Possibility of ordination?

[Ben S Sombat]

Hello Sangha,
I have a problem that has recently been causing a lot of dukkha due to worries.
I'm a transman and my dearest (and only) wish is to be able to ordain.
I'm worried that no Theravada monastery will be willing to accept me ordaining as a monk.

I feel that following the 227 precepts,and living fully according to the dhamma is the rightful way to live in order to lay off desires hindering me from bringing a future life or my life to becoming an arhat.

I'd like to ordain in Germany.

In society,I'm 100% read as male.I have a deep voice,and my secondary s. Characteristics are male too.

What's also important to mention is that I'm not attracted to males (I know sexuality is in no way allowed as a monk,but I wanted to mention that so you know that there is no way that I might feel attraction towards other monks).

What's also an issue,even tho a minor one is that I need (inexpensive) medication,which is covered by insurance in Germany,but riding a bus and going to the doctor seems unlikely to be possible.

I'm thankful for all respectful responses and opinions

Metta,
Ben

[dharmacorps]

Congratulations on your noble deepest wish. I hope you are able to ordain and live happily.

I think the issues of medication and ordaining only in Germany may cause more challenges than being trans. If you broaden what you will consider to any western country, you may have one or two options. Most officially connected Thai rooted Sanghas would probably ultimately not permit it (I am only familiar with the Thai tradition), just to be realistic. From a purely pragmatic perspective, you may want to consider being an anagarika first if possible.

[Volo]

I'm afraid a person with abnormal gender is not allowed to be ordained (Vinaya prohibition). If such a poison is ordained his ordination doesn't count as valid. Also going forth (i.e. becoming a samanera) is not allowed. But it depends on particular condition (i.e. whether one counts as paṇḍaka or not). For example, whether a person has male sexual organs or not. Better is to check with the monastery.

If you fall into the category of people with absolute prohibition to ordain, then living as a lay man in a monastery, and following 8 or 10 precepts is indeed an option.

[Ben S Sombat]

I'm afraid a person with abnormal gender is not allowed to be ordained (Vinaya prohibition). If such a poison is ordained his ordination doesn't count as valid. Also going forth (i.e. becoming a samanera) is not allowed. But it depends on particular condition (i.e. whether one counts as paṇḍaka or not). For example, whether a person has male sexual organs or not. Better is to check with the monastery.

If you fall into the category of people with absolute prohibition to ordain, then living as a lay man in a monastery, and following 8 or 10 precepts is indeed an option.

I thought pandaka refers more to sexual behavior/Sexuality,hermaphrodites,and people of neither gender.
But I might be wrong.The only things I can do are hoping and asking around.
Thanks for your response

[Ben S Sombat]

Congratulations on your noble deepest wish. I hope you are able to ordain and live happily.

I think the issues of medication and ordaining only in Germany may cause more challenges than being trans. If you broaden what you will consider to any western country, you may have one or two options. Most officially connected Thai rooted Sanghas would probably ultimately not permit it (I am only familiar with the Thai tradition), just to be realistic. From a purely pragmatic perspective, you may want to consider being an anagarika first if possible.

Thank you for your kind words.
Ordaining in a Thai monastery would be preferred since I speak and still learn thai and have thai roots,but if thai monasteries reject me,I would of course seek acceptance in another tradition.

[JamesTheGiant]

If you don't have testicles, you can't ordain as a monk. Unfortunately that's a very simple and strict rule. It is covered under the questions asked during the ordination ceremony.
Technically you could ordain as just a Novice, (Samanera) and not move on to full monk (Bhikkhu), but I don't know of a monastery which would do that.
You could ordain as a nun, but I guess that would be not satisfactory because you'd be pushed into that female identification.
Another option might be to stay at a monastery long term, for years, as an 8-preceptor layperson. Wears white, does monastery chores, etc. It doesn't get much respect but it's better than nothing.

[salayatananirodha]

upfront, i don't know what the meaning of paṇḍaka is, though i've read various sources, without coming to what appears to be a clear, definite answer
and i doubt that a lot of people using the term know what it means and just kind of go with a definition out of convenience, unwilling to relinquish their view
in the vinaya the context is one where the paṇḍaka is a person who elicits sexual favors
while a lot of transgender people end up as sex workers honestly is that due to innate hypersexuality or due to poor social conditions
as someone who grappled with gender identity at various points in his life, i don't see the value in a gender and kind of see it as a burden
the buddha taught identity, its arising, its cessation and the path leading to its cessation
my frank opinion is that sex reassignment is an extension of gender dysphoria, and that it would be an incredible obstacle to insist you are a man while at the same time be supposed to be practicing to realize non-self. in the same way, a cisgender or non-transgender man would find the same obstacle insisting on being a man. there are suttas on this, they only aren't clear to my mind right now
there's also a sutta in the digha nikaya, #27, that gives an exposition of the evolution of beings, and gender or sex as i recall grew out of interest in appearances
in this way, although there are permutations, men depend on women and women depend on men
the bhikkhunī sutta says that sex is a bridge to be burned

Anyone who thinks 'I'm a woman' or 'a man' or 'Am I anything at all?' — that's who Mara's fit to address.

in any case, considering man or woman to be intrinsic to oneself and not a result of ego is a wrong view any serious practitioner will have to dispel

[salayatananirodha]

potentially an interesting supplement to this discussion

[Chanh Dao]

In Thailand there is a lot of support for the lgbtq community. There are many monks and novices who are trans/gay/taking hormones etc.

