Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

July 17, 2007

63-year-old Boston man Sues IRS for Tax deduction for “sex-change” operation

Filed under: Culture, Sexuality — shelray @ 12:15 am

The man, who now calls himself Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain, is suing the IRS in an attempt to advocate for those who desire to undergo “transgendering” surgical procedures with the hope of forcing the tax agency to manage these surgical procedures as any other tax deductible medical procedures. The case is set to go to trial July 24.

The IRS cited a section of the tax code which states that cosmetic surgery or similar procedures are only deductible when they are required to improve or repair a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease. The attorney for O’Donnabhain argued that because gender-identity disorderis a recognized mental disorder and is generally treated with hormones and surgery, the costs are legitimate medical deductions. The plantiff believes the motivation behind the IRS is rooted in politics and prejudice.

You would think common sense would dictate that mental disorders would be treated with psycho-therapy and medications, but then again, we’re talking about sex here. What’s probably most discouraging is that, more often than not, those with sex disorders have a slim to no chance of receiving the appropriate therapy due to the inmates in the psychiatric community who are running the asylum.

TrackBack

Permalink

24 Comments »

I have known some women like Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain from work and so make it my business to learn about this.

Know what? You don’t know the slightest thing about their situation and you don’t even know that you don’t know. That makes you a fool.

Why don’t you go learn about it so you don’t go ’round making a fool of yourself unless the only people you ever talk to are fools like you. In tht case it doesn’t matter what you say because its fool talk amongst fools.

-FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — July 26, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Fannygirl

So I can better understand your logic, are you saying you have the credentials to accuse someone of knowing nothing about a psychological disorder or situations of the disorder because you used to work with someone who had the disorder?

By the tone of your post, I assume that you don’t know the slightest thing about another situation and you don’t even know that you don’t know.

Comment by shelray — July 27, 2007 @ 8:02 am
I said: “I have known some women like Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain from work and so make it my business to learn about this.”

Meaning I starting learning about this, becoming informed, knowledgable. I assume you underestand what I am saying about becoming informed. If not, I can spell it out for you so you can understand it.

Making judgements based on tone is something you apparently think you are good at. Another screw up on your part.

I made a judgement based on precisely what you wrote… nothing more; nothing less.

Comment by FannyGirl — July 27, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
you wrote:
By the tone of your post, I assume that you don’t know the slightest thing about another situation and you don’t even know that you don’t know.

We are talking about your article. And unless what you wrote is a thinly veiled threat against me personally, I prefer to stay on topic.

Comment by FannyGirl — July 27, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
“We are talking about your article…., I prefer to stay on topic.”

Are we?
What part of the article are we talking about?
So far, the topic of your choosing has been something about some fool not knowing what they don’t know, which can pretty much be applied to all of mankind.

“unless what you wrote is a thinly veiled threat against me personally”

I kind of doubt you are serious but If you are, rest assured I’m not the threatening type nor do I have any idea who you are. No need for any further response.
Thanks

Comment by shelray — July 27, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Shelray,

Ok, I checked you out on the net. You seem ok so I am letting my guard down.

We are all uninformed about many things, Shelray, including me.

My point is that I don’t write articles about a topic I am not informed about and certianly not an article that is inflamatory and spreads misinformation about a segment of society that is so easy to trash anyway.

These transsexuals are so easy a target; even when a writer has their facts in order. I am not taking issue about whether or not you think they are sinning in the eyes of God or not. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It’s just that writers need to uphold some reasonable level of knowledge about a subject they write about.

Admittedly, your article made me angry but because of the misinformation.

Please take this post as the constructive criticism it is intended to be.

Thats it… I am off into the internet not to return again.

-FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — July 27, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
FannyGirl -

Your complaints are completely opaque to me. You have never made clear what it is that you object to in Shelray’s article other than an implication that whatever those suffering from this particular disorder ought to get whatever they want.

Comment by David — July 28, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
David,
Don’t confuse opinion and fact. I have already stated no issue is taken with opinions of Shelray; the issue is with disinformation.

I also stated, giving Shelray the benefit of the doubt that disinformation in the article is due to being uninformed, as opposed to purposefully misleading readers in full knowledge of the real facts.

If opaqueness in you mind exists, the issue is you don’t know enough about that segment of society to sort out what is disinformation, what is fact, and what is opinion in Shelray’s article.

Go get yourself informed and opaqueness will turn to comprehension.

Don’t ask someone to educate you in the context of a comment thread on an article published by a blogger.

Whatever opinions about that segment of society I personally have or don’t have is irrelevant thus unexpressed.

Therefore… do not infer anything; explicitly read what I wrote.

If you need a place to start, read information recognized and accepted as factual by the Government of the United Kingdom.

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=435

-FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — July 29, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Fanny -

I have looked quite closely and find that you have never pointed out what you consider to be disinformation. Your link was quite basic and says nothing new to me. Nor do I find anything it it that contradicted by Shelray’s post. Your excessive ad hominem responses quite disassociated from any lucid discourse suggest to me an emotive lashing out due to suffering.

Whatever your problem is, I will pray for your healing.

Comment by David — July 29, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
That was the first page of a series of articles. There is a hyper-link at the bottom.

It is not I who suffers, David… it is you.

