The Eternal Nature Of Gender

[Zoidberg]

zoidberg, you keep getting rights and privileges mixed up.

Hmm, how is heterosexual marriage a privilege in this country? There are privileges associated WITH it, but what do you have to do to show your worthiness to the government? The only requirements are:

1. You have to be a certain age.

2. You have to pay the state for a piece of paper, which I suppose ensures that you are not already married and you are not marrying your close relative.

3. As stated before, you have to be currently unmarried.

4. You have to marry someone who is not your close relative (I believe the state's position on it is the way it is because of possible genetic disorders associated with the offspring, as in some states, which, I believe, includes Utah, cousins can marry after a certain [old] age or when at least one of them is infertile)

5. There are some consent issues (if one of the persons is deemed unable to give consent)

6. You can only marry a person who is legally of the opposite gender (even though it is legal to marry a person who was born the same gender as yourself)

Doesn't seem like such a hard-to-earn privilege now, does it? I am aware that the Church's position is that marriage is a privilege reserved only for heterosexuals. Only worthy heterosexuals, even. However, not everyone shares that point of view. You are confusing the Church's point of view and the whole society's point of view. In a democracy, theoretically, at least, the government represents the people and does not impose the will of a handful of individuals on the whole country, even though that's what's happening now in reality. There is a whole lot of problems with democracy. And any other form of government.

If I knew this thread was going to turn into a discussion about why or why not we should have gay marriage, or libertarianism, or something else political, I wouldn't have mentioned that letter. The main issue is the Church's definition of gender. Yes, the reasons I got interested in it is because of the church's current position on [actively] homosexual and transgender people. And the lack of a position on intersex people, coupled with an assertion that "gender is an essential characteristic of our premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose". Can we just focus on that? The gay marriage thing has been chewed over and over again. If you have already made up your mind that nothing will change your mind about gay marriage save an official declaration from the FP repudiating everything they have said earlier, then I can do nothing to convince you in a forum discussion, so I'm not even going to try. So why don't we just stay on the gender issue? I hope someone is more interested in this aspect of my post.

[Mighty Curelom]

What "simplest explanation" am I overlooking?

The simplest explanation is that the church is wrong about gender being eternal. The church is wrong when it claims that a physical body has either a male or a female spirit. The biological reality, as you already know, is quite different from the platonic forms upon which the church depends.

[Zoidberg]

The simplest explanation is that the church is wrong about gender being eternal. The church is wrong when it claims that a physical body has either a male or a female spirit. The biological reality, as you already know, is quite different from the platonic forms upon which the church depends.

I guess I have misunderstood what you said, since for everyone else the simplest explanation is "God said so, so we need not worry about it not making any sense". So I stand corrected. It is the simplest explanation. Yes, I am, too, beginning to suspect that gender is not really eternal. Or, rather, go back to this notion since I only even started entertaining the "eternal gender" idea when I joined the Church. However, if you and I are right, that would undermine pretty much everything the Church teaches, and I'm desperately trying to reconcile objective reality with what the Church teaches (I am also not so sure that objective reality even exists, but the Church says it does, even though it's not really in their best interest since it contradicts so many of the other things the Church has said over the years). So I would be more satisfied if there was at least some consistency in the Church's position on gender and gender issues. There is none. And it's becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile all these things since I am unable to just put myself into "This has no significance for my eternal salvation, so for all I care God could tell me (through his servants the prophets, of course, not personally) to go stone certain individuals and I would do it, since obedience is the first law of Heaven" mode. The only question, really, is whether to stay in the Church and keep banging your head against the wall in hopes that our fallible leaders will descend from their clouds and finally admit that certain doctrines are just plain wrong, or leave because if I want to belong to any kind of organized religion, I want to agree with it 100%, otherwise what's the point, right? If the First Presidency came out and said: "Look, we might be wrong even when we are giving you the impression we are speaking for God, and all these policies may change when we have better understanding, so bear with us", I would be more than happy. But when they say that when the First Presidency has taken a position, and they want me to give up all my prior notions of the character of God and align myself with that position, and I will be blessed (read: if I don't, I will be damned for disobedience to my God-given ecclesiastical leaders), and I am unable to do so, why keep up the charade? If they showed some consistency, at least, it would make infinitely more sense. They aren't.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Let me help...Boys are boys and girls are girls. Any questions.

[Zoidberg]

Let me help...Boys are boys and girls are girls. Any questions.

Yes. Why don't you go check this out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

[Deborah]

I totally agree with that! However, is there any way to know in this life what gender this child is? According to the Church, just because someone believes they are of a certain gender does not make them so (transsexuals). Then the child you mentioned choosing to be, say, a woman, might be wrong and will actually be a man in the afterlife.

And my response is what does it matter if that person lives the best they are able according to the knowledge they have? All these things will be worked out and the important thing is living righteously within the limitations given us.

[Helmuth]

Helmuth, read my other posts.

I read the ones on this thread. I neglected to do a search of all your 44 prior posts. Do I need to in order to understand?

If that's not enough to make you see my point of view, further discussion is probably pointless.

I think I understood your position from the beginning. I simply disagree with your conception of rights. Liberty is negative, not positive. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

In the past, I may have agreed with you on this gay marriage thing. But then I made some discoveries and did some thinking. For instance, if you've done any geneological research, you may have noticed that beyond a certain date there are no "marriage licenses" to be found. Why is that? I'll tell you why: it used to be that only slaves needed marriage licenses. Chew on that!

I agree with Deborah: legal marriage is not a right, but I would nit-pick with her and say it is a dubious "privilege" indeed. The solution is total separation of marriage and state. Marriage is a religious matter. It is not something that falls under the purview of Caeser, rather, it is properly "rendered unto God".

You still did not give me anything I would call a real right which the First Presidency is agitating against. Tax breaks? Not exactly a right, at least not in the way you're thinking. Petitioning for a future partner to immigrate to the US? Not a right. Legally adopting kids? Not a right.

Thus, pending further data, I will have to continue to disagree with you that the First Presidency is trying to take away people's free agency.

Let's get back to the core subject of your thread, the eternal nature of gender. On that, I don't know the answer. Persons of indeterminate gender are problematic dotrinally. There has been no official statement on it. But I do not know of any possible statement that I can conceive which would be fully satisfactory and answer all the questions. Short of revelation for each individual that "your spirit is of the X gender, you were born this way because X, and here is the course of action which I, the Lord, recommend you take...." We do believe in modern revelation, and so if I were of indeterminite sex, I imagine that seeking such revelation would be my plan of attack.

I also must again agree with Deborah's perfectly wonderful answer. Indeed, our resposibility is to be righteous, not to know everything (yet), and these questions without answers will be sorted out in the end.

[Zoidberg]

Helmuth, let me tell you this: I think the government sucks probably just as much as you think. You need not read any posts on anything other than this thread. I thought I didn't have to spell out that it is very restrictive in nature and that the marriage amendment would limit people's freedom MORE than it is currently limited. As in, if all other things remain a constant, that would limit their free agency. I was never saying that it would prevent them from living together or professing undying love or anything of the sort. I also never said the Church was trying to TAKE AWAY their free agency altogether. I said it attempted to limit it. If there weren't government restrictions in place already that prevented people from having consenting children from living with whomever they like (since children are often deemed unable to give consent, again, by the government, so that point you made about gays "procuring" children who were willing to live with them amounts to nothing in the current situation). If there were no government regulations, people would be able to travel freely and immigration would not be an issue at all. If we didn't have to pay taxes for some hypothetical "protection" to the government, nobody would care for a tax-break. But WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW! And let me remind you that the Church wants us to be law-abiding. So, then, someone with your mentality about the government, for instance, if they could not find a legal way to live in the same country as their girlfriend/boyfriend, would go live with them anyway, since they realize immigration laws are stupid. However, if they were found out, there would be punishment. As in: the person who immigrated illegally could be deported and denied any chance to enter the country in the future (which there could be a remote hope for otherwise or unless they are willing to risk their life sneaking through the border if they get a chance to go to a bordering country). So who in their right mind would ignore the legal ramifications of certain actions in this case? It's like saying that a woman told by a man who broke into her home that she should either do a certain sexual favor or he will shoot her, freely has sex with him.

