express their [sic] identity."

Well, all I can say is that I'd like to see the argument (not that there's much chance of that, since the sort of people who are into claims like "gender is constructed" tend to be allergic to anything I can recognize as argumentation). If gender is merely "constructed," than what possible *reason* could there be for insisting that one's identification with a particular gender requires possession of a particular set of genitalia? And even if one could come up with some such "reason," why not just insist that one's...ummm...male equipment is actually female equipment? Why should that be a problem, if the initial confusion isn't?

"Also, one powerful intuitive argument against this transsexual treatment also raises an argument against your humble opinion. That's the comparison with people who want to amputate a limb because they feel strongly that that's how they 'really are' and were 'meant to be' (this is an actual phenomenon). Your humble opinion would be, analogously, that anyone who supported this kind of amputation must believe in some metaphysically real essence of Three-Legged Humanness, analogous to the Feminine, or else his support doesn't make sense. But that humble opinion would be absurd. And I think it's absurd in the transgender case for some of the same reasons."

Sorry, Aaron, but I think your comparison, far from "raising an argument against" my point, pretty obviously *supports* it. IMHO, there is no excuse for supporting "this kind of amputation" unless, precisely, one agrees that "that's how they 'really are' and were 'meant to be'" - which, in turn, makes no sense unless one believes in "some metaphysically real essence of Three-Legged Humanness."

Maybe you can you think of some other reason for supporting this kind of amputation - but I can't.

@Gerry T. Neal: I think that the *biggest* difference between the incredibly sad story of David Reimer and the incredibly silly story of Thomas Lobel is that David Reimer *really was* what he always thought he was: a boy. X & Y chromosomes. Male genitalia (until the butchers got their hands on him). There was no ambiguity.

But John Money (what hole in hell is hot enough for that guy?), with the typical arrogance of an academic swimming with the intellectual tide, decided to "reassign" him as a girl.

"Thomas Lobel is opting for the surgery himself, having chosen a female identity for himself, rather than having it imposed upon him by others."

Pre-pubescent boys are in no position to be *freely* "opting" for much of anything - least of all their gender identities.

"...the obvious question to be asked here is are we really expected to believe that a three year old boy's assertion that 'I am a girl' has nothing to do with the fact that he is being raised by two women who have rejected men for each other?"

Well, indeed.

@Frank Beckwith: South Park does, indeed, answer it all - and not for the first time.

Anybody thinking of "clicking on your name" can rest assured that the resulting clip is on point, and safe for work.

On the other hand, anybody thinking of clicking on the full episode had better have a strong & empty stomach.

"I'm trying to figure out what one would have to believe to justify taking 'gender identity dysphoria' any more seriously than somebody's insistence that he's Napoleon."

If by "take it seriously" you mean "believe to be objectively true", then I agree; but you don't have to believe that somebody's perception is objectively correct to take it seriously, in the sense of recognizing (a) the person himself or herself doesn't "choose" that perception, (b) there is no known feasible and reliable way to correct it, and (c) ignoring it, or being confrontationally hostile over it, is far more likely to make things worse than better.

It should be remembered that the vast majority of psychiatric and psychological therapy is functional and utilitarian, aimed at achieving the most practically effective results rather than the most ideally optimum. Psychiatrically, it's less important whether a patient's beliefs and perceptions are "correct" or not than whether he or she can live stably, productively and happily with them.

None of this is meant to indicate that I believe sex-reassignment surgery is ever a justified treatment for this condition, or that I agree with the diagnosis of it in this case or with implementing such treatment on a pre-adult child. But a common habit in opponents of this approach is to dismiss the whole phenomenon as mere malpractice, and I'm not sure that's fair or accurate.

Mike T: Perhaps it's theology, not philosophy, that we need when it comes to understanding the God in whose image male and female both were made. You won't understand the images unless you understand He Whom they were created to reflect. In that light, "male" and "female" are theological, not philosophical, terms. But, as is so often the case, even on an avowedly Christian site like this one, a site that venerates Christendom, theology is banished to the margins, or else displaced by by those who think that theology is nothing more than philosophy we do about God.

Frank: No, my "nature" led me to philosophize human life; my regeneration taught me that human existence is all theological at the root. Nevertheless, it's hard not to agree with someone who finds good answers in "South Park."

SB, your first objection is that if gender is constructed, then biology doesn't matter anyway. But gender is not "merely" constructed; like many constructs, it's constructed from pre-existing biology and culture, and it's constrained by those. It's easier to identify as a woman if you have all the usual parts - breasts, vagina, lipstick, high-heel shoes - even if none of those elements are essential to being a woman. So, in this non-essentialist argument, think of hormone treatments as a form of accessorizing.

