How do we handle the science of sex/gender

Blue eyes must have been considered an abnormality in the first man who had the genetic mutation causing them since almost everyone else probably had brown eyes, but I have a hard time seeing blue eyes as being a result of a fallen world.


So, are straight men only sexually attracted to women because of a conditioned response and could some of them be turned into homosexuals with the right “conversion therapy”?

Not “only” but yep.

This seems to imply that it’s more being born without desire for sex:

From St. Ambrose
There are three kinds of eunuchs, two carnal and the third spiritual. One group are those who are born this way. Another are those who are made into eunuchs by captivity or for pleasuring older women. The third are those who “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” and who become eunuchs for Christ though they could be whole men. The last group are promised the reward. The other two, for whom chastity is not a matter of willing but necessity, are due nothing at all. We can put it another way. There are eunuchs from birth who are of a rather frigid nature and not inclined to lust. There are others who are made eunuchs by men, those who are made so by philosophers, others who are made weak toward sex from their worship of idols, and still others who by heretical persuasion feign chastity so as to falsely claim the truth of religion. None of the above is receptive to the kingdom of heaven. Only the person who for Christ seeks chastity wholeheartedly and cuts off sexual impurity altogether [is the genuine eunuch]. So he adds, “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it,” so that each of us should look to his own strength as to whether he can carry out the commands of virginity and chastity. Chastity in itself is agreeable and alluring; but one must look to one’s strength so that “he who is able to receive this may receive it.” It is as if the Lord with his words were urging on his soldiers to the reward of chastity with these words: He who is able to receive this let him receive it; he who is able to fight, let him fight and conquer. .

Actually yes. They are. As are different languages, skin color, and cultures.

1 Like

Not quite.

You need an XX and XY to create new life, which is what sexual reproduction is.
There is no “third” configuration needed to create life.
Therefore, there are only two sexes.

There are chromosomal anomalies and birth defects. These are not “extra” sexes.
If the individual produces sperm, then they are male no matter what outward appearance may suggest.
If they produce ova, then they are female. Full stop.
If they don’t produce either, and the chromosomes are inconclusive, it’s a birth defect.

Be very careful to pay attention to these distinctions.
There are a lot of agenda-driven people who have reasons other than science to cast confusion into the questions of sexuality, and will on purpose try to say “intersex, therefore trans”.
Even though they know better.


Actually, you should provide a link to your claim. The other person does not have to disprove something you provided no evidence for.

With all due respect extra sexual chromosomes is a genetic abnormality. I cannot comment on albinism as I’m unsure of the chromosomal causes.

During meiosis (generation of sex cells) occasionally there are errors with separation of chromosomes. If this egg or sperm happens to be involved with fertilisation process all subsequent cells will hold this abnormality (via mitosis). Thus the embryo will only have these defected cells.

We must consider those poor individuals with any autosomal chromosomes combination other than XX and XY as someone with a medical condition. Some are easier to mask than others.

They are people with abnormalities.

1 Like

I think uf we look back all the way to Adam and Eve, God had created Man (Adam) and from man he created Woman (Eve). If there had been alternate genders, would it make sense that it would have been revealed to us in the beggining of time?

1 Like

So help me, I am not trying to be “cute” or “clever”, but what if a person had both types of gonads, and produced both? Not sure it has ever happened among human beings, but it does occur in nature.

Unless it is a teaching under the ordinary infallibility of the magisterium — and it doesn’t seem to be (I’ll welcome correction on that point) — I have to suspend judgment and assent of mind to the proposition that “every human person is essentially either male or female”. (Those may not have been the exact words, but that’s the upshot of the recent document.) There are some people who don’t neatly fall into either category.

That would be specific to their species as designed, but doesn’t apply to us because that’s not how we were designed.

No, but I am just saying “what if it did happen?”. Our Lord is able to allow people, due to original sin, to be born with birth defects, this would just be one more of them. And to insist "yes, but that unfortunate person with both male and female generative abilities still has to be pigeon-holed into either ‘male’ or ‘female’ " seems to me, to be kind of narrow-minded.

That said, if the Church solemnly teaches such a thing, I shall follow Loyola’s dictum, and repudiate my “white” in favor of the Church’s “black”. But I don’t think that’s what has happened so far.

