Christian Spaemann on Transsexuals

The psychiatrist Christian Spaemann, son of the great Catholic philosopher Robert Spaemann, has written a remarkably intelligent and balanced article on “transsexuals” and how the Church ought to give them pastoral care. The article was so good that I agreed to help translate it for First Things.

As a psychiatrist Spaeman has a lot to say about the psychological suffering of those who consider themselves transsexuals, and about the appalling way in which that suffering is being instrumentalized today, and the appalling haste with which young persons are being lead into drastic measures:

Transsexuality is a cause of great suffering, above all for the people in question, but also for their family members and especially for their children. Hormonal or surgical means can sometimes lessen this suffering, but they cannot entirely remove it. […] The phenomenon of transsexuality has been instrumentalized by gender activists for the sake of promoting their socio-political goal of relativizing the dichotomy of the sexes. (This instrumentalization is fundamentally absurd, since transsexuals, with their strong desire to belong to the other sex, precisely confirm the dichotomy of the sexes). […] The haste with which even young people at the age of puberty are led to surgical measures is worrisome. It is no credit to the current state of medical and psychological science that it has no way to grapple with a deep-seated disruption of identity, other than with hormones and knives. The drastic surgeries and the lifelong doses of hormones can accomplish nothing more than a kind of artificial sex. A transsexual man will always be a woman who has been surgically made into a man; a transsexual woman will always be a man who has been surgically made into a woman.

The part of his article that gave me the longest pause was that the there can be circumstances in which so-called “sex-change surgery” might be permissible:

The suffering of those who feel themselves to be transsexual can be so great—to the point of making them suicidal—that from the perspective of the Church one can hardly categorically forbid surgical and hormonal measures to reduce their suffering, as a last resort after attempting other measures. The proscription of self-mutilation must here be weighed against the good of reducing suffering.

His point seems to be that in some cases such operations are analogous to an amputation: given a certain psychological state they might be necessary to save a life. Perhaps he is right. (In any case, it is important to understand such operations correctly: as he argued above, they do not actually alter a person’s sex).

Interestingly Spaemann’s piece in many ways parallels a recent piece by a “Catholic transsexual” named Aoífe Hart. The two pieces are of course quite different in tone and emphasis, but Hart does make some of the same points as Spaemann. Like Spaemann, Hart rejects gender theory and argues that transsexuality confirms the dichotomy of the sexes. And Hart’s argument for the permissibility (in some cases) of an operation is also quite close to Spaemann’s:

Transsexuality and “gender theory” are different. Very different. To explicate that would be a subject for another long post. But transsexuality can be understood — indeed, must be understood — as a distinct medical construction with clinically observed treatment protocols (ones that are beneficial, but not perfect) enacted to bring relief to the extreme psychiatric distress of sex dysmorphia, a clinical condition with specific symptoms.

I’m still unsure about the permissibility of the particular “treatment protocols” meant here, but Spaemann and Hart have certainly made me think more deeply about the question.


9 thoughts on “Christian Spaemann on Transsexuals

  1. I would have to think that so-called “sex reassignment surgery” is only roughly analogous to amputation, however, since it involves not just the cutting off of a part but also the construction of new parts. In addition, one has to wonder what the Church’s response would be to someone who is suicidal over the fact that he has two arms; would the Church approve of amputation in this instance?


    • The two arms thing might actually be an easier case, since (as you pointed out) it doesn’t involve any construction. I had a confrère once who had restless legs syndrome, and he asked the doctors to amputate. They said, however, that it would not help. He died soon after from the effects of the drugs that they gave him instead.


    • My question is this: How does a person know how a person of the opposite sex feels? My guess is that, from that point on [ I don’t know what to make of how I feel ] learned behavior takes over. Categorical deconstruction with its re-definitions likely only confuses, rather than clarifying, with the determination of the resultant confusion being its own justification. An acquaintance once explained a mutual acquaintance’s interest in psychology as simply trying to figure himself out. A de-constructor finds comfort similarly found in that age-old understanding, ‘ misery loves company ‘. As to the suicidal potential as a legitimate pastoral concern, addressing concerns at the earliest age would be the best. The permissive age has poisoned the conscience formation process, not only of the young, but also parents. Pastors are left to pick up the pieces, people fractured by false promises. It may be that that is the job of a Pastor.


  2. If the brain actually develops as, e.g., female, whereas the body develops as male, then it’s not analogous to someone with a delusion that one of his limbs is not his own, and so I would think sex-change surgery could be permissible.
    However, the evidence does not yet seem (in my very amateur opinion) to be conclusive one way or another about if that is actually the case with transsexual people, although it sounds plausible. There is a Catholic trans blog which I find profitable that discusses it:

    No matter what, it’s a very sensitive issue and transsexual people deserve respect. Incidentally, here is St. Augustine: “As for the Androgyni, or Hermaphrodites, as they are called, though they are rare, yet from time to time there appears persons of sex so doubtful, that it remains uncertain from which sex they take their name; though it is customary to give them a masculine name, as the more worthy. For no one ever called them Hermaphroditesses.” (City of God, XVI.8).

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Pius XII and the question of transsexuality – Semiduplex

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.