It is no problem to be trans and ordained.

The only issue you will run into is finding a suitable monastary that will accept you and support you in your aspirations of ordaining as a monk.

It may honestly be difficult to find such a temple.

Looking to countries other than Thailand would likely be preferable as the temples here tend to be quite patriarchal and rigid in their practices.

I recommend looking at and reaching out to western theravada organizations and speaking with them about wanting to ordain. I would also recommend starting as a angarika/novice.

If you pass for male consistently and of course if you identify as male than talking about your trans identity would be unnecessary and possibly a hindrance to ordaining depending on the temple.

Anyways. I wish you the best of luck in your path.

[JamesTheGiant]

It is no problem to be trans and ordained.

The only issue you will run into is finding a suitable monastary that will accept you and support you in your aspirations of ordaining as a monk.

No, Ben is transman. Was biologically a woman, now identifying as male.
No matter how supportive of LGBTQ+ people Thailand is, or how welcoming a monastery is, a bhikkhu must have testicles. The ordination would not be valid.
You will remember in your ordination ceremony you were asked several questions, and you answered Ama bhante or Natti bhante. One of those questions was Are You A Man? The definition of Man in modern society is disputed, but in Buddhism it has been discussed and the criteria is clear. Testicles.
Not even radicals like Sujato dispute that.

[Ben S Sombat]

It is no problem to be trans and ordained.

The only issue you will run into is finding a suitable monastary that will accept you and support you in your aspirations of ordaining as a monk.

No, Ben is transman. Was biologically a woman, now identifying as male.
No matter how supportive of LGBTQ+ people Thailand is, or how welcoming a monastery is, a bhikkhu must have testicles. The ordination would not be valid.
You will remember in your ordination ceremony you were asked several questions, and you answered Ama bhante or Natti bhante. One of those questions was Are You A Man? The definition of Man in modern society is disputed, but in Buddhism it has been discussed and the criteria is clear. Testicles.
Not even radicals like Sujato dispute that.

So you think a biological man who lost his testicles in an accident would be refused to ordain in a western monastery since he's not a man ?
I don't think the majority of Bhikkus in 2019 (and 10 years later) would view all of this that way.
Of course I may get rejected a few times,but I do think there is a chance,at least in the west,to ordain.

Also, who said I don't have or will have testicles?
"Now Identifying as a man" sounds a bit funny to me,since I never identified or presented as a girl or women,and being a Transman is a bit more than having discovered a "new" identity.

Also,referring to the post you quoted,
Chanh dao,No,I'm definitely telling the monastery about me being trans.I'm not keeping sneaky secrets in a monastery.Truth is important,and the ones who would reject me for that would feel lied to if I'd hide it.

[Chanh Dao]

Sadhu sadhu. Wonderful responses.

Personally I would fully supposed the ordination.

Testicles or not is of no concern to me.

As far as being "valid" or not the only person who is the actual authority on that died thousands of years ago.

A rule that basically states that people who don't have testicles cannot ordain is not something I personally agree with.

Some people are born with a penis and ovaries, intersex, transgender, someone could even get an operation to have testicles surgically implanted.

Personally these things are majorly irrelevent in the life of a monk.

[Polar Bear]

You can get an idea of the testicles issue from pgs. 861-862 of Ajahn Thanissaro's Buddhist Monastic Code:

Disqualifications

The factors that would disqualify an applicant from receiving ordination are of
three sorts:

those absolutely disqualifying him for life—even if he receives ordination, he
does not count as properly ordained;

those marking him as an undesirable member of the Community—if he happens
to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the
ordination incur a dukkaṭa;

and those indicating that he is formally unprepared for full Acceptance (for instance, he
lacks robes and an alms-bowl or does not have a valid preceptor)—the Canon
does not state whether these factors absolutely invalidate the applicant’s
Acceptance, but the Commentary puts them in the same class as the
undesirables, above.

Absolutely disqualified

A person may be absolutely disqualified if he:

1) has an abnormal gender;
2) has committed any of the five deeds leading to immediate retribution in hell
(ānantariya/ānantarika-kamma);
3) has seriously wronged the Dhamma-Vinaya; or
4) is an animal.

The Canon states that such people may not receive full Acceptance. The
Commentary adds (with one exception, noted below) that they may not receive the
Going-forth. Even if they receive ordination, they do not count as ordained. Once
the truth about them is discovered, they must immediately be expelled.