Ignorance, Illiteracy and Backwardness are diseases of a fool which you have proven yourself to be.

The Government of the United Kingdom does not allow a tax deduction for sex reassignment surgery for these people.

The Government of the United Kingdom pays for it in full.

I will leave you with whatever last word you wish to make since it should sooth your male pride to do so.

God Bless you and Fair Well,
FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — July 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Fanny -

Last time I checked, Boston was not part of the U.K. If this was the concern that made you angry with Shelray’s original post, then perhaps a little geography refresher would help to alleviate your angst?

As for your additional ad hominems I will simply let them speak for themselves…

Comment by David — July 29, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
Hi David,

By virtue of posting the authoritative web-link and its attribution to the Government of the United Kingdom, I bypassed the appearance of ad hominem. The reason I did not present specific arguments was to avoid a tit-for-tat exchange; rather to appeal to a blog writer to do their homework.

The sum of my communications, as a group, is an argumentum ad verecundiam… an appeal to authority…. not an appeal based on my personal authority. I claim no authority and that is why I concluded with references to the Government of The United Kingdom.

As far as Boston v The United Kingdom goes, humanity knows no geographical boundaries. To observe and learn from that government should not be dismissed on the basis of the Atlantic Ocean’s opposite shores.

My respect for you has increased. I am glad to see that voicing assumptive conclusions about me was stopped.

By the way, how is the summer going in San Antonio?

-FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — August 2, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Follow up… I don’t think my interest was really understood.

As a woman who is a writer, I am urging Shelray, another woman who is a writer, to avoid argumentum ad ignorantiam. That really was the whole point. I am an advocate of exercising and encouraging humane treatment of humans by humans. I am accused of being an altruist and it is true… even in the face of personal risk.

Sites like this one scares me… and for just cause.

-FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — August 2, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Fanny -

I bypassed the appearance of ad hominem.

To have bypassed the appearance of you would have had to have avoided use of such phrases as “Ignorance, Illiteracy and Backwardness are diseases of a fool which you have proven yourself to be.” ad hominem is a logical fallacy because one assumes he is defeating a proposition by attacking the person. Since you refused to address the issues and rather attacked me personally, you are guilty of this logical fallacy. If your purpose was to attack me personally, you might at least have justified your claims with analyses of concrete examples.

The reason I did not present specific arguments was to avoid a tit-for-tat exchange; rather to appeal to a blog writer to do their homework.

Here you seem to presume that if what you believe to be the case differs from what another believes to be the case then they have not studied the issue. This is a faulty assumption, and it turns out to be erroneous in this case. Shelray is a former psychiatric nurse and I have studied the issue in my work in Christian anthropology. Thus, unless you were to point out specifically with what you disagree, your admonition to “do one’s homework” is presumptive and frankly, quite inactionable.

The sum of my communications, as a group, is an argumentum ad verecundiam… an appeal to authority…. not an appeal based on my personal authority. I claim no authority and that is why I concluded with references to the Government of The United Kingdom.

As the UK government does not represent an authority on the truth of the human person to everyone (including myself), the generally accepted descriptive information did not contradict anything said by C-L-S. The forays into the meaning of the human person, which exceeds the competence of governments and the secular sciences, deprive your authority of a the touch stone of veritatis (sorry for the double genitive). Thus, any meaningful discourse must of necessity take on specific issues.

As far as Boston v The United Kingdom goes, humanity knows no geographical boundaries.

As I recall, I asked you specifically what issues you took with Shelray’s post. I assumed that the reference to the UK’s healthcare policies on tax deductions was what you chose as the error in Shelray’s article, especially when you followed that sentence with the ad hominems directed at me. Otherwise I am not sure the purpose of the comment. If you meant it in another way (of which I would still not be clear), it would be helpful to contextualize more clearly your intent.

As a woman who is a writer, I am urging Shelray, another woman who is a writer, to avoid argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Shelray is the pen name of a man in this case. As I mentioned, his medical background and his understanding of the human person as fully revealed in Christ give him the competence to make the statements that he did. I would again, plead that you not assume ignorance because of disagreement.

That really was the whole point. I am an advocate of exercising and encouraging humane treatment of humans by humans.

C-L-S completely agrees with you on this point. The disagreement perhaps arises from your definition of “humane.” Humane means to act in accord with human nature, else it has not meaning. Human nature is given by nature, the latter of which is created by God. It can be discovered through reason alone but it is confirmed for Christians through divine revelation. However, because it can be discovered by reason alone, this allows the ability to discourse about the meaning of the human person with others who do not accept Christian revelation.

One can know, through reason alone, that human beings come in only two “flavors”–men and women. There is a biological telos which confirms this and that is procreation. This is not to say that the meaning of the human person begins and ends with biology but that the human person as a body-soul unity manifests its meaning especially through the body. Thus, when we run into psychological disorders of sexual identity one can see that by nature, this is a disorder. To be humane, then, is to understand it as a disorder and to locate and resolve the underlying issues that manifest themselves as the disorder. To ignore the existence of underlying pathologies and to treat the disorder as “normal” is distinctly “inhumane.” While it derives from a sense of compassion, false compassion dangerously masquerades as humane action.

Please do not make the mistake of categorizing all claims as factual if they come from those who claim the authority of secular science and groundless opinion if they come from philosophical truths (notice here there is no appeal to revealed truth so one cannot justifiably dismiss this as a “religious” argument either). The great error of modernity is to false assume that only empirically verifiable claims are valid. Philosophers, even those who originally made the claims. have come to realize this but not yet the average scientist or lay person.

I think that we did understand your original purpose, but we failed in our attempt to draw you into dialog in order to clarify what I have shown above, to be unjustifiable assumptions on your part and perhaps dialog on the issues that divide us. I now understand that you do not seem interested in such discourse. I have to admit that I do not see any possibility of your current approach as being fruitful for anything other than assuaging your emotive disharmonies.

Sites like this one scares me… and for just cause.

It is only just if you assume that you have the infallible truth and anyone who disagrees is therefore, by definition, ignorant. This seems to fit the criteria for the pejorative definition of “dogmatic.” Perhaps if you were willing to discuss specific issues you might change your mind?

Comment by David — August 2, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
FannyGirl wrote: Sites like this one scares me… and for just cause.

David replied: It is only just if you assume that you have the infallible truth and anyone who disagrees is therefore, by definition, ignorant. This seems to fit the criteria for the pejorative definition of “dogmatic.” Perhaps if you were willing to discuss specific issues you might change your mind?

FannyGirl responds:
I am sure the collective “we” of C-L-S won’t change…
I claim no personal Authority on the subject of that element of society; apparently the collective “we” of C-L-S does claim such Authority. I don’t buy it.

For you to assume a singular secular point of view on my part is incorrect David. Additionally, I am not afraid of discourse… as I am sure you are already aware. I am afraid of fanaticism and the specter of an Opus Dei brainwashed mentality. I rank it right up there with the Taliban.

I am altruistic by virtue of my innate nature and by virtue of example of the greatest altruist who ever walked the face of the earth and who lives on in spirit… Jesus of Nazareth.

What scares me about sites like this is the dogma and patterns of behavior of Religious Fundamentalism. One of characteristics of which is the “you are either with us or you are against us” mindset. You are either one of us or you are going to hell. Screw that David.

I am neither with you nor am I against you; I am not your friend and I am not your enemy. I am afraid of what people of a religious fundamentalist mindset are capable of.

If I don’t get hate mail as a result of standing up to the collective we of C-L-S on the subject of Shelray’s hurtful maligning of persons with transsexualism I will be amazed.
If I get any I will be sure to post it.

What is your true motive for wishing to engage me in discourse, point by point, on the original blog article of Shelray? Do you really think there would be a common ground for discourse? I have already stated that I have no argument with one’s opinions. The act of disinformation I have already addressed.

I honestly don’t see anything useful coming from a debate between parties so polarized as we two… or three if you include Shelray who apparently can’t fight his or her whatever own battles, or who knows how many if you if the regular visitors to this site and the local chapter of Opus Dei are included.

I really didn’t want to go there… but I will say this and perhaps it will appease the wish of the collective male “we” of C-L-S to verbally gang bang me into perceived submission…

While persons who are gay (for whatever the true reason people who are gay are gay may be) can reform their homosexual behavior and live in abstinence of homosexual sex, persons, as I have learned and believe, who are diagnosed with so-called Severe Gender Identity Dysphoria have an identity issue; not a sexual issue.

I do not believe it to be a psychological disorder at all. It will likely be removed from the DSM as a mental disorder at some point. I believe it to be a congenital birth defect for which there is no cure. Today the best the medical community can manage to do is alleviate the internal stress of aflicted persons via surgical intervention so as to allow these persons to live out their lives in society in as much peace as they are able to achieve in view of the ignorance, illiteracy, and backwardness of society at large.

Perhaps in the future those with real transsexualism can be screened before birth and aborted with the blessings of the church.
That would certianly solve the social delimma.

Based on a preponderance of data which I have critically reviewed and accepted from a logically critical standpoint, a person’s gender identity is encoded within each individual’s brain… your’s is; mine is, Shelray’s is (you sure Shelray is a guy? just kidding).

This was proven correct by John Money even though he didn’t believe it. John Money believed gender identity was simply a socially malleable construct… raise them as a boy or girl and they will be a boy or a girl, all other things being equal. It doesn’t work that way… the evidence is empirical and real.

Further, all humans zygotes start off as female… the endocrine system, upon prompting by the chromosomes and genes virilizes the female zygote, including the brain if the chromosomes are XY, otherswise virilization does not take place as a normal part of development of a zygote who’s chromosomes are XX.

The endocrine system is fallible and other issues in utero can also come into play… I view those with so-called severe gender identity disorder to have biologically gendered brains not aligned with their chromosomes or their bodies. That is a hypothesis and a theory held by many; both within and without the medical community who are without theocratic or patriarchal bias.

It is a view I believe; prove it wrong.

I believe in God; prove it wrong.

You won’t prove me wrong about God because you can’t and you won’t try because you believe in God also. The operative word is believe…

I believe some women and men have bodies which do not match their brain; it can not presently be scientifically proved nor disproved but the likelihood it more probable than not.

It’s an act of faith to believe…

From everything I know, these persons do not want to be transsexuals and many of them commit suicide rather than face it and deal with the pain of it. Any of those who say they want to be transsexuals are probably women with serious penis envy or men with an overactive libido combined with breast and vagina envy.

