All Activity

They don't negate the binary because binary is the natural default. My point is that there are a number of studies on genetic variation that directly lead to trans occurrences; ranging from physical intersex to individuals with mismatched chromosomes relative to their presenting genitalia. As to why I used only unicorn, it's because it was the easy fantasy creature on your list. Do I really need to go through and address every one, or will you stop imaging subtext in my statements? BTW, based on your post, I'm pretty confident you had AI prepare at least half of what you said. I don't consider that good faith, counselor.

It could have been just my ward or the couple of teachers I had, but my memory is in my early years (pre 15 probably, but might be prior to university), omnipresence of God (meaning the Father) was treated as a big false doctrine, something that made us different from those Trinitarians. I do think there has been less emphasis placed on it in my experience, but again could just be because that wasn’t my home ward anymore. This was Northern California, not Utah btw.

Yep, Gone with the Wind falls into this category. 300 does too. Sometimes you get horrible art with a horrible message. Gods & Generals is the first thing that jumps to mind in recent history.

Yes, the light of Christ, sorry for being confusing. When I read Manol's statement about this not being a mainstream teaching it caught me off guard so I had to go and look to see if he was right (because that's not how I remembered it). These were some of the first things to come up in the church's (horrible awful) search engine:

I’m interested in knowing your own answers to your own post.

None of these links negate the sexual binary. They describe developmental variations and disorders within the binary system of male and female. In humans (as in other mammals), sex is binary because there are two gametes—sperm and ova—and two corresponding developmental pathways organized around the production of one or the other. This is the definition used in evolutionary biology and developmental biology. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy are mechanisms that implement that binary; they are not the definition itself. There is no third sex, nor is there a "spectrum" of sexes, and DSDs are not outside the sexual binary. They are, instead, disorders or variations in the development of the male or female pathway. Individuals with these conditions are still male or female (or, in rare ambiguous cases, have mixed or incomplete development of one of the two pathways). They do not produce a third type of gamete or open a third developmental trajectory. The Scientific American piece and the ASRM sheet make a rhetorical move, not a biological one. Both emphasize complexity, overlaps, and rare developmental disorders, then treat that complexity as if it invalidates the binary. Complexity in the mechanisms of sexual differentiation does not abolish the binary outcome those mechanisms are organized to produce. The same articles note that medicine and law continue to classify people as male or female because that classification tracks the underlying reproductive reality. Calling the binary “overly simplistic” is a value judgment about how much weight to give rare edge cases, not a demonstration that the edge cases constitute additional sexes. The neurobiology paper (Roselli) is about gender identity and sexual orientation, not about the definition of biological sex. It discusses prenatal hormonal influences on brain development and behavior. It does not claim that biological sex itself is a spectrum or that DSDs create new sexes. Conflating questions about identity or orientation with the definition of sex is, in my view, a category error. On the "Unicorn" comment, I find it interesting that describing people who "identify" as one is "insulting," but noting that some people "identify" as a space alien, or as a wolf, or as being nine feet tall, or as being the son of Elon Musk, or as being a child, is not insulting. Could you elaborate? How is "I am a woman because I 'identify' as one" distinguishable from "I am a dog because I 'identify' as one"? Why is the latter not taken literally by people like you (I assume) but the former is taken literally? Thanks, -Smac

This is what my first link shows (MZ being identical, DZ being fraternal). My guess is sex hormones might be harder to tease out because I have seen studies suggesting that as well. I like the intro in that link: Then it summarized 7 twin studies the Review apparently ignored while depending on the eighth for its findings…a study which itself urged caution drawing that conclusion as the finding was inferred as they couldn’t assess the type of zygote if I understand correctly. They only assumed there were likely identical twins, they didn’t establish it.

Do you mean the Light of Christ? As opposed to his spirit that ‘inhabits’ Christ’s resurrected body? It is sometimes written as the Spirit of Christ…so you may mean that, but it gets confusing with the small ‘s’. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/light-of-christ

From what I recall, mouse and primate models have been able to simulate through early ER activation during prenatal development, changes in brain structures that are generally sex-specific. These structural changes generally don't see significant activation until hormones begin to reactive those structures later in life (namely the equivalent of puberty). Naturally, human brains are much more complex, and can't be (currently) studied in the same way, but this would align with gender dysphoria becoming more pronounced in puberty when those self-same structures that were influenced during prenatal development experience elevated sex-hormone concentrations and binding. Also (and big caution on trusting my memory here), I believe twin studies have shown a higher preponderance of transgenderism amongst both twins with identical twins, than in fraternal twins, which would lead credence to models that suggest a complex interaction between genetic predisposition, and other factors (social, environment, etc.).

His spirit as in the spirit of Christ. At least that’s what it teaches on the church’s website. But as far as Holy Ghost is also a God, then yes God is omnipresent in that way as well in our teachings.

