Christianity and Gender Re-Assignment Surgery

Post Reply New Topic

Asking for objective input is like pearls to swine, but please... For the love of Pete.

Anywho, let's dive in to this.

I remember a CSI (I think) episode about a decade or so ago where the criminal was a man who changed his gender to a woman through surgery or what not. He/she (I'm not sure what to call him/her, don't get your panties in a wad) married a man who thought "Oh, awesome a woman!" and of course, he finds out his wife used to be a man by the episode's end.

One of the things that really got me was when even after he found out she used to be a man, he still said about him/her that he "missed her and wanted her back."

Fast forward several years of mental fermentation of that thought and it brings up to the real question:

Assume John Doe is a man who wants to be a woman.

John Doe goes through all the sugeries and becomes Jane Doe. Jane Doe then several years later becomes a Christian.

Jane Doe now has a problem if he/she wants to fall in love:

-Should he/she pursue a man even though he/she was born as a man? Wouldn't this be homosexuality?
-Should he/she pursue a woman even though he/she appears to be a woman? Wouldn't this be homosexuality at first glance?
-Should he/she feel obligated to remain asexual/celibate in order to avoid this catch-22?

I find it absolutely cruel (even if it's a theoretical situation) that John/Jane Doe would feel forced to be without love in order to follow a religion he/she now wishes to follow. But in order to adhere to Christian teaching, how would he/she approach this??

Even if the person regrets the gender-reassignment surgery, the person can't exactly undo it, am I correct? And barring a crazy freak miracle from the Big Man himself lol....

I have asked this question of several Christians and I usually get one of the following responses:

-"Why, are you considering gender-reassignment?"
-"Why are you homosexual?"
-"Well when someone accepts Christ, they become a new creation so... damn I don't know"
-"Damn I don't know."
-"That's tricky."
-"That's between the person and God."
-"There's more important religious issues than that."

But, what do you think?

I've been pondering this question for about ten years and am not expecting the answer anytime soon.

I do ask that you TRY to keep this civil.

I don't think there is an answer to this question. I would think in general that one that becomes the opposite gender and pursues relationships with the same sex of their birth would be thought of better than someone that someone that is just a homosexual. This seems to be the way of thinking in some Muslim countries surprisingly enough, theocratic Iran actually recognizes male to female transgendered people but puts homosexuals to death.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQSx3OCrXQ&feature=related[/youtube]

We're not here to discuss if homosexuality is a choice or if it's a genetic trait.

We're here to discuss how the Christian Church would go about this situation.

Stay on topic please.

Social implications of this specific situation.

If that's not to your liking, there are more than likely other threads where that video is relevant.

I agree this would be best. Although I personally would, assuming I had a sex change, would still pursue women. That's why I'm never getting a sex change though. I can pursue women just as easily (or hard - assuming my Aspie social skills would stay the same!) as a man than I could as a female.

But what I'm getting at is how the Christians would respond, or how they say God would respond. I'm really curious if any Christians could come and post about this. They will get my respect without flame or bait. Though I obviously can't speak for preventing it from others.

I think that the first mistake is to assume that there is one, single Christian attitude towards matters of sex and sexuality.

There are plenty of Christian churches out there that fully support their homosexual members. The United Church of Canada has an openly gay moderator. The Anglican Communion has been tying itself in knots trying to reconcile its more liberal churches (the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopalian Church) with its more conservative ones. Many Friends Conferences (Quakers) celebrate same sex marriages of their members. Many Lutheran denominations fully support the participation of LGBT members, including ordination.

So being Christian and being transgendered or transsexual are not mutually exclusive propositions. It's a matter of choosing a congregation in which all people is accepted for who they are, regardless of sex and sexuality.

Then let's assume the more conservative churches.

Paul does say that it is better to marry than to burn.

Also, looking at Matthew 19

A "eunuch of men" would be a man who had his balls cut off, and who was now functioning as a woman.

I suspect that many churches would be grateful for your tithes and offerings, regardless....

I don't think that it matters.

It is up to each individual person to reconcile their faith and their daily life. There are some who are selective in the dogma that they follow, and they remain faithful members of conservative churches. Others seek to mitigate their sexuality and respond to a call to celibacy. Still others leave their denomination and look for more liberal congregations. All of these are valid strategies for a person who wishes to reconcile faith and life.

Every individual is different, and there is no single approach to this puzzle.

But back in that time eunuchs were servants. They were made eunuchs by men to serve women but not be tempted sexually by them - a most efficient male servant. And I assume eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake means something along the lines of what Catholic priests are supposed to be - they swear off sexual relationships. However, Jesus may have been referring to those who do that or the ones that go one step further and make themselves eunuchs physically to be free of any sexual temptation to follow God.

And Paul said something along the lines of God providing companionship to those who do not marry. Companionship as in friendship. In regards to the burning, I don't think he would have envisioned gender reassignment surgery undergoers lol.

He basically meant if you burn with sexual passion, marry so that you can pursue that passion within the confines of God's law.

IMO.

That may be a strategy to reconcile faith and daily life for some, but (assuming God is real)..

How would one reconcile God and daily life?

And now, Jesus is telling guys that they can go ahead and cut off their balls, for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.

some eunuchs could get erections. Thus some women PREFERED them as lovers - no fear of pregnancy -and they lasted longer.

And I guess some husbands didnt care because these kind could not knock their wives up and mess up paternity of the kids.

Hense - the ladies could get "the flower, but not the fruit".

This is quite a reasonable response. The best answer to a question that you don't know the answer to is to say "I don't know."


I'm not sure it's that tricky, personally, but it isn't quite straightforward, so this is also a reasonable response. I think it's especially reasonable if they aren't particularly well acquainted with the facts related to this issue. Most people, BTW, would not be well acquainted with the facts.


Another reasonable response.


This is my favorite of the ones you listed. It's quite true, and it keeps things in perspective.


I have actually looked into the facts about this to some extent. Not deeply, but I have read up on it on the web a bit. There are some people born with indeterminate sex. People diagnosed with gender dysphoria are quite distressed by it. At least some of the people with indeterminate sex are quite bothered as well. I think society's answer (at least in America) is pretty good: surgery, but not trivially obtainable. Future medical technology might provide better answers, but this is what we have at the moment.

I think the best thing to do at the moment is just to more or less go by legal gender.

The way you phrased the question presumes a disapproval of homosexuality as a sin, which not all Christians do. For those that do, however, I doubt that they would come to the conclusion that "it's homosexuality both ways", which you seem to be suggesting.

I would give two specific bits of advice to your Jane Doe: if you think something is wrong, you should not do it; and you should let romantic partners know about your past, at the very least by the time things get serious, even if you normally keep it hidden.


I will, for my part. And kudos for attempting to start a civil discussion around here. We don't get enough of those.

Some being the operative word. I would imagine the majority of them weren't "up" to the task though.