Your second objection makes an inference that I can't follow: that it only makes sense for someone to say he "really is" three-limbed if there's a Three-Limbed Humanness essence. I don't know philosophy so I may be saying this wrong, but for this hypothetical person, three-limbedness is an element of his own essence, of his essential identity; I don't see how that implies another essence, a Three-Limbed Humanness Essence. A person might think that part of his essence is that he's a good tennis player, but how does that imply some Good Tennis Player Essence of which he partakes?

Finally, the most obvious (to me) reason for supporting amputation of a limb is non-essentialist: that's how the person identifies, and it would make his life better to hack off a limb. (I'm not endorsing this argument myself.) The person in question might see Three-Limbedness as part of his essence, but if so, then maybe it's just his own delusion, and it's not necessarily the belief of someone else who supports his getting the operation. That other person simply sees that being three-limbed is a strong, nonmalleable part of the person's identity - essences or no essences. How did he come to identify that way? Who knows? Who cares? The supporter doesn't necessarily confuse someone's bizarre subjective beliefs with metaphysical truth. (After typing this, I see that Stephen J. also just posted a comment making this last point.)

The short answer to your question, Steve, is that psychiatrists, etc., are just crass utilitarians and don't care beans about being philosophically respectable. That's one of the points other people are making on the thread, and I'm afraid it's true.

In my opinion (perhaps different from theirs), this means that this therapy is pretty much exactly on a par with setting a person up to "be Napoleon" and telling all his teachers and employers and so forth that they have to call him "Napoleon" and play along with his psychosis because that's necessary for his treatment and is the only way in which he can be stable and happy. The obvious answer is that if he's going around pretending to be Napoleon all day long and even forcing others to play along with him, then he _isn't_ stable. He's crazy. It could get worse: It could be decided on utilitarian grounds that the patient has to have cosmetic surgery to make his face look as much as possible like Napoleon's, hormones to stunt his growth so he'll end up no taller than Nappy, etc., because this is the only way in which he can be "stable and happy." This is "treatment." The patient gets it because he wants it and because doctors have convinced themselves that he'll somehow be "better" if he gets it.

In my opinion, that's really where we're at. The only reason that this sort of bizarre approach has taken off and been treated any differently from the hypothetical Napoleon case is because it's been associated with a vocal political movement and "rights" have been demanded for people who are confused in precisely this way.

For popular consumption, something like the bad philosophy you discuss is bandied about. "So-and-so is really a girl," etc. But on the medical side, I don't think they bother with anything of the sort.

Sorry, that was unclear: I didn't mean that gender essentialism is bad philosophy but that taking seriously as an event in the real world the idea of a "woman trapped in a man's body" or anything of the sort is bad philosophy.

Mike T: Perhaps it's theology, not philosophy, that we need when it comes to understanding the God in whose image male and female both were made. You won't understand the images unless you understand He Whom they were created to reflect. In that light, "male" and "female" are theological, not philosophical, terms. But, as is so often the case, even on an avowedly Christian site like this one, a site that venerates Christendom, theology is banished to the margins, or else displaced by by those who think that theology is nothing more than philosophy we do about God.

If you define the image in which women were created in gender terms, then that would lead to God being a hermaphrodite as He would possess a simultaneously male and female image. I suppose you could say that the Father is the archetype of masculinity, but that doesn't leave us with an objective definition of what femininity is unless we define femininity in reductionist terms along the lines of "opposite of or complementary to masculinity." I don't think that definition of femininity would be correct even if the definition of masculinity were 100% accurate.

Philosophy is like science. It's a tool. It is often abused like science. However, just because it is abused is no excuse to write it off as a tool.

@Stephen J: "...you don't have to believe that somebody's perception is objectively correct to take it seriously, in the sense of recognizing (a) the person himself or herself doesn't 'choose' that perception, (b) there is no known feasible and reliable way to correct it, and (c) ignoring it, or being confrontationally hostile over it, is far more likely to make things worse than better."

I have no great quarrel with your (a), (b) & (c) - so long as we keep in mind that the patient *isn't really Napoleon.*

"It should be remembered that the vast majority of psychiatric and psychological therapy is functional and utilitarian, aimed at achieving the most practically effective results rather than the most ideally optimum. Psychiatrically, it's less important whether a patient's beliefs and perceptions are 'correct' or not than whether he or she can live stably, productively and happily with them."

Bingo. The "vast majority of psychiatric and psychological therapy" presupposes ethical assumptions that few if any serious moral philosophers are prepared to defend.

Is there some sort of Female Essence, transcending biology and culture alike, in which he claims to participate, as a triangle crudely scrawled on an uneven surface participates in the Platonic Form of Triangularity?