About liberty: the forceful interference is with the Constitution, that, for the sake of the argument, we will consider to be benign in nature and serve the interests of society (BTW, D&C 101 says that God established it, or are you forgetting that? Or should it never has been amended in the first place?). The amendments that gave certain rights to certain individuals contribute to their freedom [if you disregard the fact that having a government is, in itself, restrictive]. Do you disagree with that? Right now it says nothing about the definition of marriage. Adding an amendment that would RESTRICT the definition of marriage (and possibly ramify the restriction of all or most of the benefits [read: ways to get around certain government restrictions] associated with it) would reduce the amount of freedom people are able to exercise [in the context of a restrictive government. And in Massachusets]. As in: the Constitution says nothing about the street legality of hover cars. Right now, they are not street legal. However, were they to become safer and more accepted as a form of transportation, that law might change. Then they will be street legal. It is not unconstitutional. Same with the homosexual marriages. They are not unconstitutional right now, they are just not legally permitted in most states. Were they to become more accepted by society, they would be legally permitted. However, if you make same-sex marriages unconstitutional, it would be impossible to make them legally permitted without first repealing that amendment. Which, I'm sure you realize, is much harder to do than instituting a new law that does not contradict the constitution. And as long as you think that gay people right now have all the freedom that straight people have in this country, you are disregarding the impact that fear of the punishment by a MUCH, MUCH bigger and stronger entity (the government) for certain activities (like illegal immigration, for instance) has on people. Would you agree that having a government somewhat limits people's free agency? In this case, you have to agree that making the Constitution it's established upon more restrictive also limits people's free agency. Let me once again clarify: I don't give a fat rat's butt about marriage licenses. I'm talking about the benefits [read: ways to get around government restrictions] that are associated with marriage granted by the State.

I read that link that you provided. It is all very well and good, and right, and I agree with it. I also have one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_freedom. This is a fuller definition of freedom. Which includes negative liberty as condition 1. I guess the main point of difference in our debate is the definition of free agency. You define it as negative liberty. I define it as real freedom. I also am aware of some research that suggests that free agency is not as free as we have come to believe. That aside, everything in my first post was posed within the Church's frame (how I understand it). If you can provide a source that defines free agency, according to the Church, as negative liberty, go ahead. I have always understood the Church's concept of free agency as real freedom since it has always seemed more natural to me. I am willing to re-evaluate my position. Besides, if you are trying to argue that the government is not hindering or has no real ability to hinder our will and thus allows us 100% negative liberty, I suggest you reconsider. If you are not willing to reconsider that notion, you and I will likely never agree on that point. That article you cited also says that government limits a person's negative freedom. Really, Helmuth, what more can I say?