And believe me when I say, as a woman… There is nothing special about being a woman. I can understand wanting to be a man… what woman hasn’t thought about that at one point or another… This is a man’s world… they have the power, but I can’t understand men with some kind of sexual fetish wanting to be like a woman. They are not transsexuals; their penis is important to them; they don’t want to cut it off.

I blame organized religion for much of the social stigmatizing and social trauma of people with legitimate transsexuality… a situation which drives a number of them to suicide.

I blame organized application of Fundamentalist Jewish, Islamic and Christian religions for their ill treatment of persons “who are not like us”.

It’s not what Jesus taught but then Jesus was not a religious fanatic and instead of promoting hate, he taught love and acceptance. He was an altruist in the truest meaning.

-FannyGirl

Comment by FannyGirl — August 2, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Fanny -

I’m sorry that you are not willing to discourse on the relevant issues. You have obviously misunderstood much of what I have said and have rather seemed to interpret it as a personal assault. Your continual references to sex differences being at the root of it with an obvious bias against men lead me to judge that restrained discussion between us is not likely. Your bigotry towards organized religion in general and Opus Dei in particular also suggest to me someone who is unwilling/unable to engage in civil dialog.

In the end, let me say that I understand that GID is a complex phenomenon. Your assessment of it looks at it strictly from a materialistic presupposition, which is not surprising as this is the perspective of the secular sciences. This is why the secular sciences will never be able to fully understand or treat these people. Sexual identity begins at fertilization. It is the zygote which prompts the mother’s endocrine system to provide the hormonal balance that is required for the gestation of a baby male or female. It is not the mother’s endocrine system which determines the baby’s sex but it is true that dysfunction with the endocrine system for whatever reason can cause brain structure and other secondary sexual characteristics to become less “feminized” or “masculinized.” The point being is that the human person has a sexual identity from conception. There are developmental issues (chromosomal abnormalities aside–i.e. Klinefelter and XXY syndromes with males and the female Turner and metafemale syndromes) that can lead to such things as inability to socially identify with the same sex (brige brained males for example) but this does not necessarily lead either to GID or SSA, other factors also play into it. It is critical to understand the whole human person.

Jesus taught His disciples to obey the authority that God established on this earth. At the time it was the Pharisees. He established a Church with Peter as its head, to shepherd it in Jesus’ absence and bade Peter to guide and guard His Church. If you want to blame someone for organized Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church, you will have to point the finger at Jesus. It is not organized Christianity that is the problem just as one cannot blame social structures. It is the sins of individuals that is the source of the problem, my sins and yours included. Especially destructive to society today are the sins of killing our unborn babies for every reason imaginable. I am sorry to hear that you think killing a child who has the possibility (but it is certainly not predetermined) of developing GID is morally right. This is the problem of being self-sufficient in determining the truth rather than submitting to the authority Jesus left here for us.

You are correct that Jesus didn’t promote hate. Neither does His Church. It is certainly not hate to want to help people to be resolved of their maladies rather than subsidizing the behaviors that arise from them.

Fanny - I do wish you all the best and I pray that God blesses you. Perhaps the best we can do at this point is to pray for each other.

Comment by David — August 3, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Hi David,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. It seems we are not quite as diametrically polarized from each other after all.

A few clarifications need to be expressed…
-The endocrine system I spoke of is the zygote’s own endocrine system, not the Mother’s endocrine system.

-Believe me or not, I am not actually biased against “men” as much as I can believe that you think I am. I take issue with behaviors. Since men are my opposite sex I have a reality men don’t live with. I could well expound more along these lines but perhaps another day and another time. Truth is… I love “men” and admire and respect what is best in men.

-I do not think that killing a fetus is morally right nor do I think it could ever be justified. I am grateful I have never been placed in a position to ever contemplate such an action with my body.

There are those with a fundamental religious mind set who perceive true transsexuals as demons and non-human. My comment was one of assumptive bias about that kind of mindset. I also do not think driving a person to suicide is morally right either regardless of the reason. I do not think capitol punishment is morally right either.

-I am not without sin; no one is.

-I don’t blame Jesus of Nazareth for the behavior of people. People are accountable for their own behavior including the corruption of organized religion. I am not actually biased against basic premises of organized religion; rather the behavior of individuals collectively and alone in the name of God and Religion. Many people promote hatred in the name of God in spite of everything. We both know this.

I have personally been subjected to focused hatred in the name of the Catholic Religion. That is likely the reason I can identify with people suffering hatred such as those afflicted with real transsexualism. When I read Shelray’s calloused attitudes regarding true transsexuals I sobbed.

You hurt me Shelray…. because you hurt them and because you were perpetuating garbage, in my well considered opinion, about them.

It was the direct and purposefully abusive acts of a priest, and indirectly by his effective teaching of hated and bias against “people like me” in the name of Jesus of Nazareth and the Catholic Religion.

He destroyed the innocence of an 11 year old girl… me.

It was not sexual abuse.

His attitudes and behaviors were tolerated for many years within the Catholic Religion prior to running into that little girl… me. Nothing anyone will ever say or ever do will fix what he broke inside me and what he broke within the children, my class mates, whom he poisoned with his hatred.

