manifestly continue in opposing Catholic morals and dogma.

Even repentant, ex-mutilators?

The mutilations they undergo do not place them in a new, permanent state.
"Sex change" mutilations do not change one's sex.

Utterly fatuous.  Cutting off one's penis is permanent. It ends up in a waste bucket in the operating room and is then incinerated.

Grafting a roll of skin or turning a flap of skin to poorly mimic a penis is not reverting to the "old" state.

Analogous case for female-to-pseudomale.

By admitting one's mistake of mutilating his or her body and considering oneself the sex assigned at birth.

The remains of sin persist after baptism, whether they're bodily apparent (as in the case of body mutilators) or not.

You have ignored my careful and considered use of the word "manifest."

Privately admitting and "considering" one's mistake while remaining manifestly mutilated does not justify the scandal of public Baptism.

Just as sincere repentance of theft demands restitution, sincere repentance of mutilation demands a manifest reversion to the actual sex. Showing up with fake genitalia and a store-bought chest at the Baptismal font is not manifest evidence of sincere repentance.

Geremia, I am really surprised at you. In the past, even when I have disagreed with you, you have been rational in your arguments.  For reasons on which I will not speculate, you have gone off the rails in this matter.

When we fought the pedos and fαɢɢօts in our N.O. diocese, we prepared brochures to transmit authentic Catholic dogma and morality.

From one brochure, this excerpt was memorable:

St. Catherine of Siena, a 14th. century mystic among the 33 Doctors of the Catholic Church, experienced many visions of Our Lord. In her Dialog she quotes Jesus: “They not only fail from resisting this frailty…but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them.…It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”

If demons are repulsed by sodomitic acts in the un-mutilated, how much more repulsed are they by the depravity of permanent sɛҳuąƖ mutilation aimed at furthering such sodomitic acts?

Most trans people were manipulated by others. Even if their mutilation is 'permanent' it will easily be restored on the day of judgement. If they truly repent and try to go back to normal to the best of their ability then I don't see the issue.

You don't see the issue???

Publicly Baptizing those who manifestly oppose Catholic morals and dogma is the issue.

Now do you see the issue?

Once mutilated, always mutilated. Cutting off one's genitals is permanent.

Which is manifest? the repentance? or the rejection of Catholic morality?

Are genitals, or rather the lack thereof, going to be manifest when performing a baptism?

If anything, the only persons to ever see such ever again are themselves or a doctor, as the mutilation will be an impediment to marriage.

It would seem the rejection of Truth is the gravest sin not necessarily the removal of body parts.

Rather, mutilation is not an unforgivable sin.

Even the video from MHFM in Reply # 46 states that a former transsɛҳuąƖ who no longer identifies as such can be baptized. At the 2:00 time stamp of the video.

Being mutilated, in and of itself, is not an impediment to baptism.

This is a straw man fallacy.   Apparently your team needs to play stupid.

Nobody here has said that sincerely repentant trannies cannot be Baptized.

Our complaint—a complaint consistent with 2,000 years of Catholic praxis (!!!)— regards public Baptism of trannies who manifestly appear to oppose Catholic morals and dogma.

The genital mutilation is permanent. There is absolutely no human way to revert to a normal unmutilated state. Is a priest expected to examine the privates of anyone seeking Baptism? Emphatically. NO!***

However if a person (1) presents for Baptism (2) was born a male, and (3) is still sporting store-bought "breasts" (or dresses as a woman, one may reasonably question: (4) the sincerity of repentance and (5) the propriety of publicly Baptizing a male who presents himself appearing as female. 

Analogously, if a person (1) presents for Baptism (2) was born a female, and (3) is still sporting a beard and dresses and coiffs as a man, one may reasonably question: (4) the sincerity of repentance and (5) the propriety of publicly Baptizing a female who presents herself appearing as male.

These are not difficult concepts. By now it is perfectly clear that you recognize the weakness of your position, since your team invokes straw man arguments and consistently ignore the points that I have repeatedly emphasized: (1) public versus private and (2) the manifest appearance of opposing Catholic morals and dogma.

***The rabbis do examine nude women in the ritual bath prior to conversion to тαℓмυdic Judaism.