I also agree with Deborah and you about having no knowledge about certain things. However, my main point of concern is that the Church claims this certain knowledge I'm not sure they have. Do they not excommunicate people who have undergone SRS because they supposedly KNOW that these people attempted to change their eternal God-assigned gender identity? Or am I misunderstanding something? What other basis could there possibly be for disciplining these individuals? So, according to the Church, they KNOW that a male-to-female transsexual's pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose is to be male. Am I misinterpreting or misrepresenting their position somehow? How is a case of a transsexual so different from a person born intersex? If an intersex person is allowed to basically determine what gender to identify with (through revelation, or, I assume, in the absense of revelation, through their own choice), why can't a person who feels (could be interpreted as a revelation) that their spirit is trapped in a body of the opposite sex do the same thing? I believe transsexualism is in the DSM now. So what? Homosexuality used to be there. It's not anymore. Besides, the Church claims to have the priesthood that need not rely on worldly knowledge. When homosexuality was removed from the DSM, the Church's position on it didn't change, which only further illustrates my point. So they claim to KNOW certain things about people that they cannot possibly know. And their position looks even more unfounded in the absense of a clear definition of gender or any kind of a position on intersex people. It's not like I'm asking all these questions about what gender is, or what happens to intersex people in the afterlife, out of idle curiosity. I'm asking how the Church is justified in claiming the ability to have sure knowledge of a person's gender in one case but not the other. Or esle they have certain knowledge about intersex people and what exactly gender is (or, perhaps, GBH could, through the power of discernment, determine an individual intersex person's eternal gender on an individual basis). So, then, why don't they reveal it? Or if GBH and the FP, or a bishop, even, can discern an intersex person's real gender (which, in the most common interpretation of the Proclamation is EITHER male or female), why don't they do it, since it's such a central aspect of our earthly life? Think: an intersex person feels they are male, is given the priesthood, gets married, etc., only to find out in the afterlife that he is a she. Then this person's whole mortal probation was based on a false premise (or would you suggest that this person outright ignored clear sighns from God and therefore will not be exalted anyway?). I don't pesonally know any intersex people, let alone intersex mormons (that I'm aware of), but, being an abstract thinker, I can't help but wonder why the Church can be so sure they know someone's gender in one case (especially since we have no reason to believe they even know for sure what gender really is), but not the other? Or do you agree that the Church is making unqualified judgements? If they are qualified to make these judgements, they must know God's exact definition of gender and be able to tell what eternal gender a person has 100% of the time.

[Deborah]

I also agree with Deborah and you about having no knowledge about certain things. However, my main point of concern is that the Church claims this certain knowledge I'm not sure they have. Do they not excommunicate people who have undergone SRS because they supposedly KNOW that these people attempted to change their eternal God-assigned gender identity? Or am I misunderstanding something? What other basis could there possibly be for disciplining these

I don't think excommunicating people for gender change necessarily shows that there is certainty on the status of gender in the eternity. First of all I would like to see the positive evidene of such excommunications, since the church never talks about why someone is excommunicated and so all we have is one side and some very broad assumptions on the part of those who observe such things. There is always more to the story than what you see on the surface.

What is expected by members of the church is to live according to the gospel witin the limitations this life puts on us and with all our best effort to comply with covenants we have made. It is usually in breaking covenants that one is excommunicated, not in struggling with the challenges of mortality.

[charity]

zoidberg, your questions are not about gender. They are about learning and knowing and following God. Gender is just what you chose to hang your doubts on. If it weren't gender, it would be something else. The reason we are here is to learn to know the mind of God and bend to His will.

I hope you can come to resolve your doubts about God through study and prayer.

[Zoidberg]

I don't think excommunicating people for gender change necessarily shows that there is certainty on the status of gender in the eternity. First of all I would like to see the positive evidene of such excommunications, since the church never talks about why someone is excommunicated and so all we have is one side and some very broad assumptions on the part of those who observe such things. There is always more to the story than what you see on the surface.

I know they don't, which is good since it preserves confidentiality. Let me refer you to the Church Handbook of Instructions, p. 95: When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Transsexual Operation

Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer should inform him of this counsel and advise him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

This is evidence from the most official source. You can also do some google searches for individual examples (since I don't personally know any transsexual members of the Church, which was obvious from the very first post in this thread, and if I did, I wouldn't reveal their names on a public discussion forum). Also in the CHI you can find guidelines denying members who have undergone transsexual operation temple recommends and the priesthood (without exception), and guidelines for baptising such persons.

] What is expected by members of the church is to live according to the gospel witin the limitations this life puts on us and with all our best effort to comply with covenants we have made.

You keep repeating that. I, for one, got an impression that gender (which, I suspect, means sex in the Proclamation) and gender roles are such a central eternal characteristic that without sure knowledge of your gender a person cannot perform any of those roles correctly in this life. So why are intersex people being ignored, since in all other, clearer cases the Church reserves the right to decide what gender and appropriate gender roles should be prescribed to a person? There's also NOTHING about them in the CHI.

zoidberg, your questions are not about gender. They are about learning and knowing and following God. Gender is just what you chose to hang your doubts on. If it weren't gender, it would be something else. The reason we are here is to learn to know the mind of God and bend to His will.