You see, I voluntarily and willingly wanted to be Catholic. I was a non-baptized child whose parents were baptized Protestants. I asked to go to a Catholic school which had an adjoining church. The primary priest of that church and the Mother Superior of the elementary school adjoining it met with my parents and with me. I loved them both and later after settling into school I felt happy and secure under their care and guidance.

I was accepted, made many friends and was popular… even though I was not as yet baptized. I did well in school including catechism and bible study. I did my prayers as everyone else did and attended Mass daily. My life felt secure and on track…

One day in February my class was told of a transfer in progress; the priest I knew and loved was leaving to be replaced by a new one; an Irishman from Northern Ireland. He was introduced to our class and was cordial and smiling and spoke with us a bit.

About a week later he was teaching in our class and for what ever reason he learned during that lecture that I was of Protestant parents and was not baptized as a Catholic.
The man drew close to me leaned down and glared into my eyes with hatred I had never been subjected to in my life. After that my class mates began to become distant with me. This increased over the span of several weeks until I was socially isolated altogether.

A day came when we went to the city park to play during the school day as was typical several days a week. I was picking dandelions alone and looked up and found myself surrounded by nine of my classmates. I stood up and looked at them and smiled. They began spitting on me and calling me names such as Protestant filth and so on. I felt mortally wounded and began to cry… I ran away from them as fast as I could and walked home in the middle of the day. When my Mother asked me why I was crying and why on earth I was unsupervised and at home in the middle of the day, I told her.

I was taken back to school and she and Mother Superior had a conference which I was asked to join after a long time and to speak for myself as to why I left school. I explained and sobbed.

I have never seen such anger on the face of a Nun… I don’t know what she did or what she said to the Irishman and others but he kept his distance from me after that.

Unfortunately the damage had been done. I left the school and the Catholic Religion as soon as my parents could arrange for me to reenter public school.

The point of relating this story David is to tell you…

It only takes one rotten apple to ruin the life of someone who is innocent. I idolized Mother Superior so much that I was thinking of a life as a Nun prior to the event. After the event I swore I would never again enter a Catholic Church. With the exception of a several christenings and several funerals I never did again and never will.

When I see people being abused in the name of religion, regardless of religion and regardless of their circumstances, my protectiveness kicks in.

God knows I truly love people… it is bad behavior I take issue with… and particularly when that bad behavior is under the pretext of organized religion.

This is the end of it David… God Bless you and hopefully I will not disrupt your peace again.

-Fanny

Comment by FannyGirl — August 3, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Fanny -

Thank you for sharing your story. I can understand your hurt. I am not sure what this priest was thinking…or not thinking. Being an Irish Catholic in Protestant England, one does not have to imagine too much what might underlie his actions but to do something like that to a little girl is unthinkable–but I would hope that you do not consider it unforgivable.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that it is unfair to hold against all Catholics the actions of one sinner, especially when you had the opposite witness in your beloved Mother Superior. Any way, I would plead with you to pray for the healing needed to forgive this priest. It seems that you are still living with the scars of his actions. If you open yourself to God’s grace and allow Him to give you the peace needed to forgive the priest, you may be surprised by the results.

You might also consider why Jesus, being omnipotent God, chose Judas well knowing he would betray Him. Perhaps it was to prepare us for the fact that there would be Judas priests in all ages. Ordination does not destroy free will.

I think that you misunderstood Shelray. I have reread his article and it is in all honesty, still not at all clear to me what in his article that one might consider calloused or the perpetrating of garbage. I know him well and that is just not his character. Shelray is rather saying exactly what I have been saying. He is criticizing the psychiatric community for not offering this poor man authentic treatment of his underlying disease rather than telling him that what he needs is an operation that will permanently mutilate his God given body.

Finally, I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the Catholic Church for what this priest did. His actions did not then and never have reflected what the Catholic Church accepts as behavior from one of his priests. Let us pray for one another.

God Bless

Comment by David — August 4, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Hi David,

Please believe me when I tell you I have not and do not hold any or all Catholics responsible for the acts of the Irishman. That is the truth, I promise.

When I came here I had no thought and no intention of relating what happened to me. Few people in my life have known of it; I have rarely talked about it. Circumstances of discourse here brought it forward.

I will always have a special place in my heart for my beloved Mother Superior.

It was a sad thing to leave my three rosaries at the door of the church …but it gave me closure. I turned inward to find my own path to God having lost trust in organized religion to show me the way. I was never officially baptized and never participated in organized religion again.

On her death bed, my Mother asked me specifically as her last wish if I would please return to organized religion. Sadly and with very deep regret and tears, I had to tell her the truth… that is something I can never do again; that trust is gone forever. But I assured her, in spite of that, that my faith is strong and true and I follow my own path to God and not to worry for me… that we would see each other again.

Yes, I carry the scars such as they are. The Irishman’s attitudes and behaviors altered the course of my life. Had it not happened I possibly would be a Nun today… I don’t know… I will never know. It forced me, as an eleven year old, to deal with an ugliness of human nature… hatred… and a particular kind of hatred… hatred in the name of religion.

Mother Superior told me and my classmates together what they had done by spitting on me and calling me such types of names was what was done to our Jesus. Some of the children… later… came to me and apologized for what they had done, which I accepted.

The Irishman never spoke to me of it or of anything else… I concluded he was unrepentant. He got his obvious wish… I left for good.

David, worse things happen to better people than me.

I have moved on in my life and strive to live a righteous life in obedience of God and according to the teachings and examples of Jesus of Nazareth and additionally to combat and offset perceived hatred and its effects; and particularly… perceived hatred in the name of organized religion. Had Shelray’s article appeared on a secular website I probably would not have even left a comment.

Perhaps the Irishman’s attitudes and behaviors and the events it precipitated, turned my life in the direction it has taken for a reason. That will remain an unknown as well.

I never felt animosity towards the Irishman… what I felt was the pain of rejection and loss of trust… these are the scars. I found myself later in life in Ireland doing work for my company there with people whose company was a customer. Everyone there was Catholic. I was told Protestant jokes of the worst kind… I just smiled and said nothing remembering the words… “Forgive them Father… for they know not what they do.”

You spoke of Judas and I understand why… I have often considered, as a child and as an adult, why Jesus of Nazareth chose Judas to be a disciple and held him close and loved him in full knowledge of exactly what Judas was going to do and why he was going to do it. I felt I understood it then and now. It was a living example for all time of absolute love, thus forgiveness, for everyone regardless of their flaws… even in the circumstances of outright betrayal leading to death of living flesh.

It is for the same reason I have repeatedly said here and in my life… I take issue with attitudes and behaviors of people… not with people themselves. I love people.

It is love of people which brought me here in the first place… to speak to whoever the person was who wrote the article even thought it frightened me more than you know to do it. For all I knew, I was going to be dealing with a mindset of the ilk of a Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church; perhaps a person who might track me down and kill me in my bed as I sleep.

I now know that was not the case… It is why I told Shelray that I dropped my guard. Then you appeared and my guard went up again until I understood you better.

These are all issues of trust and fear and rejection and perceived hatred.

My altruism comes from the heart David. It is founded in empathy and love for all people as it does for my life example, Jesus of Nazareth.

I will post again on the subject of yet further clarification as to what exactly, and why, I felt empathic pain regarding Shelray’s article. That subject is different enough from the subject of this post for me not to include it here.

David wrote: Finally, I would like to apologize to you on behalf of the Catholic Church for what this priest did. His actions did not then and never have reflected what the Catholic Church accepts as behavior from one of his priests. Let us pray for one another.

David, I accept your heart felt apology on behalf of the Catholic Church. Please know it is very appreciated and it brought me to tears…

I often pray for every person in the universe… which included you and Shelray long before I ever met you two. Thank you for your prayer David. I have said a special one for you.

Sincerely,
Fanny

Comment by FannyGirl — August 4, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Hi David,

Clarification as to what I took issue with and why I felt empathic pain (thus anger) regarding Shelray’s article:

Shelray wrote: “The man, who now calls himself Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain”

It is considered highly disrespectful and hurtful and insulting in the most extreme to refer to a person such as Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain after their transition as a man and to continue to refer to them by way of male pronouns. The impact of that can not be understated. It’s worse than the N word.

You see David, although I have not met the person… the person, Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain, is someone I have to accept as a person of female gender. She, as I learned from a post on Bay Windows as a result of a Google search about her, underwent five years of gender therapy and medications, and was diagnosed by two gender specializing professionals who are members of WPATH to be afflicted with so-called Severe Gender Identity Disorder.

That is to say, she was professionally determined to be a true transsexual whose brain was deemed to be gendered differently from her XY chromosomes and her body… a person who eventually underwent sex reassignment surgery to avoid suicide in full understanding of the terribly high personal cost to herself in the form of loss of standing and status with regards to her family, work, and society and no doubt fall from standing and grace in her religion of birth… the Catholic Church. She is reported to be Irish Catholic.

I accept on faith, thus I believe, that her brain is in fact gendered female and was from birth in view of all this.

No one would go through such a ordeal on a whim or for some kind of sexual thrill and pass the requisite and numerous stringent litmus tests required by her attending health care providers who are bound by their profession to first do no harm and whom are also required to follow very strict guidelines set forth by The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH, formerly known as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, http://www.wpath.org/ ).

I understand that Shelray takes issue with the health care profession whose business it is to care for such people. I take issue with them also. Perhaps not for all the same reason’s but I take certain issue nonetheless and Shelray and I are in agreement on certian points.

Shelray wrote: … is suing the IRS in an attempt to advocate for those who desire to undergo “transgendering” surgical procedures with the hope of forcing the tax agency to manage these surgical procedures as any other tax deductible medical procedures.

David, WPATH itself deems and so states that the surgery is a medical necessity in limited cases such as the person we are discussing. WPATH is the world medical authority on this.

The IRS is reported to have been allowing such tax deductions for such surgeries for a quite a long time. It is reported, for some unstated, thus unknown, reason that in the case of Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain the IRS decided not to allow the deduction even though disallowing it in her case breaks its own long standing president of allowing it previously.

Shelray wrote: You would think common sense would dictate that mental disorders would be treated with psycho-therapy and medications, but then again, we’re talking about sex here.