First of all, I will dispute your legitimacy as a supposed Darwinist if you claim that there is any essence that transcends biology and culture alike.

Second, Nature in her (or his) infinite wisdom has created "normal" hermaphrodites, who prefer to be called intersex these days. We could suppose for the sake of argument that there are also mixed gender brains, and those would naturally be conflicted about what their "real" gender should be. Combine that hypothetical biological conflict with an instinctive function that can go awry like imprinting, and their "new" gender becomes an integral part of their identity.

So I basically agree with MC that in a hundred years or so brain surgery and years of therapy should be able to heal the root causes of this condition. Until then the symptoms can be treated, although the medicine is nearly as awful as the illness.

P.S. I just saw MikeT's comment, so we were going to get onto the that topic anyway.

@Aaron - just typed in a lengthy reply to your last, but I mis-typed w4gck before posting, so it's lost & gone forever.

Eh. I hate it when stuff like that happens.

So I'll confine myself to this:

"Who knows?"

Nobody.

"Who cares?"

I do.

@Lydia: "this therapy is pretty much exactly on a par with setting a person up to 'be Napoleon' and telling all his teachers and employers and so forth that they have to call him 'Napoleon' and play along with his psychosis because that's necessary for his treatment and is the only way in which he can be stable and happy. The obvious answer is that if he's going around pretending to be Napoleon all day long and even forcing others to play along with him, then he _isn't_ stable. He's crazy. It could get worse: It could be decided on utilitarian grounds that the patient has to have cosmetic surgery to make his face look as much as possible like Napoleon's, hormones to stunt his growth so he'll end up no taller than Nappy, etc., because this is the only way in which he can be 'stable and happy.' This is 'treatment.' The patient gets it because he wants it and because doctors have convinced themselves that he'll somehow be 'better' if he gets it."

Yes, yes & yes. As so often, you put my point better than I do.

@step2: "I will dispute your legitimacy as a supposed Darwinist if you claim that there is any essence that transcends biology and culture alike."

And well you might! But I don't.

Mike T: You did it again. You continue to filter the data through a philosophical grid, as if your interpretive grid were not utterly foreign to Genesis and therefore distortive of it. Yes, we know that philosophy is a tool; we also know that it's not the right tool for this task.

Along with MC, I'm done with this thread. If the Christians treat theology with such disdain, its no wonder that the secular academy does too.

Psychiatrically, it's less important whether a patient's beliefs and perceptions are "correct" or not than whether he or she can live stably, productively and happily with them.

Stephen, to take Lydia's point a step further, if a man who "just is" a serial rapist (that's his sexual and gender "identity"), we can make him happy, stable, and productive if we just provide him with the opportunity to do serial rape. No more threatening him with life-constraining prison, etc, that's all beside the point, because it doesn't "fix" his problem.

Does anyone read Plato anymore? How do you define "happy"? This is not an esoteric, ivory tower question. It is the heart of the matter. If you define happiness wrongly, you cannot possibly have a sound guide to good behavior. And in the long run you will not achieve happiness, either.

But, as is so often the case, even on an avowedly Christian site like this one, a site that venerates Christendom, theology is banished to the margins, or else displaced by by those who think that theology is nothing more than philosophy we do about God.

Michael B, no doubt there is philosophy about God here, but there is also theology at this site. But perhaps you don't think of it that way. Maybe what you call theology I call worship. As you have done almost every comment recently, you have criticized the comments without offering a positive thought to replace them. So, maybe you will grace us with YOUR definition or description of theology, and THEN grant to us with your theological rumination on "male and female as image of God" so we can understand your point in the concrete.

Michael B. writes: "Nevertheless, it's hard not to agree with someone who finds good answers in "South Park.""

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Steve, if you're up for reconstructing the reply you accidentally deleted, I'll read it with interest.

Since you maybe hinted at the analogy that dare not speak its name, I'll raise it here. The "party line" on homosexuality seems to be that (1) homosexuality is an essential part of some people's identity and (2) there is no such thing as a Homosexual Essence. I don't see any contradiction there. Both parts seem plausible. Similarly with femininity and a Feminine Essence.

I see a strong analogy between the two and you apparently don't, given your endorsement of the Napoleon comparison. You do realize that the Napoleon argument is used more often against homosexuality than against transsexuality, right? So I wonder where I'm wrong here. Presumably that in one case "Napoleon" is mistaken about his identity and in the other case he is correct. But why? What's the relevant difference between someone intractably identifying as a member of the opposite sex, and someone intractably being attracted to members of the same sex?

Re the difference between a patient with a Napoleon delusion and a patient who really is Napoleon, I gotta throw in this quote from Lacan: "A madman who believes he is king is no more mad than a king who believes he is king."

Lacan was mad.