Well, certain questions I was unable to resolve through prayer (in a way that you would hope for, anyway). So I'm trying to find out why there are certain policies when no kind of a revelation has ever been presented on certain issues, such as transgender people. There is no scriptural basis for it, obviously (clothing interchange doesn't count, since most women now wear pants, which were obviously considered men's clothing until recently, and the type of outfits worn by men in the OT would count for a dress now), so where is the FP deriving such sure knowledge from that transsexual people do not have a spirit of the opposite gender to their body, while on intersex people they have no position? If you can provide a coherent explanation of it, it'll help with my study significantly, since I have been unable to locate it myself. I also know that God, for one, is consistent (hopefully, you will agree with me), but people are not. So I'm looking for consistensy in certain policies which I consider unfounded at best.

[Deborah]

I, for one, got an impression that gender (which, I suspect, means sex in the Proclamation) and gender roles are such a central eternal characteristic that without sure knowledge of your gender a person cannot perform any of those roles correctly in this life.

Why are you assuming that the transsexual desires or other such gender confusions are a signal that these people are expressing their true spiritual selves rather than the dysfunction of mortality which will be corrected in the next. In other words their desire to change sex may be wrong because that desire is misleading due to either genetic or environmental factors, which will be wiped away in the next life.

[Zoidberg]

Why are you assuming that the transsexual desires or other such gender confusions are a signal that these people are expressing their true spiritual selves rather than the dysfunction of mortality which will be corrected in the next. In other words their desire to change sex may be wrong because that desire is misleading due to either genetic or environmental factors, which will be wiped away in the next life.

I'm not assuming anything like this, as I have pointed out numerous times. The Church (and you) is assuming certain things. So I'm simply wondering what the basis for THEIR assumption is. And why they are not even attempting to assume anything in the case of intersex persons. Or persons with chromosomal disorders. I never claimed to know all underlying causes and contributing factors to either homosexuality/bisexuality or transgender conditions. Current research doesn't give satisfying answers to all of the questions, either. What you are doing is trying to justify their position that I will continue to consider unfounded until a revelation is claimed/consistency is demonstrated.

[Mighty Curelom]

Why are you assuming that the transsexual desires or other such gender confusions are a signal that these people are expressing their true spiritual selves rather than the dysfunction of mortality which will be corrected in the next.

I don't think Z is assuming transsexuals' inclinations are always an expression of their "true spiritual selves." What she is doing, unlike the church, is allowing for the possibility of such. We know that biological errors occur. We know that people are born with defects. Furthermore, we know that people are born with defects that pertain to gender and sex, intersex individuals being the most obvious example. We can infer from these facts that it is possible for one to be born with the "wrong" body--a male mind (or spirit, if you prefer) with a female body, or vice versa. The church has no problem acknowledging other kinds of biological imperfections, so why does it refuse to allow for the possibility of a spirit/body mismatch?

[SolarPowered]

Let me help...Boys are boys and girls are girls. Any questions.

Yes. Why don't you go check this out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

And that Wikipedia article says that the actual incidence of intersexuality is 0.018%. I don't think anyone has a problem with treating them as a special case.

For the rest of us, "Boys are boys and girls are girls."

"Any questions?"

[Zoidberg]

Yes. Why don't you go check this out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

And that Wikipedia article says that the actual incidence of intersexuality is 0.018%. I don't think anyone has a problem with treating them as a special case.

For the rest of us, "Boys are boys and girls are girls."

"Any questions?"

Yes. We have Church positions on a lot of special cases: children who die unbaptized, mentally differently abled people, etc. Certain things, like when the spirit enters the body, the Church has pretty much admitted they do not know and leave it to God. However, the existence of intersex persons and the implications the doctrine of eternal gender may have on such individuals is outright ignored. Like I said, the only thing pertaining to intersex people I have found was SWK calling them accidents of nature. Even then, he did not even outline any kind of a solution for them. Why?

