Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  I just read something that had the frequency of intersex (perhaps this is not what you are referring to) the same as redheads in the population.

This is a hard one because there are so many gradations of what people call intersex.  I personally don't count abnormalities of sexual development as pure intersex.  I am referring to what used to be called "true hermaphroditism" where both sexual traits are so present that it is practically impossible to determine which one should be favored.  The cases of that happening are estimated at 1 in 83,000 births.  Now misshapen sex organs, slow development, breasts on a man etc, I don't call those true confused gender - just like a person with an extra finger - it is pretty logical to see what needs to change to bring things back to the 'standard'.  A man with extra estrogen, or an underdeveloped penis does not a woman make IMO (Now I understand that psychological gender affiliation is different).

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

The list above shows that incidents of some form of deformity in sexual development can be estimated as high as 1 in 1000, those are not true cases where the gender is in question, just where abnormalities are present.  

Regardless, even 1 in 1000 is an anomaly that shows that gender 'normalcy' can still be considered a standard - one that God could have set in place to reflect our eternal natures.  

Edited by Maestrophil
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  I just read something that had the frequency of intersex (perhaps this is not what you are referring to) the same as redheads in the population.

There was a researcher which asserted those numbers, but other researchers have called them into question.  There is a paper on a medical journal website that responds to her assertions.  I don't have access to the full paper because you have to pay for a subscription but here is the abstract for it, which answers your question-

"Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

 So if we were a boy/man/male in heaven we will still be a boy/man/male when we are born on this planet.

Yes and we will be male and female at the resurrection.  Unlike race or nationality which is specific to this mortal existence, gender is indeed eternal and can't be changed.  Our gender was determined before we were born and is determined already by the resurrection.  We have no decision on the issue.  The only decision we have it whether we accept the reality or live in denial of that reality but reality does not change.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JAHS said:

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.

 

Everyone has trials that are unique to them and are hard to live with and remain a member. That is one of the tests of life.  To be able deal with those challenges while remaining faithful.  We don't get any reward for surrendering.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

I don't know, I have not learned much about that nor have I heard from a person with it. And btw it sounds like such a removal wouldn't give rise to church discipline, either.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

This is a hard one because there are so many gradations of what people call intersex.  I personally don't count abnormalities of sexual development as pure intersex.  I am referring to what used to be called "true hermaphroditism" where both sexual traits are so present that it is practically impossible to determine which one should be favored.  The cases of that happening are estimated at 1 in 83,000 births.  Now misshapen sex organs, slow development, breasts on a man etc, I don't call those true confused gender - just like a person with an extra finger - it is pretty logical to see what needs to change to bring things back to the 'standard'.  A man with extra estrogen, or an underdeveloped penis does not a woman make IMO (Now I understand that psychological gender affiliation is different).

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

The list above shows that incidents of some form of deformity in sexual development can be estimated as high as 1 in 1000, those are not true cases where the gender is in question, just where abnormalities are present.  

Regardless, even 1 in 1000 is an anomaly that shows that gender 'normalcy' can still be considered a standard - one that God could have set in place to reflect our eternal natures.  

As someone who knows more about this intersex thing that I do, are you aware of anyone who has ever had the complete reproductive system of both sexes within himself/herself?  Such a person would be both sexes, in one, as I would understand it.

Anything short of that I would look to see which sexual reproductive system a person had more of even if they had some of both.  Would they develop eggs or sperm production capabilities?  A uterus, or no? 

It may be a little more difficult to tell in some cases but at some point I would think it would become a case of either or unless it was both.  

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

This is a hard one because there are so many gradations of what people call intersex.  I personally don't count abnormalities of sexual development as pure intersex.  I am referring to what used to be called "true hermaphroditism" where both sexual traits are so present that it is practically impossible to determine which one should be favored.  The cases of that happening are estimated at 1 in 83,000 births.  Now misshapen sex organs, slow development, breasts on a man etc, I don't call those true confused gender - just like a person with an extra finger - it is pretty logical to see what needs to change to bring things back to the 'standard'.  A man with extra estrogen, or an underdeveloped penis does not a woman make IMO (Now I understand that psychological gender affiliation is different).

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

The list above shows that incidents of some form of deformity in sexual development can be estimated as high as 1 in 1000, those are not true cases where the gender is in question, just where abnormalities are present.  

Regardless, even 1 in 1000 is an anomaly that shows that gender 'normalcy' can still be considered a standard - one that God could have set in place to reflect our eternal natures.  