David, this statement is very telling that Shelray was uninformed… so-called Severe Gender Identity Disorder has a prescribed triadic treatment regime which specifically includes psycho-therapy and medications. Surgery is the last resort. Please refer to the Standards of Care found at the WPATH web-site.

http://wpath.org/publications_standards.cfm
See the link at the bottom of the above link for that document in PDF form.

Shelray wrote: What’s probably most discouraging is that, more often than not, those with sex disorders have a slim to no chance of receiving the appropriate therapy due to the inmates in the psychiatric community who are running the asylum.

David, some of this has been addressed in previous posts. So-called Severe Gender Identity Disorder is not a sex disorder, by definition. Pedophilia and Bestiality are, by definition, sex disorders. Perhaps Fetishistic Transvestitism… but not True Transsexuality.

Homosexuality was considered a sex disorder and has now been removed from the DSM. I think it is an insult to Homosexuals to have been classified as having a sex disorder… it is an insult to persons like Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain to imply they have a sex disorder… it is a Gender Identity issue.

That is a breakdown of the issues I found with Shelray’s article.

Sincerely,
Fanny

Comment by FannyGirl — August 5, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Hi Shelray,

I wish to formally and publicly apologize to you dear.

I assumed malice and hatred on your part. I now know it was not your intent or feelings.

I sincerely apologize… Please forgive me Shelray… I am flawed.

Sincerely,
Fanny

Comment by FannyGirl — August 5, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Fanny -

Thank you for sharing both your personal experience and your thinking behind your original complaints about Shelray’s article.

If I could, I would like to mention a few issues which I think explain why we perhaps do not see eye to eye on this issue. These include: a) our understanding of faith, b) the understanding of the human person and the secular sciences competence in this regard, and finally, c) the issue of proclaiming the truth and the effects that this might have on those who take issue with it. At the end I would like to offer words on what you have shared about your personal journey.

With respect to the issue of faith: you say that you accept on faith that this person is a female. I cannot with the following as explanation. In previous posts you seemed to equate faith in government or medical pronouncements with faith in God? In one sense, it is correct to say that you accept on faith what someone with a particular expertise says if you do not have that expertise; but this is a natural faith. Natural faith shares similarities with but is distinctly different from supernatural faith. Supernatural faith is a gift from God. Both begin with reason. God has made us in His image and in doing so, given us intellect and will and these faculties separate us from the lower animals by giving us the unique ability to love (which is first an act of the will, and may or may not be accompanied by a corresponding emotion). We must first have a reason to trust, usually we accept that the one who presents us a proposition is trustworthy and competent. Further, one uses his intellect to understand the truth claims and judges them to be reasonable. However, supernatural faith differs from a natural faith. Because it is directed toward a Divine Person, this trust in God is returned with a gift of Himself that gives the one with faith a steadfastness that allows him to even lovingly lay down his life for the Truth if necessary. With respect to faith in what the secular sciences present, my faith in them is limited to their particular competence which leads to the next issue–the understanding of the human person.

Reason alone can allow us to see that the human person is a composite of body and soul–a unity. The secular sciences, however, limit themselves to a method which gives them no access to the non-material aspects of the human person and thus they reduce him to a biological entity. With this reductionist view of the human person they are at a distinct disadvantage in trying to understand and treat issues that arise not from biological effects but belong to the spiritual dimension. They can be especially confused if these problems with spiritual origin have biological manifestations (which should be expected of body-soul unities). Secular scientists do not understand the human person to have his foundation in the soul and so they assume that they can manipulate the body without regard to what underlies the bodily manifestation of the person. They reduce sex difference to the biological and treat it as such. That is what leads them to the assumption that they can change the body and believe that they change the sex. But changes to the body do not change the sex difference in the soul.

One can easily see that a sex change operation does nothing but mutilate the body. The operation gives no telos to the distortions they make of the body. The parts have no function that relates specifically to sex difference, they simply attempt to simulate the genitals of the other sex. In doing this, doctors do greater damage to the person instead of helping them. This is quite apparent also from the results of these operations; these people continue to struggle emotionally and psychologically but now they have to find another cause which is usually given to a general complaint that society at large still does not accept them. This is very common for those who are doing something that at a deep level, they know is wrong. They continually require reaffirmation and become very upset when they do not get it.

Only a very small percentage of bridge-brained men develop Same Sex Attraction Disorder and a smaller percentage of these actually develop a distress with their bodies’ sexual characteristics. There is a clear tie between the two by the way; the medical community’s separation of SSAD and GID as completely different issues again, is based upon a reductionist view of the human person and an a priori removal of SSAD as a disorder. Thus, they have lost the ability to study and understand the issue as a whole. The removal of SSAD as a disorder (done in the US because of political pressure rather than due to findings of science) did a great disservice to those who suffer from it. It may make them feel better at one level, but they have essentially lost treatment for this disease and so we now see the vast majority of those suffering from SSAD at a much deeper level. This majority spend their lives in treatment for a variety of emotional and psychological pathologies that have been artificially disassociated from their SSAD and so there is little possibility that they will ever be healed. This brings us to the issue of whether it is right to call SSA a disorder or if it is correct to refer to people who mutilate their bodies because of a pathology in hopes of resolving their problems, the sex which their bodies seem to present after the operation.

I understand, from your experience, your empathy for those who believe that they are attacked when someone tells them that they have a disorder or that they are male when they want to believe that they are female (or vice versa). This empathy for their feelings is meritorious. However, as I have previously mentioned, I do not think that your anger at others (Shelray in this case) is justified who find that the most loving thing to do is to present those who suffer from disorders, with the truth. Perhaps an example might help illustrate my meaning. As an example, say that someone believes something that is demonstrably not true but has invested himself so much in this belief that to tell him it is not true would seriously hurt his feelings/self-image. Perhaps for this example, something extreme might serve–while otherwise a reasonable person, our subject comes to believe that he can drink poison with impunity and has made this a central part of his identity. Is it heartless to perhaps hurt him, make him angry, and even upset his perceived personal identity to try to show him that his beliefs, if he acts upon them, will harm and possibly kill him? While you believe, because of your faith in the medical community, it is an insult to say that SSA is a disorder and to call GID a sexual disorder, Shelray and I find that a more complete understanding of the human person, which the medical evidence supports, shows that these are in fact different manifestations of the same root disorder. We have reasons to understand the medical community (the majority anyway because the removal of SSAD as a disorder and the view of sex difference as merely biological are not unanimous positions). Our positions are not based upon ignorance but on an informed study of the issues…and yes, supported by the unchanging Judeo-Christian teaching about the truth of the human person.

While we have not convinced each other of our respective views, perhaps our discussion has demonstrated that articulating the specifics of the issues can help us to understand the others’ real views. Even more, I think that we have found that our serious disagreements of issues can be discussed without assuming ill will on the part of the one with which we disagree?

Finally, a thought or two on your personal story. You are wise to see that what happened to you was damage to your ability to trust; perhaps, particularly perhaps representatives of the Catholic Church? I understand that turning away from the organization which this Irish priest represented was a very understandable response for an 11 year old little girl. The hurt you experienced make it understandable that you would want to avoid that which you associated with such an extreme source of personal pain. Might I suggest though that, as you recognize, trust is an act of the will and so you can choose. Even though there are scars, it is still within your capacity to choose to trust, even though it may risk pain.

We are made to live with one another and so we cannot survive in this world without trust. However, because we are in a fallen world, this means by necessity, that we must open ourselves up to being hurt. When Jesus came, He did not say that He would remove the possibility of hurting each other even among those who embrace Him and His Church. What He did promise was that He would be with us always–that in following Him our yoke would never be more than we could bear. In fact, he said that to follow Him we would have to take up our crosses and suffer with Him. Moreover, we follow Him most perfectly when we do accept the suffering that we cannot avoid, and offer it in union with Him. This is what St. Paul was talking about in Col 1:24 when he said that he rejoiced in his sufferings for the building up of the Church, the sufferings that were lacking on the Cross. These sufferings that were lacking were the sufferings that Christ’s Body, the Church, would continue to suffer until Jesus comes again in glory at the end of time. It is suffering that you can offer for the reparations of the sins of the world. It is sufferings that you can offer for healing of the suffering of others as well.

While this sounds to many of us today who are culturally conditioned to think that making truth claims that exclude other truth claims is arrogant (see my post from yesterday for more on this) let me say that the path to becoming Catholic you were on as a child was the correct one. Scripture and the 2000 years of history demonstrate that Jesus did found a Church and left St. Peter and the Apostles in charge of it–not to rule (in a negative sense) but to shepherd it. This leadership is still found in the Bishops who follow the line of succession from the Apostles and in union with the Pope–the successor to St. Peter. Scripture says said that we have to die with Him if we are to rise with Him–we have to be born again in Baptism. In this Sacrament, we go down into the waters of regeneration and die to our fallen selves and become, as St. Paul said, new creations. We are then sealed in the Holy Spirit with the Sacrament of Confirmation, as the Holy Spirit sealed the Church at Pentecost and then we complete this communion with our Bridegroom, Christ, in the Eucharist. Holy Communion is the most intimate communion we can have with God this side of heaven–that is why Jesus told us that His Flesh is real food and His Blood, real drink–that those who eat His Flesh and drink His Blood will have eternal life.

I pray that you do not let an apparent Judas priest come in between you and these gifts of Himself that Jesus suffered and died to give you. I cannot promise that you would not be hurt again, but I can promise you that with these gifts which unite you into Christ’s Mystical Body you will have the strength to accept any suffering God permits you to suffer and in doing so your suffering will become that same suffering of the Cross–you will in the most intimate of ways, be Jesus’ spouse and coworker in bringing others healing and many “sons to glory” in heaven.

Fanny - your loving heart is a great witness to me. It makes me long even more for you to receive the gifts Jesus intends you (and everyone) to have and so be given all that you need to not only become what God calls you to become but in doing so that you can also bring others to His truth as well. Let us continue to pray for one another.

God Bless

Comment by David — August 5, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Fanny girl - Your comment of apology truely touched me and am humbled by your words as I write the words of accepting your apology. Who cannot find a humble and contrite heart irresistible and worthy of peace and happiness. Thank you fanny girl as I continue to learn of my own flaws of character which includes pre-judgement in my heart.

God Bless

Comment by shelray — August 6, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Dear Shelray and David,

I love you both…

Always,
Fanny

Comment by FannyGirl — August 11, 2007 @ 5:09 pm