[SolarPowered]

Yes. We have Church positions on a lot of special cases: children who die unbaptized, mentally differently abled people, etc. Certain things, like when the spirit enters the body, the Church has pretty much admitted they do not know and leave it to God. However, the existence of intersex persons and the implications the doctrine of eternal gender may have on such individuals is outright ignored. Like I said, the only thing pertaining to intersex people I have found was SWK calling them accidents of nature. Even then, he did not even outline any kind of a solution for them. Why?

I would think that is obvious. The "solution" for them is that their parents and doctors do their best to sort out the mess, and God will make things right in the Hereafter. You don't need a special proclamation from the First Presidency to figure that out.

Again, this applies to around 0.018% of the population. For the rest of us, boys are boys, and girls are girls. It's not very complicated, really.

[Zoidberg]

I would think that is obvious. The "solution" for them is that their parents and doctors do their best to sort out the mess, and God will make things right in the Hereafter. You don't need a special proclamation from the First Presidency to figure that out.

Again, that applies to around 0.018% of the population. For the rest of us, boys are boys, and girls are girls. It's not very complicated, really.

Even if that figure is correct (it doesn't take chromosomal disorders where phenotypical discrepancies are as obvious into account), that's 54, 000 people in the US alone. Not exactly a small number?

On the other hand, the number of assigned men who seek SRS is 1 in 30,000, and the number of assigned women seeking SRS is 1 in 100,000, according to DSM-IV. This percentage is even smaller than the percentage of people born intersex (according to this one estimate). However, the Church has a very well-defined and outlined position on people who have undergone elective SRS, even though there are less of them than people born intersex. Especially among potential converts, I imagine, and yet there is a very specific outline of the procedure accompanying baptism for people who have undergone elective SRS. so on some very special and unlikely cases the Church has a position, but not on this one. Why not?

[Deborah]

What you are doing is trying to justify their position that I will continue to consider unfounded until a revelation is claimed/consistency is demonstrated.

I am really curious why this is such a big issue with you. I am not justifying anyone's position, but I am supporting the leadership in their decisions on these things. As you previously quoted "Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer should inform him of this counsel and advise him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary. "

It appears no decisions on this subject are made arbitrarily and they are on a case by case basis. I know for a fact that when any issue goes before a church council or the First Presidency careful consideration and prayer is done and no answer is given that does not involve divine counsel. Therefore, I do not see an issue with decisions that are made in individual cases.

[Zoidberg]

I am really curious why this is such a big issue with you. I am not justifying anyone's position, but I am supporting the leadership in their decisions on these things. As you previously quoted "Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer should inform him of this counsel and advise him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary. "

It appears no decisions on this subject are made arbitrarily and they are on a case by case basis. I know for a fact that when any issue goes before a church council or the First Presidency careful consideration and prayer is done and no answer is given that does not involve divine counsel. Therefore, I do not see an issue with decisions that are made in individual cases.

Well, the decisions on whether or not to excommunicate an individual is made on a case by case basis. Surely you are not assuming I have ever said that ALL people who have undergone SRS are excommunicated (just like not ALL people who have had gay sex as adults are excommunicated), but I believe it does happen in the majority of cases. Affirmation has some examples, I believe, I just don't know how credible you would consider them, so I only cited the CHI. And the denial of the temple recommend and priesthood are standard policy outlined in the CHI to transsexuals after SRS, no consultation with the SP or the FP necessary. These issues are not decided on a case by case basis.

Why is it a big issue? Because when I joined the Church it was because I sincerely believed that I have finally found a Christian denomination whose doctrines I can really call my own and that our leaders would never advise the members to do anything that would be detrimental to society/their conscience. Now, however, I am beginning to find out that it is not true, and I, as a member of the Church, has been asked to do something I would consider to be immoral (not to mention contradicts the most basic doctrine of the Church itself). I could overlook that if GBH didn't make it clear in his recent talk that he considers it the best when members "align themselves" with the position the FP has taken, whatever this position might be on. Which is not that far from "the thinking has been done", really. I could even keep quiet and wait for a change in position (as, I'm sure, many people did during the priesthood ban) or for my own understanding of why the position the FP has taken, for instance, on trying to legally ban gay marriage, is not immoral. However, since I am unable to just align myself with a position I, at least at the moment, consider immoral, and at the same time I want to know that I can at least try to approach the standard for a good follower of Christ. Now I know that, according to the current FP position on what is the better people will do (align themselves with a certain FP position I consider immoral), I can never do that because I will always have this stumbling block. Wouldn't that be a problem? And I don't see how you personally can support the FP's decisions on certain things without their position becoming your position (or at least believeing that they know what they are talking about). If you can, please tell me how so I can learn from you.