And there are cases of genetic males with androgyn insensitivity who look female on the outside who are identified as female at birth. They are not biologically female, and may have undescended testes and no uterus.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There was a researcher which asserted those numbers, but other researchers have called them into question.  There is a paper on a medical journal website that responds to her assertions.  I don't have access to the full paper because you have to pay for a subscription but here is the abstract for it, which answers your question-

"Anne Fausto-Sterling's suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."

Hmm.  Now why would someone want to inflate/exaggerate "the prevalence of intersex?"  To me, it sounds like Anne Fausto-Sterling has a thumb on the scales, and for non-scientific/medical reasons (that is, for political / social engineering reasons). 

She describes her work as "advocat{ing} for those who are underrepresented in the scientific workplace."  See also here:

Quote

That changed in 1993, when feminist biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling published articles in The Sciences and The New York Times exposing the basic fact that intersex exists. In response, Cheryl Chase wrote a letter to The Sciences announcing the founding of the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA). She founded the group because of her own attempts to recover her history of sex-reassignment in infancy and medically-induced shame, and because of the disinterest of most of her former care providers in what had happened to her. Soon Chase had brought together dozens of people with intersex.

Though ISNA began as a support group, it quickly turned into an advocacy group because its members realized that they had suffered from similar problems. Like many of the early ISNA members, Chase drew on her political consciousness as a lesbian woman to recognize the degree to which intersex had been unnecessarily socially and medically pathologized. With the successes of the women’s health movement and the queer rights movements as a backdrop, people with intersex began agitating for openness and reform.

Early on, very few medical professionals recognized ISNA’s critiques as legitimate. Many responded that the standard of care was necessary, successful, and justified, even going so far as to actively defend lying to patients about their medical histories. Those at the top simply tried to ignore ISNA. As the leader of the newly formed intersex rights movement, Chase moved rapidly, sometimes able to engage in dialog, and having group protests when doctors would not listen. With her professional background in computer science, she was particularly adept at using the tools of the Internet to spread ISNA’s message. ISNA also supported the inquiries of researchers like Suzanne Kessler, Anne Fausto-Sterling, and Alice Dreger, and the organization engaged in media outreach as much as possible.

And here (a letter to Nature from Dr. Fausto-Sterling):

Quote

The idea that there are more than two biological sexes is not as recent as you imply (Nature 518, 288–291; 2015). It emerged in the early 1990s after feminist critics of science joined forces with an intersex activist movement. Their aim was to prevent reinforcement of the artificial two-sex construct by reforming the practice of surgical intervention (see, for example, A. Fausto-Sterling The Sciences 33, 20–24 (1993) and S. J. Kessler Lessons from the Intersexed Rutgers Univ. Press, 1998).

These groups pointed out that science is not isolated from society: ideas that stimulate understanding travel into the lab from street activists, literature and varied scholarship, and move back out again. As a result of their efforts, research scientists were pushed into visualizing the previously invisible.

Her "science" seems to be tainted by activism.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In an unfallen world I doubt this is a thing. I doubt there are spirit beings with ambiguous sexuality at birth. In those rare cases where it happens I hope God sees the end from the beginning and takes steps. I am not as worried about chromosomes as I am what they obviously appear to be at birth. I am guessing that God puts the spirit into the body that matches the development.

Hence I think it is wrong to transition.

I am also not convinced by the (admittedly scanty) studies that it is helpful for the problems people who desire transition are experiencing. My even more scanty anecdotes from my own life with people who transition and one in a ward I attended that transitioned were also not positive. I also hope there is a strong screening process, especially for teenagers. I am guessing most people my age who went to college (not in the BYU system) knew many dedicated lesbians who went back to straight once they got older and it was clear it was more of a political statement after the fact. As sinful as that kind of sexual experimentation is it is more easily reversible then surgery and hormone treatments.

I am torn on legality. I want it illegal emotionally but rationally I am not sure where the line is between agency and protecting people from themselves is. My feeling currently is legal with strong screening process, especially for children and teenagers.

My experience is similar, in every case I am personally aware of it was very clear there was something wrong with the person, and it was also very clear that when they were finished mutilating themselves the problems didn't go away. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And there are cases of genetic males with sndogyn insensitivity who look female on the outside who are identified as female at birth. They are not biologically female, and may have undescended testes and no uterus.

What is it that gives some people the idea that it is a male?  All people have both male and female genes, so genes don't really prove anything either way other than it is a person.  And not all females have a uterus.

