Actually many different species normally change their sex. For some it's a response their immediate environment, so it's a stage in their life development, and some species even do it as a response to stress.
This is mostly observed in certain species of fish and not humans. Also these fish have the genotype of both sexes in terms of sex cells (gonads), but the the expression of a gonad (male or the female) is suppressed until environmental triggers causes the supressed phenotype to be expressed. Transsexuals don't have the genotype for both male and female sex cells so your analogy is incompatible. These fish aren't sterile and can reproduce, a male born male can not reproduce or ovulate no matter how much hormones and operations he goes through. Any human sex change occurs as a matter of "choice".
In humans, it strongly seems to be rooted in chromosomes that trigger a fetus to develop into one sex while the brain in exposed to a higher level of hormones of the sex opposite of the chromosomes, which causes the brain to develop more like that of the sex opposite of the chromosomes.
Got it. I haven't been able to find any peer-reviewed consensus on if the biological factors (as opposed to environmental factors - nurture) applies to all transsexuals or if that's the only factor but I will look into that more.
There is also no need to reconcile 21st century science with an ancient holy text. Transsexualism is a debilitating condition that degrades one's quality of life. The Bible says our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit; should we not take care of this temple and improve, as best we can, its functions? There is also the main focus of Christianity, Jesus' life and teachings, and he only had a problem with hypocrites and money lenders defiling the temple.
The Bible is also contains a number of ancient cures for various ailments. How is treating one condition ok, while treating another wrong? Ergo, because transsexualism is a disorder, and because the Bible approves treating disorders, treating transsexualism is compliant with Biblical law.
Yes, normally we get treatment for diseases to make the condition better but getting a sex change can make the matter worse if that goes against God's rules. So really, your reasoning assumes that changing the sex is the only option and/or the moral option. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that if it's healthy but I won't give the bible writers the benefit of the doubt to think that their standards of what's healthy is the same as ours. It's no different than the unreasonableness of the biblical writers to expects gays to suppress their same-sex urges. Jewish understanding is that you were "born" male and female and to change from that would be against nature, period.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate [other translations mention homosexuals], ..."
According to Philo, some males acted and dressed like women to attract men. Interestingly I've heard testimony of Brazilian male prostitutes who dress up like women or become transsexual to make more money by attracting more men!!! Some straight men may be more open to men if they look just as good as women unless these transsexuals are fooling all of these men which is unlikely. I'll let Philo (FIRST century Jewish philosohper) explain to you transsexualism in the Roman world which may be what the Apostle Paul was alluding to but it also shows Jewish thought was AGAINST transsexuals.
Works of Philo Paragraph 8, line 37
Line37 Moreover, another evil, much greater than that which we have already mentioned, has made its way among and been let loose upon cities, namely, the love of boys, which formerly was accounted a great infamy even to be spoken of, but which sin is a subject of boasting not only to those who practise it, but even to those who suffer it, and who, being accustomed to bearing the affliction of being treated like women, waste away as to both their souls and bodies, not bearing about them a single spark of a manly character to be kindled into a flame, but having even the hair of their heads conspicuously curled and adorned, and having their faces smeared with vermilion, and paint, and things of that kind, and having their eyes pencilled beneath, and having their skins anointed with fragrant perfumes (for in such persons as these a sweet smell is a most seductive quality), and being well appointed in everything that tends to beauty or elegance, are not ashamed to devote their constant study and endeavours to the task of changing their manly character into an
effeminate one
Line 40"And I imagine that the cause of this is that among many nations there are actually
rewards given for intemperance and
effeminacy."
Line 41 "And some of these persons have even carried their admiration of these delicate pleasures of youth so far that they have desired wholly to change their condition for that of women, and have castrated themselves and have clothed themselves in purple robes"
Many women, who are born women, cannot ovulate and have children. Does this make them any less of a woman?
No, just as long as the phenotype and genotype is characteristic of women, then it's a woman. It makes them a woman over 50 or an infertile woman. The Bible also covers this as well and God these call these women as being women, and he has helped such women by helping them bear children, even in old age.
Sometimes they are even born with XY chromosomes. Does this disqualify her as a woman, even though it's how the world views her?
If someone has a Y chromosome they are genetically a male. If you're referring to 'Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), then that is still officially a male and it's accompanied by lack of testes growth and testerone. Here's one place you can read that here:
47, XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) (read 1st section on definition and 3rd section on symptoms). So to answer your question, NO, they are NOT a woman and will not ever be a normally functioning woman.
Like many Biblical passages rooted in Jewish law and tradition, these particular passages cannot be correctly interpreted without first learning of the cultural context in which they are from. Cross dressing is actually quite common during Purim, meaning there is no flat-out ban on men wearing that which partains unto a woman and vice versa.
I gave you the Apostle Paul's understanding in 1 Corinthians 6, and you can add to that Romans 1, and also the writings of Philo. I see no evidence in your responses that you are applying any cultural understanding.. I see you referencing science, species, something which the 1st century or biblical writers would not have tolerated. And there are passages BANNING cross dressing in the Old and New testaments, so I don't buy that it was a matter of culture just for the Jews in Moses' time (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:14)
And here's a passage for any liberal Christians just in case they want to argue moral relativism:
""You have let go of the commands
of God and are holding on to human traditions.” And he continued, “
You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" Mark 7:8-9
Morals clearly come from GOD, according to Jesus.