[SolarPowered]

Zoidberg, have you considered the possibility that perhaps God is right, and you are wrong?

[Zoidberg]

Zoidberg, have you considered the possibility that perhaps God is right, and you are wrong?

Here we go. Why are you equating God with the Church leadership? From the beginning I made it clear that I have no idea what the true causes of homosexuality, transgender identity or the intersex condition were, or how to really define gender. So are you saying I am wrong in that and I know what those causes are, as do all people? So far MC is the only one who has understood my position. My hypothesis is that the Church has no idea, either, which would make certain very principled positions the Church currently holds unfounded. I never claimed I know something God doesn't. Are you saying God has no position on people born intersex? The Church not only has no position, they don't even officially acknowledge the fact that intersex people exist (I doubt you can consider the utterance on "relatively few accidents of nature" official). I had to read that they hold no position on intersex people in a Wikipedia article. they won't even say that they have not taken a position on it. They are just outright ignoring it, which is curious since they don't hesitate to make it clear that they have no position on certain issues, like the stem cell research. If you want to speak for God and tell me what I'm "wrong" about, what authorizes you to do so?

[SolarPowered]

Here we go. Why are you equating God with the Church leadership?

Because, if the Church is what it purports to be, then God in fact stands at the head of this church and guides and directs its leaders.

Conversely, if the Church is not true, then there is no point whatsoever to this discussion.

From the beginning I made it clear that I have no idea what the true causes of homosexuality, transgender identity or the intersex condition were, or how to really define gender. So are you saying I am wrong in that and I know what those causes are, as do all people? So far MC is the only one who has understood my position. My hypothesis is that the Church has no idea, either, which would make certain very principled positions the Church currently holds unfounded.

However, God does know about these things, and has consistently throughout recorded history guided His prophets in a consistent manner about this sort of issue.

I never claimed I know something God doesn't. Are you saying God has no position on people born intersex? The Church not only has no position, they don't even officially acknowledge the fact that intersex people exist (I doubt you can consider the utterance on "relatively few accidents of nature" official). I had to read that they hold no position on intersex people in a Wikipedia article. they won't even say that they have not taken a position on it. They are just outright ignoring it, ...

I thought I had addressed this previously. What to do in those cases is so obvious that no comment is needed. The doctors of babies born with an intersex condition do their best to make sense of what is there. And just as God will take into account the limitations of, say, someone born with Down Syndrome, so will He in the Hereafter make things right for one who is born with an intersex condition.

No First Presidency statement is needed to tell doctors to "do your best to fix what is broken." Why do you think such would be needed?

When I raised these points upthread, you responded by confusing this with people who have had or are contemplating having "SRS", to use your term. There is a huge difference between fixing a birth defect, and voluntarily choosing to mutilate a perfectly good body.

If you want to speak for God and tell me what I'm "wrong" about, what authorizes you to do so?

I actually only suggested that you might consider the possibility that you are wrong. I did not declare that you are in fact wrong.

It appears that you made that particular leap on your own.

[Zoidberg]

No First Presidency statement is needed to tell doctors to "do your best to fix what is broken." Why do you think such would be needed?

