Author Topic: Clarification (Read 1210 times)

poche · « **on:** September 29, 2013, 04:31:35 AM »

The owner of Fisheaters has posted a clarification on teh matter of the alleged transɛҳuąƖ that posted there. I will include part of it. Would teh fact that this person was recieving this surgury in order to correct a serious congenital defect change the opinions of any of the people here?

"A then-traditionalist Catholic on a traditionalist forum revealed to the rest of the forum, in a forum post, that "she" (that pronoun being the one the forum owner uses), a chromosomal male with Eunuchoid habitus syndrome, is transgendered, that "she" has spoken about "her" situation with two traditionalist priests and the Catholic Bioethics Center and was, in essence, "green-lighted" to stop taking male hormones and begin taking estrogen. The above-mentioned Vatican docuмent provided by the Catholic News Service and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops through National Catholic Register was brought to light in the process of this revelation. The forum owner congratulated the transgendered person for "her" "bravery" in revealing such a thing and wished "her" well."

If there was a congenital defect involved then this operation would appear to not fall under the category of a confused man wanting to be a woman but rather some one with a serious congenital deformity who is trying to make a correction.

Quasimodo · « **Reply #1 on:** September 29, 2013, 05:05:57 AM »

Quote from: poche

The owner of Fisheaters has posted a clarification on teh matter of the alleged transɛҳuąƖ that posted there. I will include part of it. Would teh fact that this person was recieving this surgury in order to correct a serious congenital defect change the opinions of any of the people here?

"A then-traditionalist Catholic on a traditionalist forum revealed to the rest of the forum, in a forum post, that "she" (that pronoun being the one the forum owner uses), a chromosomal male with Eunuchoid habitus syndrome, is transgendered, that "she" has spoken about "her" situation with two traditionalist priests and the Catholic Bioethics Center and was, in essence, "green-lighted" to stop taking male hormones and begin taking estrogen. The above-mentioned Vatican docuмent provided by the Catholic News Service and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops through National Catholic Register was brought to light in the process of this revelation. The forum owner congratulated the transgendered person for "her" "bravery" in revealing such a thing and wished "her" well."

If there was a congenital defect involved then this operation would appear to not fall under the category of a confused man wanting to be a woman but rather some one with a serious congenital deformity who is trying to make a correction.

A chromosomal male with eunuchoid habitus syndrome is a male. It wouldn't be a correction to further mutilate themselves to appear less male.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #2 on:** September 29, 2013, 05:38:01 AM »

If the self-mutilator is being congratulated for "her" bravery, then self-aggrandizement is probably at the bottom of it all.

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** September 29, 2013, 07:05:18 AM »

A congenital defect? I would say a congenital defect would mean that a penis needed some surgery to make it more penis-like or a vagina more vagina-like, no? How does a congenital defect mean a vagina formed when a penis should have formed (or vice versa)?

When I have heard of other congenital defects they were the same organ that was somehow deformed. For example, a congenital heart defect doesn't mean we do surgery to make it a lung.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #4 on:** September 29, 2013, 08:37:48 AM »

Uh, first, there's nothing ALLEGED about it.

Second, any defense of a congenital defect goes out the window when the person receiving the surgery, born a man, assumes the sɛҳuąƖ identity of a WOMAN and purports that identity in their interactions with others.

This is kindergarten stuff. If you're born with boy parts, you're a boy. You can't change that, and attempting to is a grave sin against nature.

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** September 29, 2013, 08:47:27 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Uh, first, there's nothing ALLEGED about it.

Second, any defense of a congenital defect goes out the window when the person receiving the surgery, born a man, assumes the sɛҳuąƖ identity of a WOMAN and purports that identity in their interactions with others.

This is kindergarten stuff. If you're born with boy parts, you're a boy. You can't change that, and attempting to is a grave sin against nature.

LOL "boy parts". Apparently, I should have used that term and "girl parts" in my previous post.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** September 29, 2013, 11:15:35 AM »

"Vatican secret docuмent" blah blah blah
"Catholic Bioethics Center" blah blah blah
"congenital deformity" blah blah blah

...where does the wallowing in filth and promiscuity on a gαy porn site enter in to the picture?

In other words, defect or no, this man is messed up. Why do gαys ALWAYS have to be obsessed with sex, not to mention a perverted variety? No one pushing "gαy rights" ever deigns to address that.

So this analogy is NOT true:

Impy is to his gαy lover(s)
as
Matthew is to his wife

BUZZZ! Wrong. Try again.