1) The prohibition for abnormal gender covers paṇḍakas and hermaphrodites.
According to the Commentary, there are five kinds of paṇḍakas, two of whom do
not come under this prohibition: voyeurs and those whose sexual fever is allayed by
performing fellatio. The three who do come under this prohibition are: castrated
men (eunuchs), those born neuter, and half-time paṇḍakas (those with the sexual
desires of a paṇḍaka during the dark fortnight, and none during the bright
fortnight (?)). In the origin story for this prohibition, a paṇḍaka who had received
Acceptance unsuccessfully propositioned some bhikkhus and novices, then
succeeded in propositioning some horse- and elephant-trainers, who spread it
about, “These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are
not paṇḍakas molest paṇḍakas.”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Wri ... 181215.pdf

This is why James is adamant in his understanding; because there is a long standing Vinaya interpretation precluding the possibility of those without male genitalia from ordaining in the bhikkhu sangha, with the possibility of a person being forcibly disrobed if found out to not have male genitals. Technically though, the text does not mention the situation of modern transmen with vaginas nor modern transmen who've had operations to have a penis and testes or penis and testes-like appendages surgically attached. But overall I imagine it would be pretty hard to find a monastery that would ordain a transman, so should one embark looking for one, be prepared for a hard time at it, and the possibility of not being successful. And also the possibility that after ordination some, perhaps most, in the sangha will not consider one to actually be a bhikkhu.

I know this is all pretty vulgar stuff and not exactly the most spiritual discussion being about genitalia and all, but I hope the OP will at least at first just take a dispassionate academic research approach to the problem. I hope I've not caused any offense.

[Polar Bear]

So you think a biological man who lost his testicles in an accident would be refused to ordain in a western monastery since he's not a man ?

It’s an interesting question on what the reasoning would be for not admitting a eunuch. One could perhaps argue that if one is a eunuch through accident then they don’t fall into the social category that the Buddha meant to preclude. But since eunuchs are among those who are absolutely disqualified and so do not count as ordained even if they go through the ordination procedure and other monks treat them as properly ordained, it makes sense that a scrupulous monk would be conservative and refuse to ordain anyone who might count as one and thus be absolutely disqualified.

Eunuchs still exist in India today:

http://thingsasian.com/story/eunuchs-in ... ird-gender

But anyway, someone born without male genitals would not be classified as a eunuch. So a transman would probably be classified as either intersex or as female in the ancient Indian gender categorization system.

[Chanh Dao]

You can get an idea of the testicles issue from pgs. 861-862 of Ajahn Thanissaro's Buddhist Monastic Code:

Disqualifications

The factors that would disqualify an applicant from receiving ordination are of
three sorts:

those absolutely disqualifying him for life—even if he receives ordination, he
does not count as properly ordained;

those marking him as an undesirable member of the Community—if he happens
to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the
ordination incur a dukkaṭa;

and those indicating that he is formally unprepared for full Acceptance (for instance, he
lacks robes and an alms-bowl or does not have a valid preceptor)—the Canon
does not state whether these factors absolutely invalidate the applicant’s
Acceptance, but the Commentary puts them in the same class as the
undesirables, above.

Absolutely disqualified

A person may be absolutely disqualified if he:

1) has an abnormal gender;
2) has committed any of the five deeds leading to immediate retribution in hell
(ānantariya/ānantarika-kamma);
3) has seriously wronged the Dhamma-Vinaya; or
4) is an animal.

The Canon states that such people may not receive full Acceptance. The
Commentary adds (with one exception, noted below) that they may not receive the
Going-forth. Even if they receive ordination, they do not count as ordained. Once
the truth about them is discovered, they must immediately be expelled.

1) The prohibition for abnormal gender covers paṇḍakas and hermaphrodites.
According to the Commentary, there are five kinds of paṇḍakas, two of whom do
not come under this prohibition: voyeurs and those whose sexual fever is allayed by
performing fellatio. The three who do come under this prohibition are: castrated
men (eunuchs), those born neuter, and half-time paṇḍakas (those with the sexual
desires of a paṇḍaka during the dark fortnight, and none during the bright
fortnight (?)). In the origin story for this prohibition, a paṇḍaka who had received
Acceptance unsuccessfully propositioned some bhikkhus and novices, then
succeeded in propositioning some horse- and elephant-trainers, who spread it
about, “These Sakyan-son monks are paṇḍakas. And those among them who are
not paṇḍakas molest paṇḍakas.”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Wri ... 181215.pdf

This is why James is adamant in his understanding; because there is a long standing Vinaya interpretation precluding the possibility of those without male genitalia from ordaining in the bhikkhu sangha, with the possibility of a person being forcibly disrobed if found out to not have male genitals. Technically though, the text does not mention the situation of modern transmen with vaginas nor modern transmen who've had operations to have a penis and testes or penis and testes-like appendages surgically attached. But overall I imagine it would be pretty hard to find a monastery that would ordain a transman, so should one embark looking for one, be prepared for a hard time at it, and the possibility of not being successful. And also the possibility that after ordination some, perhaps most, in the sangha will not consider one to actually be a bhikkhu.

I know this is all pretty vulgar stuff and not exactly the most spiritual discussion being about genitalia and all, but I hope the OP will at least at first just take a dispassionate academic research approach to the problem. I hope I've not caused any offense.

The question very honestly becomes is this information coming from the Pali Canon IE; Buddha's words or is it coming from old commentary?

Very important to distinguish these two things.