For me it’s a complicated yes

This - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ This - https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/ This - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/ This - https://genetic.org/variations/ Please note - I am NOT saying that ALL instances of trans orientation are due to a genetic contributor. However, the science does indicate a strong possibility that at lease SOME instances are genetically influenced. And, yes, your comparison to unicorns is insulting to people dealing with this issue. Despite your efforts to appear dispassionate in your analyses, your lack of empathy betrays you time and again.

Okay! Maybe we have more common ground here than I had realized. My recollection is that the emphasis is on God having a body of flesh and bone and therefore presumably having a physical location, that location being described in the Book of Abraham. So... is it your understanding that God is literally present in the room with you right now? And if so, is the answer simple or complicated? For me, the answer is a simple Yes.

His spirit being the Holy Ghost (why not his own spirit? Iirc, once resurrected, a spirit is tied too closely to the body to be omnipresent….at least that was what I was taught as a kid. In traditional Christianity, God the Father is spirit, but would they label that omnipresent spirit as the Holy Ghost or the Father? The Trinity is typically three persons. I assume God the Father is a spirit, the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and Jesus is body and spirit. Which seems to me means God’s spirit is different than the Holy Ghost/Spirit. But could be wrong.

It was a stupid song.

Right. We teach that He is omnipresent through His spirit. Which is the same way that all other Christian religions teach He is omnipresent, if I understand right.

Not physically himself though, his influence, awareness, and power. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/5-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-88-the-olive-leaf?

Hunting (for example fishing) is a type of work done by many who are not Indians.

Is there anyone here or in mainstream transgender discussion that is arguing a person who is transgender is biologically somehow the opposite sex?

Specific genes have not yet been identified, but there are indications of genetic influence in gender identity. For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 Sex hormones look less likely to have an influence though from this study. It’s unlikely to be one gene nor does such require genetics be the only influence, but to say no influence found is inaccurate imo. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/

It is a part of mainstream teachings that God is omnipresent.

False equivalence fallacy. There are a number of identifiable genetic variations which can lead to trans occurrences. There is no such thing for any of items you presented as comparable. Despite your claim to being able to love trans people, this kind of rhetoric contradicts your claim. I respectfully disagree that the comparison is not a false equivalence, and the genetics claim does not hold up. Overwhelmingly, people who "identify" as "trans" do not have a DSD, and instead have Gender Dysphoria. There are well-documented disorders of sexual development (DSDs) caused by identifiable genetic or chromosomal variations (e.g., CAH, AIS, certain sex-chromosome aneuploidies). Those are real, measurable biological conditions that affect physical sex development. They are not the same thing as a person with typical male or female chromosomes and anatomy identifying as the opposite sex, or as neither sex. AFAIK, no genetic variant has been shown to cause someone with a normal male or female body to be, in any literal biological sense, a member of the opposite sex. Twin studies, heritability research, and large-scale genetic studies have not identified any such deterministic “trans gene” or set of variants. The etiology of gender dysphoria and transgender identification remains complex, multifactorial, and poorly understood; it is not equivalent to the clear genetic causes of DSDs. The other examples I gave (identifying as a space alien, a wolf, a unicorn, nine feet tall, etc.) are likewise incongruent with observable physical reality. In each case the person is asserting an identity that contradicts measurable facts about their body or species. Pointing out that similarity is not a claim that the psychological experiences or social dynamics are identical in every respect; it is a claim that all of them involve a mismatch between asserted identity and physical reality. That mismatch can arise from role-playing, social contagion, or genuine psychological distress. The existence of distress does not convert the asserted identity into a biological fact. On the “love” point: recognizing that a person’s self-description does not match their biology is not incompatible with concern for their well-being. Many people who experience gender dysphoria are in real psychological pain. Accurate description of the underlying reality (sex is binary and determined by reproductive anatomy and gametes in humans; self-identification does not change that) is not an expression of hatred. It is possible to oppose social and medical practices that treat the incongruent identity as literally true—especially when those practices involve irreversible interventions on minors—while still wanting the individuals involved to receive effective mental-health care and to be treated with ordinary human decency. Conflating disagreement about the nature of sex with an inability to love people is a rhetorical move, not an argument. Thanks, -Smac

Something can be fantastic art and still teach a horrible message, can it not? Perhaps a beautifully done film that celebrates torture of animals. I agree. Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation are excellent "art" in technical terms, but they convey horrible messages. Thanks, -Smac

False equivalence fallacy. There are a number of identifiable genetic variations which can lead to trans occurrences. There is no such thing for any of items you presented as comparable. Despite your claim to being able to love trans people, this kind of rhetoric contradicts your claim.

This. Thank you Calm.