Link to comment

Of course, human biology has evolved with male and female sexual reproduction, but neither nor both represent the biological expression of all human sexual characteristics. There's still much science has yet to tell us, but personally, when I encounter an apparently gender non-conforming person, my overall impression is that they are in an extremely socially-vulnerable state. I don't know for a given person if it's just ambiguous physicality, or a reflection of a complex biological identity, or a phase. But it's not my job to know. What I want to do is help them feel like they are welcome to exist here on Earth.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course, human biology has evolved with male and female sexual reproduction, but neither nor both represent the biological expression of all human sexual characteristics. There's still much science has yet to tell us, but personally, when I encounter an apparently gender non-conforming person, my overall impression is that they are in an extremely socially-vulnerable state. I don't know for a given person if it's just ambiguous physicality, or a reflection of a complex biological identity, or a phase. But it's not my job to know. What I want to do is help them feel like they are welcome to exist here on Earth.

 

Yep, so I would say something like: "Hey, look, whatever kind of person you are, male or female or both, you are welcome to exist here on this planet."

Just in case they didn't already know that.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Renewed anger is about the only emotion they seem to be able to express. 

Restating someones point and expressing you disagreement is so last century.

If you disagree you are the enemy!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Renewed anger is about the only emotion they seem to be able to express. 

Restating someones point and expressing you disagreement is so last century.

If you disagree you are the enemy!

I don't agree with you if you meant we're not supposed to express our disagreement with other people.  But you are still welcome to exist here on this planet.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What is it that gives some people the idea that it is a male?  All people have both male and female genes, so genes don't really prove anything either way other than it is a person.  And not all females have a uterus.

"

Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs when the body cannot use androgens at all. People with this form of the condition have the external sex characteristics of females, but do not have a uterus and therefore do not menstruate and are unable to conceive a child (infertile). They are typically raised as females and have a female gender identity. Affected individuals have male internal sex organs (testes) that are undescended, which means they are abnormally located in the pelvis or abdomen. Undescended testes have a small chance of becoming cancerous later in life if they are not surgically removed. People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome also have sparse or absent hair in the pubic area and under the arms."

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

Btw, reductively but generally, genetic males have the Y chromosome, genetic females do not. Genetic females have two X chromosomes, while genetic males have one X chromosome. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course, human biology has evolved with male and female sexual reproduction, but neither nor both represent the biological expression of all human sexual characteristics. There's still much science has yet to tell us, but personally, when I encounter an apparently gender non-conforming person, my overall impression is that they are in an extremely socially-vulnerable state. I don't know for a given person if it's just ambiguous physicality, or a reflection of a complex biological identity, or a phase. But it's not my job to know. What I want to do is help them feel like they are welcome to exist here on Earth.

 

As opposed to everyone else here wishing they were dead?

Link to comment

Bottom line for me is if you come out with male sexual organs you are a man.  If you have female sexual organs you are a woman.

Are there biological anomalies beyond this rule?  Yes.

Are there circumstances where only God can judge correctly? Yes.

Does God put male spirits in female bodies or female in male? No.

Is it a matter of choosing? No.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Renewed anger is about the only emotion they seem to be able to express. 

Restating someones point and expressing you disagreement is so last century.

If you disagree you are the enemy!

To be fair though how often do you interact with them in a setting or venue that is upsetting to them? Do you seek out transgender opinions on flower arranging, impressionist art, hockey games, or your city’s zoning laws?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

As opposed to everyone else here wishing they were dead?

As opposed to President Oaks hurtful remarks, the church penalising them for their gender expression, all the negative social consequences that follow in the church, and of course the hostility they already have to deal with in the world. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

can you share what you were reading?

I have not check the site's level of bias or academic rigor.

https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/

Quote

The most thorough existing research finds intersex people to constitute an estimated 1.7% of the population*, which makes being intersex about as common as having red hair (1%-2%). However, popularly misinterpretted, much referenced statistics would have you believe are numbers are much lower. Here’s why.

 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As someone who knows more about this intersex thing that I do, are you aware of anyone who has ever had the complete reproductive system of both sexes within himself/herself?  Such a person would be both sexes, in one, as I would understand it.

Anything short of that I would look to see which sexual reproductive system a person had more of even if they had some of both.  Would they develop eggs or sperm production capabilities?  A uterus, or no? 

It may be a little more difficult to tell in some cases but at some point I would think it would become a case of either or unless it was both.  

I know of no such cases.  And even when both partial sexual gonads are present as in the cases I mentioned (which are quite rare) they are almost always sterile.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There was a researcher which asserted those numbers, but other researchers have called them into question.  There is a paper on a medical journal website that responds to her assertions.  I don't have access to the full paper because you have to pay for a subscription but here is the abstract for it, which answers your question-

"Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%."

Fausto-Sterling is what is referenced in my cite.

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

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