Irrespective of any other consideration, the perverted female "guardians" of Thomas evidently want him to be a girl. The questions are why do they want this, and should their wishes be granted.

Somehow, the Twilight Zone episode, "Eye of the Beholder," seems strangely appropriate for this post.

The Chicken

Mike T: You did it again. You continue to filter the data through a philosophical grid, as if your interpretive grid were not utterly foreign to Genesis and therefore distortive of it. Yes, we know that philosophy is a tool; we also know that it's not the right tool for this task.

I could argue that you did the same thing to the traditional Christian view on adultery when you mocked me and some others for defending the idea that adultery should be a criminal offense. That was in spite of the fact that it was criminalized in the Old Testament and Jesus' handling of the adulterous woman about to be stoned was based on a well-known rabbinical debate tactic meant to expose the wickedness of the one asking the question, not contradict the question (that is Jesus did not question the principle of criminalizing adultery, only his "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" response was meant to rebuke the ones who attempted to trap him into standing against the Mosaic Law).

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here actually personally known someone struggling with gender identity dysphoria, or studied the condition psychiatrically? I don't mean to sound waspish, but some hands-on personal experience would always be informative.

"Stephen, to take Lydia's point a step further, if a man who "just is" a serial rapist (that's his sexual and gender "identity"), we can make him happy, stable, and productive if we just provide him with the opportunity to do serial rape."

Suppose he found a girlfriend willing to accommodate his desires via roleplaying, and who was so effective at it he couldn't tell the difference while in the process? (Like the old joke about the sadist and the masochist who got married; on their wedding night the masochist fell to his knees and pleaded, "Beat me!" and the sadist folded her arms, smirked and said, "No.") This kind of dynamic may not be "normal" in a psychiatric sense, but very few mental health professionals would reject it as a solution on those grounds, if it gave the man a satisfactory way to manage his sexuality that did not harm others.

But taking this analogy at what I assume is its intended level -- i.e. it has to be real rape, not simulated, because it's the nonconsensual violation this man needs -- it falls down because the consequences of accommodating the man's psychology involve unacceptable harm to people other than himself. It also falls down because violent psychopathy of this sort is, I believe, much less statistically linked to depression and suicidal ideation than gender identity dysphoria is.

Let me be clear, to quote the President: I agree that the imposition of an erroneous diagnosis of GID, especially on a child by his guardians, and even more so if done out of unadmitted or unaware political or ideological bias, is an appalling malpractice, and that may well be what's happened with the Lobels. I just don't want to make the mistake of dismissing all diagnoses of GID as mere bias, because there are people who suffer so badly from it that the choice may be between surgery and suicide.

Mike T,
I can't help it if your view on divorce and criminality is exegetically deficient, morally wicked, and politically foolish in the extreme. It's not my fault that you misunderstand and misapply the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Jesus on this point, or that you actually want to imprison folks who don't go along with your errors, in much the same way that some on this site want to set them on fire. But when you advocate such atrocities in the name of God, I will point them out. Where to begin correcting your own errors? Try reading and refuting Instone-Brewer. If you can't, then change your mind.

Tony: "As you have done almost every comment recently, you have criticized the comments without offering a positive thought to replace them. So, maybe you will grace us with YOUR definition or description of theology, and THEN grant to us with your theological rumination on "male and female as image of God" so we can understand your point in the concrete."

I'm not the Roman Catholic Church, Tony. I won't presume to shoulder your theological obligations. It's time to do your own homework, which might begin by figuring out the enormous difference between theology and philosophy. Heavens, folks like Karl Barth have done it for you already in exquisite detail and with historical and exegetical brilliance -- in his case, a feat that reaches to 8000 pages just in the Church Dogmatics alone -- but all with no effect. What I or anyone else could give you in a combox will have no more effect on your theology than did his work. Besides, I'm a protestant, and I advocate the theologianship of all believers. It's time to do your own theology. Even if I explained it all for you, I wouldn't do it according to the officially endorsed but terribly misguided methods of Thomas Aquinas. So, you wouldn't believe it anyway. I have offered explanatory comments on this site by the page in the past, comments never Biblically refuted and never accepted. I won't waste my time in fruitless pursuits because I'm just not given to excessive pearl casting. I will simply point out that theology is not philosophy that we do about God or ourselves, and then leave you to your labor, a response on my part that you might find utterly unacceptable. But see if you can't find Jesus doing the same thing, and then figure out why He does it. There's just no other way to extricate oneself from theological thralldom. Better interpretive pluralism than the enforced errors of the Magisterium. At least with the former you have a chance at being right.

Wow, what a non-answer.

