Why shouldn't transgender people alter their bodies?

Transgenderism != sex-change surgery.

As was pointed out earlier on the forum, many transgenders live out their life without mutilating their bodies.


That is because sex reassignment surgery is generally not covered under health plans. The impression is that a good number of those deciding to transition and start on hormones, more MtFs than FtMs, are on the SRS track. In fact, in certain sectors, some are looking to government programs funded by taxpayers for what they deem to be a medically indicated surgery.

For the financially able, the only consideration left is if they would pass psych and medical screening and if they would take the potential risks and future costs associated with a major and life changing surgery like the need for hormone therapy and dilation to maintain the constructed vaginal cavity for the rest of their lives. In addition to the genital surgery, there is a wish list for secondary cosmetic procedures, i.e., tracheal shave to be rid of the masculine appearance of the Adam’s apple, face and body contouring, hair removal procedures, voice training to raise the pitch, etc.

So far as I know though, there’s nothing they can do about the hands. Bruce/Caitlyn still has man hands!

… nor with his feet, reportedly size 13M! To compete with the image of his daughters and ex wife in their “reality” show, he needs a special manufacturer for those sexy stiletto shoes.

Well he’s got the money. I don’t think people who can’t pay for it should be able to use taxpayers’ money to do it though. It’s definitely a luxury, not a necessity.

My mom had “man hands” so shut up! :mad:

There are many, many online catalogs that cater to cross dressers and drag queens that will fit the bill. The clothing isn’t more expensive or specialized than plus sizes for women.

This really has nothing to do with your mom, unless your mom was a man.

Yes, it does. You are picking on superficial appearance, something that doesn’t even matter. What if Caitlyn’s hands were tiny dainty things? What would be your point then? Or should I ask: What would you pick on then? Because there are some trans* people who transition easily and you would never know that they are trans*.

People like you who mock another’s appearance and those who have issues with tattoos or pink hair or what have you are not that different from people who make mock those with scars or birthmarks, or disabilities. You are telegraphing to everyone who witnesses it that it’s okay to say unkind things or point out superficial differences.

And if my mom had been a man what do you think you could say to me that wouldn’t insult her and hurt me? Think. Carefully. :mad:

I reguraly point out many, many flaws in people’s body structures, appearances, and disabilities. It’s part of how I determine the best way to treat them. I agree with you for the most part on your point, but occasionally its permissible to recognize differences and abnormalities in situations and talk about them. I completely agree that it should be done with respect though and for the good of the person.

If your mother really did have large hands, I would most definitely note this if I were to ever meet her. It’s interesting and possibly relevant to many situations.

If your mother at one point really was aan and that was the reaaon for the large hands, then it would be possible to provide encouragement in what could have possibly been a huge mistake seeing as how there is very little evisende to suggest that we really know that sex-changes are truly beneficial.

For those of us with physical imperfections and insecurities, the questions isn’t will be mocked or ridiculed but rather how will we respond when it happens? I believe the poster was attempting to possibly defray your potential negative-feelings with humor but instead had the opposite effect.

As for tattoos and pink hair, the individuals are making a public statement by changing their natural appearance. There will be a public reaction and some chose to express it pubiclly. Why would the person with the tattoos or hair have the right to make a public statement through their actions but others wouldn’t have the right to also react in a public manner? I for one find many tattoos fascinating. I also find is appropriate to ask others about their faith when they have religious tattoos. Would you consider this mocking?

Because you take offense or feel insult on behalf of your mom does not mean you are right with the conclusion you reached.

Nobody attacked your mother. This is a forum where members have exchanges on issues of interest to people who follow and do not follow Catholic beliefs. What you objected to is expressed observation in general. Men who wish to alter their bodies as is the subject of this thread (with the case of Bruce Jenner getting mentioned) indeed have bigger and masculine looking hands, along with other physical characteristics that natal men tend to have, e.g., broad shoulders, square jaw, etc., and yes, bigger feet than those of women’s.

Telling a member to “shut up” is not polite. There must be a more mature and appropriate way of expressing your negative reaction to a post in this forum. You can articulate your position without the hostility. The moderator needs to review your posting conduct.

While I think it best not to mock another’s appearance–there is a big difference in commenting on the appearance of someone who willingly altered their appearance as opposed to those who are born with birthmarks or disabilities or have scars from an accident. Someone chooses to put tattoos all over their body or neck or face, or to dye their hair pink–no one chooses their birthmark or disability. The person with the giant tattoo on their face may be a nice person–but the fact that they put a tattoo on their face–says something about who they are or who they were when they did it. A giant birthmark on their face does not and so there is a bit of a difference. A tattoo showing gang affiliation–would not be a superficial difference in my opinion–but rather a piece of evidence shedding light on whether or not I should want that person around–a birthmark doesn’t do this.

The peace of Christ,

How the appearance manifested is different but it is still unkind to mock something like that. Maybe we feel righteous by pointing them out but it still smacks of bigotry. When a relative said to me, “Look at that little black boy” my mom intervened and told them she didn’t want me raised that way. I would do the same thing if someone said, “look at that fat lady” or “look at that guy with that tattoos”. It gives those listening permission to do the same thing.

On noting a gang tattoo: First, you have accurate knowledge about gang tattoos? Even which ones are fake? If you want to make note of it, fine; you can reassess at any time. But if you tell others, you may not get the chance to correct your mistake before it’s all over the place.

Back to the first part about mocking or other disparaging remarks about someone’s altered appearance - one might want to read about or listen to how trans* people feel about their bodies before doing so. And maybe consider the same thing could be said about someone who had not altered his or her body: a woman who looks manish, or has lost a lot of weight and has loose skin on her hands; oh heck, just pick up the gossip rags when they tear down celebrities who have gained weight, are aging, had poor cosmetic surgery, etc. I guess I’m just sick of seeing that and how it encourages readers to the same.

It’s definitely a luxury, not a necessity.

To say this shows how much you need to research about what really happens to the transsexual person.

This actually isn’t about my mom. As I mentioned in my reply to Mark from Oregon I’m sick and tired of the pettiness of tearing down people’s appearances. I’m still not over or okay with a CA apologist writing about not wanting to see someone’s sandled gnarly feet. But I guess sandled but perfectly-pedicured feet would be okay modesty-wise, as modesty was the topic.

And I stand by my “shut-up”. I articulate my posts without hostility just fine but after awhile even I find it simpering and ineffectual. And frankly, the pettiness called out for it. If I see it again, I’ll probably do it again.

And by the way, I can post (again) some images of a trans* woman who is feminine and more objectively beautiful than most women, period. You wouldn’t be able to tell she transitioned. So, are you going to remark on her flat chest? Her legs for miles? Oh, wait, her moles, right? See, when the subject doesn’t have anything physical to mock what has happened? All you’ve done is picked on one person who is older (and let’s be honest women lose a lot of skin and muscle tone as they age due to changing hormones) versus one that is younger and naturally more feminine.


You cannot justify an act by declaring, or even observing, that it “fixes a naturally occurring situation”. It may, and the act may be moral, but it is not moral solely because of the reason you gave. Your reason could be used to justify any number of explicitly immoral acts. Catholic morality 101: the ends do not justify the means. I think we have discussed this before.

A man desiring to appear a woman does not cut off his genitalia because they are defective or diseased or damaging to the person. How could we argue that the absence of female form is harmful to a man? What is damaging to the person is the mind (brain) denying the bodily reality.

How best to help this person is a difficult challenge and I don’t have a position on what acts, to that end, are moral. But your argument is certainly not helpful.

Often transgender people seriously try to realign their mind to their body, but they find it neither works nor helps to do such. Sometimes they enlist in the military to try to make themselves feel masculine, but it just doesn’t work. Transitioning is to make the excruciating dissonance stop.

I believe and understand what you say.

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