Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But obviously there are variations between our spirit self and our mortal self, right?

No, not obviously.  Supposedly so, according to some people, but some of those people aren't even sure about what they are supposed to be.  So I don't think we should leave them to come up with the correct answer all by themselves.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In other words, our biology doesn't perfectly match our spirit whether it be in regard to issues of physical or mental limitations, so it seems at least possible there might be other biological differences that don't exactly fit our spirit.

No, I just told you that you were not right in your first sentence when you asked me if you were right.  And now you go on as if you were right and didn't even need to ask me.  Fine, then.  Come up with your own answers all by yourself if you want to.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that he's stating it as an eternal truth, but has there ever been a revelation specifically about this issue? I'm not aware of anything. I'm aware of things like the proclamation, or other general statements about what the "rule" or "norm" is, but I've never seen anything that addresses the situations outside of those norms. To speak of eternal truth on such a specific topic it feels like there should be a revelation so that it is easy to distinguish God's word versus the assumptions or bias of the individual who happens to be speaking

Stay tuned.  Maybe someone will say something more about it during this next General Conference.  Or maybe you just need to do some more research to see if more has already been said about it than you are now aware of.

Or, you could just ask God, too.  I get a lot of good ideas from him and I prefer to hear from him more than anyone else.  But sometimes he does speak through other people while just confirming what he has already said through them. So try that, too.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That would mean that God leaves the determination of eternal gender to the perceptions of people which can be arbitrary especially in intersex cases.

No.  That would mean that some individuals must deal with unique and difficult vicissitudes of life, but that the Lord will sort things out in the end.

I think we need to acknowledge that most discussions of this topic conflate "intersex cases" with "gender dysphoria," with the apparent intent of rationalizing the latter, or even coercing society into accepting the idea that male/female differentiation is arbitrary/changeable.  I think that's wrong.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But God allows all sorts of challenges to human life, so it would be more consistent if God allowed misgendering to occur sometimes.

So the Proclamation posits X, and you are proposing Not X.  I'll go with the former.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And, as usual, when our bodies aren't as they should be, we can use human genius to attempt corrections.

Cosmetic corrections.  Not substantive.

Caitlyn Jenner is still biologically male.  Stefoknee Wolscht is still a male in his 50s.  Eva Tiamat Medusa is still human.  Cosmetic flourishes don't really change anything substantive.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Most importantly, in my opinion, is human compassion for those doing their best to live in their skin, both when they defer a decision to the eternities, or attempt to correct it now.

I think there is nothing "compassionate" in pretending that a delusion or mental disorder is real.

If "Stefoknee" approached you and asked you to testify, under penalty of perjury, that he is a six-year old girl, would you do it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The proclamation teaches it as eternal truth, doesn't it (sincere question, I haven't read the proclamation in a while and I don't have time to dig it up right now)?

Yes, it does: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Faith in this principle will help those transgender individuals who seek personal resolution and those ministering and administering to them get to the bottom of what they need to do.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If "Stefoknee" approached you and asked you to testify, under penalty of perjury, that he is a six-year old girl, would you do it?

If you want to keep your job, you might: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/02/sacked-christian-doctor-wouldnt-call-transgender-woman-loses-tribunal-10850697/

That is one direction where this is going.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

She has babies too...

Okay just keep that up and I'm going to be taking a vacation from the board soon!

You really should say "Spoiler Alert" or something like that before just giving out information like that, that I am not interested in knowing!

Sheesh.  Woman looks like a dragon and has babies too.  Any money spent on them to make them look more like a dragon?  No, wait a second, strike that, I really don't want to know that either.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"The rule" was being used as an expression of "the norm". Sorry, I thought that was clear.

In my view, "the rule" is that biological sex, male and female, is real.  

"The norm" would, I think, have more to do with social roles, which are less binary and more on-a-spectrum.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA

I don't know about "eternal gender." I do know that there are sons and daughters, male and female, in the resurrection. Are there transgender in the resurrection? I doubt it. Can a male make themselves female in the resurrection? I doubt it. I'll shut up before I "hurt" the feelings of a bunch of transgenders, but I view the matter as they aren't living the way God designed them. The Mosaic Law was not tolerant of males wearing female clothing and trying to play the part. I understand we live in a world confused by pollutants, chemicals, and environment, but that doesn't really change the way people are designed...

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And, as usual, when our bodies aren't as they should be, we can use human genius to attempt corrections.

I think many are concerned about how the decision that our bodies are not as they should be is being made.

There are many cases where such perceptions are seen as normal (people who want to have more hair or less fat, a more popular style of nose or mouth) and many others seen as dysfunctional (extreme amounts of plastic surgery, anorexia, xenomelia or foreign limb syndrome).  It is pretty easy to agree more hair would be nice, if not necessary for some and less fat means more mobility and better health so that is just sensible though surgery may not be a sensible answer in many cases.  Other things are iffier as the medical complications for alternations increase.

But would we ever accept the self perception of someone with anorexia that they were actually fat because we saw that as compassion or would the more compassionate route be working night and day trying to figure out how to help them change their self perception for a healthier one that doesn't end up killing them?

What reasons are there clinically speaking that demonstrate transgenderism is definitely not a form of delusion similar to anorexia or xenomelia? (Serious question as I haven't come across anything that discusses this in academic literature and other conversations have amounted to 'we need to trust they know themselves best'...which isn't valid because there are significant numbers we don't trust.)

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What reasons are there clinically speaking that demonstrate transgenderism is definitely not a form of delusion similar to anorexia or xenomelia?

The fact that they are one sex while stating they think they should be another sex.  Proof positive right there if you were to ask me.

