1) Sex is predefined before birth
2) Sex is defined by one's role is in the process of reproduction
3) One's gender must be inline with one's sex, one cannot contradict the other without disrupting the natural order
About #3: I think we should let nature speak for itself here... [1]
As for #1: Yes, usually, but not always [2][3]. Sometimes children are born of indeterminate sex, for a whole range of reasons. The practice used to be that doctors decided what sex it should be and made the appropriate operations to change the outer organs to match his decision. Often with the consequence that the gender the child felt it was didn't match its physical sex, and you can imagine that it can be quite distressing. Luckily things are changing a bit on that front.
PS. I took the liberty of removing the quotation brackets around the word identity in the thread title. Hope you don't mind too much.
1 Appeal to nature. The "natural order" is just a buzzword with no inherent meaning.
2 That discrepancy can be medically corrected.
Natural order is the order in which all beings were created, and the ends they were created to accomplish (i.e. nose to hear, eyes to see). The Natural order cannot be "corrected."
Natural order is the order in which all beings were created, and the ends they were created to accomplish (i.e. nose to hear, eyes to see).
A few things with this.
1- no one human is using their nose to hear
2 - technically then to you any disability is disrupting the "natural order" so what about people who are blind or deaf?
3 - having things to see or hear with has no bearing on sexual identity at all.
@Boofuss,
1- Typo. I meant "ears to hear" but was daydreaming
2- Any disability disrupts the natural order, yes.
3- Just like a ear was made to hear, the reproductive organs were made to perform a function, and any alterations disrupt the natural order.
@Ntech
You don't seem to have supported your claim that the function of an organ represents a moral obligation.
Could you also please explain why you separate animals from humans according to instinct vs. reason (I think that was in the abortion thread), even though it contradicts your claim of a "natural order" that we supposedly need to follow?
1 - Not all bodies are made the same, not all ears are made to hear, not all eyes to see, not all limbs exist the same for everyone.
2 -Surely, anything God creates is the "natural order"? How much of a disability does it have to be before it stops being His Work and becomes against the natural order?
3 -How can anything He creates not be part of the natural order?
How can you claim to know which bits of creation are His work and which deviate from His work?
Natural order is the order in which all beings were created, and the ends they were created to accomplish (i.e. nose to hear, eyes to see). The Natural order cannot be "corrected."
Like I said; a meaningless buzzword.
I put "Identity" in quote because I wanted to put emphasis that one's "Identity" is one's sex.
That's an extremely generalized notion of identity.
3- Just like a ear was made to hear, the reproductive organs were made to perform a function, and any alterations disrupt the natural order.
So, what you are saying is that chastity is a violation of the natural order?
No, because chastity does not impede the reproductive organs from being able to perform their function, it just does not use them.
- The result is the same, so where's the difference?
- I still don't understand why we, as rational beings having free will (supposedly), would have to submit to organic functions that are not essential for survival.
- The result is the same, so where's the difference?
- I still don't understand why we, as rational beings having free will (supposedly), would have to submit to organic functions that are not essential for survival.
1. The difference is that one is capable of performing one's duties.
2. Natural order is the purpose for which matter exists. Anything contradictory to Natural order is contradictory to God's Plan (Natural order), and as such is immoral.
Neither does gender dysphoria, so I'm not seeing the problem here.
Dysphoria prevents one from carrying out reproduction even if he/she wanted to. This is a abnormality, unlike chastity, in which one is still capable.
1. The difference is that one is capable of performing one's duties.
If that is your sole reason, then you've got it backwards I'm afraid. Do you really mean to say that it is more moral to willingly refuse to use something that God has given you for a specific purpose, and less moral to be born incapable, through no fault of yourself, to use it " properly"?
2. Natural order is the purpose for which matter exists. Anything contradictory to Natural order is contradictory to God's Plan (Natural order), and as such is immoral.
But such things are part of the "natural order" of things, if such a thing would really exist. They happen naturally, not by the decision or through the fault of the person concerned. If that is immoral, then the natural order (God's Plan) is immoral.