Michael, I didn't ask for 8000 pages of theology, just for YOUR idea of what "theology" means. I can read 8000 pages of Barth, and 2000 pages of Augustine, and so on, and that won't begin to tell me what YOU mean by the word.

Also, I am not asking you to develop theology from page one all the way through to the eschatological completion. Comments on one slice of it, maybe?

Besides, I'm a protestant, and I advocate the theologianship of all believers. It's time to do your own theology.

You mean you cannot share your theology because "all believers" should do their own? Entirely? Without pastors or apostles or teachers?

Even if I explained it all for you, I wouldn't do it according to the officially endorsed but terribly misguided methods of Thomas Aquinas.

Ah, but the "officially endorsed" methods of St. Thomas are not the officially endorsed methods of this website. In case you hadn't noticed, this is not a Catholic site, and other views of theology are welcome. In addition, other saints' methods are also welcomed here, including those of Eastern Christians.

I'm just not given to excessive pearl casting

That's a nice how-do-you-do: calling us swine. Everyone here, all of the commenters without exception?

I have offered explanatory comments on this site by the page in the past, comments never Biblically refuted and never accepted.

Now THAT's the heart of your complaint: people didn't fall down congratulating you for a brilliant exposition of the Bible. Maybe, just possibly, that's because your explanations ALWAYS have (so far, anyway) started at a starting point that others here don't hold in common with you, and therefore your explanation doesn't make progress.

I will say it again: telling us "your thoughts are not theology rooted in the Bible, so they are wrong" does not advance a positive position that enlightens anyone of anything. You have intelligence, you have worthwhile thoughts, you have insights into truth, SHARE them. "You're wrong" doesn't share positive thought.

I can't help it if your view on divorce and criminality is exegetically deficient, morally wicked, and politically foolish in the extreme. It's not my fault that you misunderstand and misapply the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Jesus on this point, or that you actually want to imprison folks who don't go along with your errors, in much the same way that some on this site want to set them on fire. But when you advocate such atrocities in the name of God, I will point them out. Where to begin correcting your own errors? Try reading and refuting Instone-Brewer. If you can't, then change your mind.

Nice bait and switch, addressing me on divorce in general when I said adultery ought to be criminalized. I'm not impressed with the Instone-Brewer argument I found on divorce with a Google search. He takes John Piper to task for upholding the traditional interpretation, but Jesus adamantly laid out that sexual immorality is the only basis for which a divorce can be obtained:

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” -Matthew 19

It seems rather clear to me that the traditional Protestants and Catholics are right on this one because Jesus didn't mince any words. We can agree to disagree about what porneia might mean in the Greek texts, but the criteria for a valid divorce can be counted on one hand.

BTW, since Bauman wanted me to refute Instone-Brewer, here's a great example of John Piper (on behalf of traditionalists taking Instone-Brewer behind the woodshed for a little reeducation through intellectual thrashing:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of-legitimate-divorce

Tony,

As a Catholic, you might appreciate the irony that Michael Bauman holds up Instone-Brewer as an excellent theologian on the issues of marriage, divorce and adultery. The reason this is ironic is that every critique of Instone-Brewer I've seen from other Protestants is that he relies on extra-biblical sources for his arguments and bends scripture to those sources. I thought only dem evil papists stooped to using anything other than scripture...

This is a real gem about why Instone-Brewer is full of it, and by extension why Bauman's arguments are less than trustworthy:

David Instone-Brewer consistently places the New Testament in a position of subjection, both to the Old Testament and to the common understanding of Jewish divorce and remarriage practices that were based on the Old Testament. This has all been demonstrated above in the examination of his two claims. The bizarre result of this interpretive approach is a situation in which a first-century Jewish reader, steeped in tradition and living in a culture fraught with misunderstandings of the Old Testament, becomes the authoritative interpreter of the words spoken by Jesus. [Source]

Okay, so that is my last jab the poor ex-equine's carcass, but I thought I'd share since it seems obliguely topical.

I just don't want to make the mistake of dismissing all diagnoses of GID as mere bias, because there are people who suffer so badly from it that the choice may be between surgery and suicide.

Oh, for crying out loud. Stephen, just how far would you take this? Could you be convinced that a person could without malpractice have *all his healthy limbs amputated* and be left a quadruple amputee because he has a psychological disorder that makes this the only alternative to suicide? Seriously? What if somebody wanted to be, oh, I dunno, turned into a vent-dependent quadriplegic, on pain of suicide otherwise? What if a patient's body image was of somebody with no eyes? Could you be convinced that it was legitimate medical practice to gouge out both his eyes?

If horrific bodily mutilation of this sort isn't malpractice, I don't know what is. And solemnly intoning, "It's that or suicide" is intellectually irresponsible. There are ways of treating suicidal ideation, including medication, and in the absolute last resort, people can be restrained for their own protection. Hacking off entire healthy, functioning body parts for psychological disorders is not medical treatment.

