This is now my third and hopefully final article on the whole “transgender” confusion (respectively, at https://amaiceducation.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/is-sex-change-possible-fr-david-watt/, https://amaiceducation.wordpress.com/2020/05/08/multisex-mankind-fr-david-watt/, and https://amaiceducation.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2221&action=edit); however, the total number of pages is only about six.
In my last article I mentioned the ex cathedra document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and raised the possibility of an infallible definition on sex-change, which I still think could be advisable. It should be noted, however, that this document from St John Paul II already excludes, for all time, the validity of any such purported change. Of course, the definition itself is not directly about sex-change but that ‘the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women’. However, if “transgenderism” is correct the entire document is vitiated. For then we could accept the infallible definition while denying what the title of the document declares – that priestly ordination is reserved to men; we could, potentially, ordain those who were, say, half male, since they would not be women. The title thesis of the document follows from the definition only if there are just two human sexes. Whereas if “transgenderism” is accurate, not only are there more than two, but many more, since there must be many stages en route to changing from male to female or vice-versa.
Therefore even had we no other relevant information such as Gen. 1:27, based on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis alone, the unreality of sex-change is something which is theologically certain, since it is a logical consequence of an infallible definition.