It's not necessarily a delusion.  I think some men love or idolize women so much that they would just really like to be one.  The desire to emulate is a form of worship.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The fact that they are one sex while stating they think they should be another sex.  Proof positive right there if you were to ask me.

It's not necessarily a delusion.  I think some men love or idolize women so much that they would just really like to be one.  The desire to emulate is a form of worship.  

Proof positive they are not delusional?  How so?

Do these men you see as wanting to be women actually believe they are women and if they do, do you see that as realistic, delusional or something else?

Link to comment

I am guessing that Transgender people who suffer from gender dysphoria may have to wait for the resurrection before things are made right. 

Bruce Hafen of the First Quorum of the Seventy 
"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."  
(Elder Bruce C. Hafen Speaks on Same-Sex Attraction". Mormon Newsroom. Retrieved 29 October 2016.)

I assume that would also apply to transgender people?  Still a hard thing to live with in this life and be an active member of the church.

 

Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

Proof positive they are not delusional?  How so?

Heh, no.  Proof positive that they are delusional.  They are one sex, that is reality, but they think they should be another sex.  

Just now, Calm said:

Do these men you see as wanting to be women actually believe they are women and if they do, do you see that as realistic, delusional or something else?

Caitlyn Jenner, for example.  He is a man but he really wants to be a woman.  And he's had surgery to try to make the transition.  I see that he's not really a woman, although he seems to be trying his best to really be one.  I believe he is deluded.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I thought he was just clarifying what the Proclamation meant when it used the word gender (because definitions have changed somewhat from what most people understand them to be in 1995).

If that's what he was doing, then there is nothing wrong with the First Presidency clarifying the message or teachings of a church proclamation.   They might not know the bolded part, but they can certainly know what the church was trying to say and make sure that there is no misunderstanding about it, can't they?

Agree! Well said.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I don't know about you but when I see a baby I look to see if it is a boy or a girl rather than waiting to see how he/she/it will identify himself/herself/itself.

...and if it has both parts?

I have heard terrible stories of parents choosing for them, having surgery, and getting it wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sorry but I really don't understand your comment in relation to mine. I'm sure I'm being slow. It's been one of those mornings. Could you connect a couple of the dots between my comment and yours?

It's a functional definition.

Biology as science has nothing to do with the idea of "binary creation," opposition in all things, yin and yang in theology. We are talking about cosmic principles here, not an individual human body. 

Opposition in all things is essential to the philosophy of the plan of salvation. Gender is one example of this dialectic, and no it is not necessary to define 47 genders to make the point that make and female are major cosmic divisions.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, pogi said:

...and if it has both parts?

I have heard terrible stories of parents choosing for them, having surgery, and getting it wrong.

I haven't experienced that in my family but if I ever did I would probably choose to leave the baby as it is born and not make any changes to its body, not really being sure myself what sex it was until maybe sometime later.

Edited to add: And by the way there are more than 2 parts that tell the difference between a boy and a girl, so I would begin to find out about all of that if I didn't know already.  Starting with something like this: https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/your-guide-female-reproductive-system

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay just keep that up and I'm going to be taking a vacation from the board soon!

You really should say "Spoiler Alert" or something like that before just giving out information like that, that I am not interested in knowing!

Sheesh.  Woman looks like a dragon and has babies too.  Any money spent on them to make them look more like a dragon?  No, wait a second, strike that, I really don't want to know that either.

Just kidding about the babies; I actually do not know... just honing my creepy skills for Halloween

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think many are concerned about how the decision that our bodies are not as they should be is being made.

There are many cases where such perceptions are seen as normal (people who want to have more hair or less fat, a more popular style of nose or mouth) and many others seen as dysfunctional (extreme amounts of plastic surgery, anorexia, xenomelia or foreign limb syndrome).  It is pretty easy to agree more hair would be nice, if not necessary for some and less fat means more mobility and better health so that is just sensible though surgery may not be a sensible answer in many cases.  Other things are iffier as the medical complications for alternations increase.

But would we ever accept the self perception of someone with anorexia that they were actually fat because we saw that as compassion or would the more compassionate route be working night and day trying to figure out how to help them change their self perception for a healthier one that doesn't end up killing them?

What reasons are there clinically speaking that demonstrate transgenderism is definitely not a form of delusion similar to anorexia or xenomelia? (Serious question as I haven't come across anything that discusses this in academic literature and other conversations have amounted to 'we need to trust they know themselves best'...which isn't valid because there are significant numbers we don't trust.)

Here's a couple articles I have recently seen:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/104/2/390/5104458
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/

Regarding something like anorexia, that is a deadly condition if allowed to continue, while gender transitioning does not cause death.

I do think that personal perception is important, however. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, pogi said:

...and if it has both parts?

I have heard terrible stories of parents choosing for them, having surgery, and getting it wrong.

There are stories of doctors getting it wrong as well.

Link to comment

Speaking to the quote by Pres. Oaks, I was surprised by the transgendered/LGBTQ reaction to what he said.  I'm not surprised that they disagree with it but the renewed anger is what I didn't see coming.  Given what the church and the proclamation teach, it seems weird that anyone would get mad hearing that the church still believes what that person already knew the church believed.

In that context, it seems disingenuous to be upset when a leader tries to kindly express the beliefs of the church.  It reminds me that for a lot of people, nothing less than full capitulation is acceptable and I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding something like anorexia, that is a deadly condition if allowed to continue, while gender transitioning does not cause death

Amputation of limbs doesn't cause death.  Do you see this being done in cases of xenomelia as a healthy choice?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...