How do you classify mutations that result in sterility?

Still wouldn’t be a “third sex”.

A “third sex” would have to be directly involved in the producing a new life.

And I’d like to point out that this is a very new concept.

The original claim of transsexuals when it first emerged in the medical literature a little more than 100 years ago was “trapped in the wrong body”.

Not that there were multiple sexes, but that they were born in the “wrong” one. And this is important because certain activists like to play with very slippery language.
It’s meant to confuse and manipulate you.


The Y gene and other genes such as AR.

There are also those with 46XY karyotype that have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (the body cannot use androgens) which leads to female external sex characteristics yet without a uterus. In some this is partial insensitivity with the appearance of the genitals and breasts that may vary from person to person. Mutations in the AR located on the X chromosome are responsible for it.

The Lancet (

Volume 380, Issue 9851, 20–26 October 2012, Pages 1419-1428

So you were recently told*, and believed what this person told you. (Perhaps it happened in a formal educational institution, and that’s why you were inclined to believe what you were told there? Or you read it in a book from a source you usually trust, or heard it from a person you generally consider reliable, and that’s why you believed what you were told?) What source did you hear this from, and why do you consider this source trustworthy to make declarations as grand as there being more than two human sexes?

There has been no such discovery. Catholics were already aware of intersex and related phenomena, and while further developments of chromosomal science are as fascinating as most branches of science, what you seem to consider the key “discovery” (not the presence of genetic abnormalities among some individuals, but the interpretation of ideologues that we should call everyone who lives with an abnormality a fundamentally new type of human) is mere ideological interpretation. It’s not a ‘fact’, it’s part of a belief system embedded in a series of ideologies heavily invested in pushing for the general collapse of all sense of boundaries, categorization, and objective morality, so they can remake the world in a new image (which is whatever they’ll feel like at the time).

I think this is key to the whole question.

‘Gender’, though a word abused by ideologues these days who try to drag it into meaning merely surface cultural or social role occupation, points obviously towards biological realities, because of the root ‘gen’: Gender refers to the genitalia by which each human participates in generating the next generation of the human species.

We can identify a human gender by identifying which role they would biologically play in generating the next generation of humans, if their body were in good health. A woman being infertile doesn’t make her less a woman. This stays true if her infertility is related to a chromosomal issue. And if a given chromosomal issue doesn’t even cause infertility, that allows it to be even more obvious.

Anyway I’d agree with Scarlett’s point. The key seems to be that gender is about generation. There’s no such thing as a true third human sex unless it effectively occupies a brand new third role in procreating new humans. Unless it does that, mere infertility doesn’t count. And even if external features may seem confusing, if fertility is present? It’s certainly going to either manifest as insemination (the proof of maleness) or effectively nurturing the baby in the womb (femaleness).


This is positively brilliant! This cuts right to the core of the whole question.

I didn’t say that such a person would be a “third sex”. I was referring to the fact, as I see it, that they would not be either biologically male or biologically female, if anything, they would be “both/and” — kind of like a chimera of gender. To say "well, even with this unfortunate reality being what it is, the Church says that every human person is either male or female, so you’ve got to figure out, and we’ve got to figure out, ‘which one you are’ " seems like it is forcing a dichotomy that might be impossible to make. It very well could be that the person could say “yes, I have male genitals, in addition to female ones, but regardless, I pretty much ‘feel’ like I’m a woman, even though admittedly there is a lot of ‘man’ to me” (or vice versa). But it could also be “I don’t really know what I am, I’m as much one as the other, and I can’t come down clearly on either side”.

At this point, my thought exercise is probably veering onto the rumble strips of sheer theoretical speculation. I have never heard of a person who has two fully functioning dual reproductive systems. They might have vestiges of one with a preponderance of the other, but that would be a different situation.

I am not one to “mute” threads, nor to “cut and run”, but I have really said all I can about this subject. I’ve run dry. All I can say, is that whatever gender a person is, or is not, they are still created in the image and likeness of God, with an eternal destiny, and a defect of birth is a morally neutral situation that just can’t be helped. Having committed even one venial sin in one’s life is a far greater tragedy than being a reproductive chimera.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit