This thesis examines Catholic bioethics on sex change, indicating a balanced view respecting dignity and truth.
Questions surrounding gender theory, gender dysphoria, and sex change are some of the highly contested anthropological and moral questions today. The Catholic understanding is that these questions cannot be addressed adequately apart from a coherent account of the human person. Yet the pastoral and bioethical complexity of gender dysphoria means that gender theory cannot be addressed simply by doctrine. It requires careful attention both to the truth of Catholic anthropology and to the lived dysphoric experience. This three-part thesis examines Catholic bioethics for sex change by bringing together theological anthropology, moral theology, and pastoral concern. It argues that the Catholic position on maleness and femaleness is not merely a rejection of gender theory, but a vision of the human person rooted in Genesis, developed in the Church's tradition, and deepened in the teaching of St John Paul II. From this foundation, the thesis then considers how gender theory emerged, particularly through forms of expressive individualism that separate identity from the body. Finally, it evaluates to what extent any forms of sex change can be morally justified within a Catholic framework, especially in light of recent Church teaching and ongoing debates in Catholic bioethics. The central claim of this thesis is that Catholic bioethics must uphold the goodness of sexual difference while also resisting overly reductive or purely abstract responses to people who suffer from gender dysphoria. In this sense, the question is not only whether sex change is compatible with Catholic teaching, but how the Church can speak truthfully and pastorally about embodiment, suffering, dignity, and the limits of medicine. By addressing these questions, this thesis seeks to clarify the Catholic position on sex change and to contribute to a more faithful and humane response to one of the most challenging issues in bioethics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dana Pham (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: