The term 'transsexual' has fallen out of fashion, mostly because of confusion, people thinking it equates transition and sexual orientation. Transsexual is, of course, not heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, it uses the term 'sexual' as an adjective, pertaining to sex, and 'trans' to mean a change. Transsexual means to change sex, and it is an active process rather than a state of being. Sexual transition has a beginning but no end (except death), much like any kind of bodily change or growth. Furthermore, these changes level out after a period - with sex hormones this is usually about 5 years - just like any period of adolescence. However, there are still complications in some cases after this. Surgeries are often not a one and done procedure, however excluding any revisions or reversals, the effects are usually final. There are, of course, some sex characteristics that cannot be changed. And some sex characteristics that are already changed in the transsexual before any intentional transition is completed - this is a controversial topic, however studies into brains and conditions like PCOS and hormonal imbalances have found 'promising' results (if such a word may be used). The experience of gender dysphoria is a requirement of being transsexual, but not necessarily of identifying as transgender (for the sake of this essay, these are two distinct categories. All transsexuals are transgender, but not all transgenders are transsexual. The experience of strictly transgender people varies [and the validity of which is debated] and is outside the scope of this essay). For the sake of this essay - you never stop being transsexual, even if you reverse the effects of your transition (with various levels of success). In a sense, the two debates presented to Christians are a transsexual one (can you alter your own body in order to relieve gender dysphoria) and a transgender one (do you have the right to decide who you are). The sole answer to the latter is 'in Christ'. Some would argue that being transgender is a grave sin, and therefore separates you from Christ. In Isaiah 56, the eunuch and the foreigner are given 'an everlasting name that will not be cut off'. Jesus speaks about the eunuch in Matthew 19:12, those who were born eunuchs, those who were made eunuchs by others, and those who 'choose to live like eunuchs' (a life of celibacy). Of course, the comparison between the transsexual and the eunuch fails on some levels, but on a purely physical level it appears that there isn't anything explicitly wrong with having different sex characteristics. The question is, why do this to yourself? The answer is, gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoria is, plain and simple, an experience of suffering. It often does not cease with sexual transition, but can reduce to the point of unrecognisability. To portray dysphoria as a 'spiritual sickness' in the vein of addiction, there is no known cure but recovery is possible. The recovery in this case is the recovery of the wholeness of body and spirit - the experience of embodiment, or being at home in your own body. As Christians, of course, we are not at home in this world, but the experience of dysphoria pushes this point to an unhealthy extent, with individuals pursuing self harm or suicide. For the transsexual, alienation from body and self is alienation from life, and alienation from life is alienation from God. Choosing to remain in this state, in most cases, turns from merely being a cross to bear to being a cross that totally crushes before the chance to be crucified. The true cross to bear, in this argument, is the experience of being transsexual itself - the endurance of marginalisation and medical procedures. If being transsexual is to be seen as a medical procedure, refusing medical help is an affront to human dignity rather than a faithful position. There is of course the question if whether one is called to a life of suffering - we are all, of course, told to bear our own cross. Many saints chose greater suffering, and we are all called to sainthood. But in the material reality, when a sizeable portion of transsexual individuals, especially when denied treatment, are a suicide risk, it is a much greater pastoral responsibility to preserve life than endlessly debate whether or not God is calling us to die. 'Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.' (Luke 22:42) If the individual chooses to endure this suffering, it is indeed a noble thing, but it can't be enforced - for most transsexuals, it is not a choice of a life without over a life with suffering, but rather a choice of any kind of life over death. Christ is the choice of life over death. Christ is the light that was not overcome by the darkness.