I have never claimed (and hate claiming) to be an expert or have sufficient knowledge on this or any other issues. However, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the issue so you realize it might not be as obvious as you think. Actually, less and less people are choosing to let their doctors decide what gender their baby is and have a "corrective" surgery for their infants, as it led to disastrous consequences in the past. Intersex condition is not always obvious immediately at birth (some people who have argued that homosexuality is not genetic also tend to think that in order to prove that, the fact that babies are somehow "gay" at the time of birth must also be demonstrated). Intersex Society of North America, for instance, recommends assigning a gender based on chromosomal, external and internal characteristics and organs, and then, when the child is mature enough to make an informed decision about what gender to associate themselves with (if any), and whether to have a surgery or not. It is not for the doctors to decide. It is for the individual to decide. Go check out their website if you want more info: http://www.isna.org. So then, if an individual can basically decide what gender they will be in this case and have a surgery to make their body correspond to their chosen gender, why can't transgender people do the same thing?

When I raised these points upthread, you responded by confusing this with people who have had or are contemplating having "SRS", to use your term. There is a huge difference between fixing a birth defect, and voluntarily choosing to mutilate a perfectly good body.

What do you consider a perfectly good body? If a girl has both male and female genitalia, she might choose to get rid of the male genitalia to make her body look more "girly" (one possible reason being so that her husband doesn't freak out on the wedding night). If having male genitalia doesn't curtail her ability, why consider that body not "perfectly good"? Similarly, a girl could only have male genitalia but no female genitalia or breasts, and want to get rid of the male genitalia and add female genitalia and breasts to make herself look more "girly". The first person considers their body "abnormal" and wants to make it more "normal". So does the second person. However, neither the first surgery nor the second would make the person run faster, see better, raise their intellect or anything of the sort. It would just make their body look different and change their hormonal balance. The only justification the first person gets that the second doesn't is "well, people are not used to seeing a body like the one you currently have".

I actually suggested that you might consider the possibility that you are wrong. I did not declare that you are in fact wrong.

It appears that you made that particular leap on your own.

I often consider the possibility that I am wrong. Also, when I express certain hypotheses, I by no means claim them to be the only objective truth (since the existence of objective truth is unprovable). Perhaps I did make a leap and assume that you are irritated with me because I am questioning the rational basis of some Church policies. I apologize if that assumption was wrong. However, if you clarified what you suggested I might be wrong about, it would be easier for me to answer that question. The only things I am fairly certain of right now on this topic (and, hopefully, it is clear from this whole thread) are:

1. I don't know any reasons why people are gay/transgender.

2. Science currently is unable to describe a certain process through which a person becomes gay/transgender in every case (although most intersex conditions, I believe, are explained).

3. It is not always possible to permanently assign one's gender at birth.

4. The Church has no position on intersex people.

5. The Church has a position on gay and transgender people.

6. The Church says gender is an essential characteristic of our pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

7. The Church does not define what gender, according to them, is.

8. All the points above strongly seem to suggest that the Church either does not know what gender is and/or how to determine it in 100% of the cases; or, they know it and we, as the general membership, are not informed about it for some reason (notice that because I'm sure something strongly seems to suggest a certain thing does not mean I'm sure the thing suggested is true).

There was also a discussion with Helmuth about free agency, but that's offtopic. If you want to talk about that, let's start another thread. Otherwise, on which one of those points above should I consider the possibility of myself being wrong?

[SolarPowered]

Zoidberg, the Church knows perfectly well what "gender" is--"boys are boys, and girls are girls." The fact that there is a small number of people who are born with ambiguous genitalia does not change the simple fact that for everyone else, boys are boys and girls are girls. Why do you think that the Church should have a declaration of that obvious fact? That would be like expecting that the leadership of the Church should issue a proclamation declaring that "up is up, and down is down," because otherwise it looks like they doesn't really understand "up" and "down." They understand "up" and "down" just fine, and they also understand just fine what "boys" and "girls" are.

I notice that the one part of my previous post that you chose not to comment on was the first section, which was the part that got to the crux of the matter: God stands at the head of this Church. He knows what He is doing.

God long ago declared that homosexual relations are "an abomination." That principle has been upheld by His prophets ever since. For a person to go many steps beyond that, and mutilate your body to mimic the sex you're not is obviously a many-times worse abomination.

The fact that there exist "accidents of nature" who were born with damaged genitalia does not somehow change the fact that for the rest of us, boys are boys and girls are girls.