This is nuts.

What is the real substantive difference between a stroke victim who asserts: "I only have one arm and have always been such," and the boy who says, "I am a girl and have always been such?" Should we de-arm the stroke victim to make him happy? Is the goal of life to be happy? A false peace is no peace. Is it better to live a painful truth or a happy lie?

As to the issue of essentialism, an interesting question: are souls male and female? I suspect the answer, in one sense, is yes. If there is a resurrection, then will one's glorified body have a gender (the assumed answer is yes). Will it be the same as the one you originally had, since there will no longer be gender identity issues?

The Chicken

Mike T, what I find ironic is that Michael Bauman holds up *anyone* as someone to read in understanding theology, he seems to indicate that doing theology means working on the Bible only, following along with anyone else means putting yourself in thralldom to them. "It's time to do your own homework, "

Yet, he also throws around names of theologians who have expounded positions (apparently at odds with ones proposed here) as if we ought to have already read these and the fact that we haven't means that even taking the time to address our positions is a waste. He thinks those guys have done his work for him. I have certainly heard of Barth, but I had never heard of Instone-Brewer. Why would I have bothered to pick up something by Instone-Brewer if I don't have someone (reputable) suggest a good reason to read his work? And saying "Instone-Brewer has is right and refutes you" isn't a good reason by itself, it doesn't give any real basis for confidence that there is something important said there.

Not only that, but this article shows that there are some profoundly wrong-headed things about Instone-Brewer's worldview which would make everyone from a typical Baptist to a staunch Catholic squeamish about him the moment they understand his thought process. Part of that is that he subordinates the New Testament to the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament.

@Aaron: "gender is not 'merely' constructed; like many constructs, it's constructed from pre-existing biology and culture, and it's constrained by those."

Really? Back when I was studying this stuff professionaly, I had the very strong impression that those who thought that pretty much everything was "socially constructed," "all the way down," had the winds of intellectual fashion at their backs.

Have things changed? Have the continentalist peacocks settled on a set of pre-existing biological & cultural natural kinds that are *not* just socially constructed?

As if.

"It's easier to identify as a woman if you have all the usual parts - breasts, vagina, lipstick, high-heel shoes - even if none of those elements are essential to being a woman."

OK, aaron - breasts & vagina belong together with lipstick & pumps among those elements that are not essential to being a woman...

"So, in this non-essentialist argument [sic], think of hormone treatments as a form of accessorizing."

Wait a sec, aaron - I thought you were trying to *defend* this "argument," and not to ridicule it...

@aaron, again:

let's cut to the chase, in your 1:19 a.m. comment:

"What's the relevant difference between someone intractably identifying as a member of the opposite sex, and someone intractably being attracted to members of the same sex?"

Well, it's that somebody who intractably claims to be a member of the opposite sex is *almost always*, quite simply, *factually mistaken.*

Whereas somebody who claims to be attracted to members of the same sex is *almost always*, quite simply, telling the truth.

If the Christians treat theology with such disdain, its no wonder that the secular academy does too.

Heck, I think it was Steve who pointed out that most of the Christian clergy (like their congregations) were barely literate during the first four or five centuries of Christendom. Maybe the Church should have treated theology seriously instead of becoming just a sacrament mechanism to keep the population under their thrall.

Part of that is that he subordinates the New Testament to the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament.

Which is bad because Jesus and the NT writers weren't Jewish? Well, maybe the writer of John wasn't, but why wouldn't you want to look at the Gospels in something approximating their original context? Unless you prefer to be in denial about the original meaning.

Hacking off entire healthy, functioning body parts for psychological disorders is not medical treatment.

The problem is that their brain is having what amounts to an allergic reaction to their healthy, functioning body part. Some allergic reactions are strong enough to kill, but even those that don't can be so debilitating they impair the functioning of the rest of the body until treated.

Whereas somebody who claims to be attracted to members of the same sex is *almost always*, quite simply, telling the truth.

Someone can be factually mistaken and still be sincerely telling the truth. You are mixing up objective and subjective standards.

The problem is that their brain is having what amounts to an allergic reaction to their healthy, functioning body part.

A psychological allergy. Make metaphors do all the hard work much, Step2? I'll ask you what I asked Stephen: If somebody had this so-called "psychological allergic reaction" to both of his eyes, would it be legitimate medical treatment to gouge out both his eyes (under modern surgical conditions, of course)? Is there anyplace that this can be stopped, in principle, once we are surgically removing people's healthy genitalia?

Some allergic reactions are strong enough to kill

Actually, sitting around feeling like you're a girl while you still possess male body parts isn't going to kill anybody. This is, again, a metaphor for the person's becoming suicidal. (Which he might well do anyway after the disastrous mutilation and drug "treatment" proposed, and that would then of course be blamed on all the meanies who wouldn't totally play along with his pretense to be Napoleon, or a woman, or whatever, and who thought he was nuts, when he was nuts.)

even those that don't can be so debilitating they impair the functioning of the rest of the body until treated.

Um-hmmm. So cut out his eyes. Otherwise he'll be "debilitated" by his "psychological allergy" to his eyes. After this necessary treatment, he'll be saved for a productive life.

Sheesh.

Which is bad because Jesus and the NT writers weren't Jewish? Well, maybe the writer of John wasn't, but why wouldn't you want to look at the Gospels in something approximating their original context? Unless you prefer to be in denial about the original meaning.

You misunderstood my point, Step2. It's one thing to understand the cultural context. It's another to actually subordinate the New Testament theology to the Jewish understanding of the Old Testament circa the time of Jesus. Much of the ministry in the Gospels by Jesus was devoted to refuting that understanding. The majority of the parables in fact are focused on rebuking the Jewish leaders for perverting the Torah with their oral tradition.

I think if you go back through my comments, you'll find that I am prone to actually citing Jewish culture from that area to explain the Gospels from time to time. In fact, one of the links in this thread was for that purpose. Where Instone-Brewer and I disagree is on how to read Jesus' words. He uses Moses to interpret Jesus; Christians are supposed to use Jesus to interpret Moses since we believe Jesus is the living Word of God.

@Step2: "Someone can be factually mistaken and still be sincerely telling the truth."

Well, he can sincerely *think* that he's telling the truth. I'll grant you that much.

I'm not trying to defend or ridicule any argument. I'm not a lawyer or a debater.

I can't tell you what other people mean by "constructed," except from an op-ed by Stanley Fish back at the time of the Sokal Hoax (remember that?). His example of a social construct was baseball: the rules are socially constructed, but not arbitrarily. For instance, you can't have the pitcher's mound a mile away from home plate. I think you're right that queer theorists and feminists tend to deny any biological influence on gender differences in behavior, but why should I go along with their mistakes?

I see we've both drifted away from my original point, which was that one's having an essential identity, including being a woman, does not depend on metaphysically real essences such as the Feminine. I still think I was right.

The other question, of perceived vs. true identity, really comes down to a confession of faith, I think. If a person and the rest of society identify that person as a woman, is that person really a woman (in that society)? I'd answer with a qualified Yes, meaning that one could not say objectively that she is not. (My answer would be different for some other concepts.) But I'm not a philosopher, and I haven't thought about it much.

To clarify the above, I meant you can't say she's objectively not a woman.

"the Church should have treated theology seriously instead of becoming just a sacrament mechanism to keep the population under their thrall."

Traditional, orthodox Christianity just can't win. When the early Church was expressing strong anti-Gnostic tendencies, they were being overly theological and rational. Yet simultaneously they were barely literate and didn't take theology seriously. So apparently everyone was either Irenaeus or an idiot, Basil or a buffoon, Chrysostom or a cretin.

What a world.

1, Folks who still believe that the kid is opting for female hormones or surgery need to actually read the underlying articles.

2. If one analyzes the actual surgical procedures, one quickly sees the proper analogy is to rhinoplasty not amputation or eye gouging.

3. If our friend The Chicken is correct (and he may well be) that this condition will one day be correctable with some rather sophisticated brain surgery, we still beg some ethical questions if that is assumed the default position. Why are those who are all a dither about some admittedly serious but consensual plastic surgery so sanguine about non-consensual personality changing brain surgery?

al, what would we do without you? Who else but you would have noticed that "hormone blockers" are not the same as "female hormones?" And who else but you would have noticed that "Tammy" Lobel hasn't *yet* opted for surgery?

Of course, you're quite right about that:

"Ms Moreno explained: 'In other words, she will stay as a pre-pubescent boy until she decides and we feel that she can make this decision about surgery.'"

I mean, hey, she hasn't *yet* opted for surgery, and there's no pressure, here! no pressure at all!!!

I mean, why is anybody even bringing it up? Surgery? What surgery? Where is the surgery?

Alas, you continue:

"If one analyzes the actual surgical procedures, one quickly sees the proper analogy is to rhinoplasty not amputation or eye gouging."

Well...

ummm...

OK...

...*please* do offer me your "analysis" of the "actual surgical procedures," al - and I'll do my best to bear in mind that nobody has actually opted for surgery, here.