'From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.'- 2 Corinthians 5:16-17
God creates the first man, Adam. He is created from the dust of the earth. Then Eve is created from his side. After they fall into temptation, they are given their roles: labourer and mother, respectively. There is, up until the Fall, little difference between the two. Biological difference is clearly present - they procreate, and give birth, and Eve's role as a woman is wholly tied into her womb. However, the Old Testament frequently features infertile women, giving them miraculous children, foreshadowing the most miraculous child of all, Christ Jesus. Infertility is seen as a source of great despair, wailing in the temple until God rewards them. As Ecclesiastes reminds us, there is a time for everything. But there were presumably many infertile women for whom miracle births were not in God's plan. This does not make them any less of a woman, just as being unemployed doesn't make you any less of a man. These roles, created as a direct result of sin, are transcended by the arrival of Christ Jesus - the Blessed Virgin did not experience pains in childbirth, as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Gregory of Nyssa among others; the Apostles in Acts live and work in a community in which goods were 'distributed to each as any had need'. These roles it can be understood are not the eternal will of God, but rather a consequence of sin. It seems almost trite to bring Galatians 3:28 into this - but the very same people who have no problem affirming transubstantiation, taking 'is' to mean 'is' in that context, cannot accept this 'is neither [x] nor [y]' in its literal sense. God's peace, and by extension his divine mercy, transcends all understanding. Christ promises a reversal of society's order. St Paul deals in material terms with the society of his day: slavery; sexual immorality; idolatry and vanity. Some of the things he says can be controversial, seeming to make too much of a compromise with contemporary injustice. But he has no problem here promising that all classification and stratification will be done away with. The prophet Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant to be written on our hearts and minds, a far cry from the legalistic order of Talmudic Judaism. Christ does not call us to lay down the law. He calls us to love our neighbour, avoid judgement, and liberate captives. Of course, His ministry cannot be reduced so simply. But take for example the following verses: Ephesians 2:15, 1 John 2:9, and 2 Corinthians 8:14. Following the example of the apostles, we should above all be subject to Christ, and a true Christian ordering of the world: that is beyond the body, beyond primary and secondary sex characteristics. It is not necessary to change our entire understanding of sex and gender, but instead admitting that in the eyes of Christ, individual identity (whether based on biology, psychology or sociology) is completely irrelevant. (I must here make the point that, especially as a layman, I cannot speak in such terms with any definite certainty - but I hope my scriptural references are sufficient for the reader to understand how I draw my conclusions)
"But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”"- 1 Samuel 16:7The next question, then, is one of bodily integrity and human dignity - how can we alter what God has made?
The ministry of healing is carried out frequently in the Gospels. In fact, it could be said that Christ's entire mission on Earth was one of healing. A particular focus of healing was lepers, those whose sickness was so extreme and contagious that it led to their being totally outcasted from society. Christ ministered primarily to outcasts: prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers alike. "And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17). This is not to say that transsexuality is a sin, but that being outcasted and neglected can lead to grave sin, apathy and despair. The Franciscan order particularly understood this, seeking not only to minister to these people but to live among them. As did St. Damien of Molokai, the Apostle to the Lepers, who became a leper himself 'to gain all to Jesus Christ'. He taught that despite their marginalisation, they were precious in the eyes of God.
The Little Flowers of Saint Francis details the story of St. Francis himself healing a leper, for whom the mental and physical anguish of his condition is so great it has led him to blaspheme and abandon all faith. The public assume him to be possessed by a demon, and it's stated that in fact he is - one might perceive all spiritual maladies this way. But Francis, instead of dismissing him as rebellious and unwilling to bear his suffering, acknowledges the healing of body to be a prerequisite of spiritual healing in this case. The mind, so intensely preoccupied by an experience so harrowing, simply cannot focus on spiritual things. There are examples, of course, of saints that endured much worse with much greater patience, but we are all called to bear our own cross, rather than those given to others. A life of greater suffering is a life more Christlike, but if such suffering is not endured for the sake of God but rather for the sake of a social or political agenda, can it be viewed as the same? The LGBT 'community' (if such a monolith exists) appears overwhelmingly atheistic and hedonistic, driven by pure desire, and answering only to itself. It is a community deprived of faith, deprived of trust, that feels outcasted and betrayed by a cisgender, heterosexual majority that aligns, in their eyes, to Christianity and its 'conservative' values. We need not change what Christianity is in order to appeal to those who misunderstand it, but we cannot deny God's mercy and salvation to anyone. Rejection leads to Godlessness, and it is only by bringing the lost sheep into the fold that the message of the Gospels begins to be realised.
There is of course, the argument that transsexualism is all in the mind, and mutilating the body because the mind desires it is an affront to God. It is worth asking, then, what is considered mutilation? A voluntary medical procedure? Are Christians searching for the abolition of hair transplants, seeing them as an affront to God's will and a testament to blasphemous vanity? Transsexual procedures are performed out of some kind of medical necessity, at least they should be (again, I stress that those who choose transgenderism are outside the scope of this essay; in most cases they don't seek surgical intervention because of the numerous downsides) We Christians have a duty to preserve life in all its forms, to guide all to eternal life in Christ, and if we reject something we don't fully understand to cause more suffering and death, it is a rejection of the duty of inclusion modelled by Jesus.
"But many who are first will be last, and the last first" - Matthew 19:30