Since Al's claim is ludicrous on its face (to anyone who knows the _basic_ fact that the surgery in question replaces functional external organs of the male variety with organs that cannot function in the normal male fashion but rather have been reshaped to seem like female organs), I'm not at all sure that anything is gained for our site by Al's going into gruesome detail _just here_. If you know what I mean. It's a somewhat understandable request, Steve, given the silliness of the claim, but...in consideration for our readers...I think I shd. raise some doubts about that particular detailed content.

Lydia, I believe we're all adults, here. If al thinks he can produce an "analysis" of the "actual surgical procedures" involved that assimilates them to a mere nose-job, then I challenge him to do so.

I'll agree with Lydia here and suggest that folks do their own homework and draw their own conclusions. The aptness of the analogy will be dependent on exogenous factors anyway. I'll only note that "functionality" is somewhat relative given the circumstances and if we wind up handling this with brain surgery - well, we still have surgery and the ethical questions still remain.

Steve, I plead guilty. I'm a liberal, so facts matter. I would also note that "she" is now and isn't necessarily indicative of what pronoun will finally be settled on by the kid. From my cursory review, I get the impression that, for many, "she" (or "he") is a passing phase so simply using one pronoun over another can't, by itself, be considered pressure. One paper by a therapist mentioned the need handle things in a manner that makes it easy for the kids to change their minds, so a competent therapist will be aware of the issue.

al: War das eu'r Lied?

Steve,

You need to be writing comedy...this was just gold:

"Ms Moreno explained: 'In other words, she will stay as a pre-pubescent boy until she decides and we feel that she can make this decision about surgery.'"

I mean, hey, she hasn't *yet* opted for surgery, and there's no pressure, here! no pressure at all!!!

I mean, why is anybody even bringing it up? Surgery? What surgery? Where is the surgery?

Make metaphors do all the hard work much, Step2?

I recall spending a few years at a philosophy blog, so yes. That was also where someone compared all organ donations to cannibalism, if that happens to ring any bells.

This is, again, a metaphor for the person's becoming suicidal.

In a way, but my metaphor works better at showing it as a biologically rooted condition.

Is there anyplace that this can be stopped, in principle, once we are surgically removing people's healthy genitalia?

It is true that the doctors are removing their normal sexual functionality, but normal sexual functionality is a very low possibility with this condition. The doctors aren't taking away something they were expected to have. The basic utilitarian calculus is that the easier it is for the body to survive without an organ, the less harmful it is to remove or disable it to prevent a more harmful symptom like suicide. So there are some theoretical limits where the trade-offs become too much, where they have crippled themselves so much that they would be unable to perform most daily tasks.

Much of the ministry in the Gospels by Jesus was devoted to refuting that understanding. The majority of the parables in fact are focused on rebuking the Jewish leaders for perverting the Torah with their oral tradition.

I agree that the ministry of Jesus was in part focused on rebuking the Jewish leaders of that time, what I disagree with is that his ministry can be understood outside a Jewish context, which would include the "average" Jewish understanding of that time period. His historical role is frequently viewed as that of an attempted Jewish reformer, not a revolutionary.

He uses Moses to interpret Jesus; Christians are supposed to use Jesus to interpret Moses since we believe Jesus is the living Word of God.

This is where the eternally perfect aspect becomes a little fuzzy. If Moses was inaccurately interpreting the Word, why grant his laws with perfect authority?

What a world.

You could say it's a miracle humans made it this far.

That was also where someone compared all organ donations to cannibalism, if that happens to ring any bells.

I argued that vital organ donation and cannibalism are comparable. Actually ethically comparable. I did not use a highly dubious metaphor (such as psychological distaste for and lack of identification with a part of one's body as metaphorically comparable to actual physical allergy from which one might directly die) _as_ an argument. There's actually rather a big difference.

"The problem is that their brain is having what amounts to an allergic reaction to their healthy, functioning body part."

Hey, this sounds like progress to me. I much prefer this talk of allergic reaction as opposed to "autonomous self-discovery."

I agree that the ministry of Jesus was in part focused on rebuking the Jewish leaders of that time, what I disagree with is that his ministry can be understood outside a Jewish context, which would include the "average" Jewish understanding of that time period. His historical role is frequently viewed as that of an attempted Jewish reformer, not a revolutionary.

That is not what Instone-Brewer is arguing. He's actually subordinating Jesus' corrections to the views of his Jewish contemporaries. He is saying much of what they thought was permissible was still permissible even when Jesus said it was not. As a Christian, Instone-Brewer should understand their understanding, but reject it because it contradicts what the Gospels record about Jesus' teachings on marriage.

We need to ask ourselves how far are we willing to go to change certain physiological features. It is becoming clear that without a certain non-corruptible commission, sky it the limit...

Jason
http://wedofaces.com/before-and-afters/botox-orlando