The Eternal Nature Of Gender

[Zoidberg]

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.

You clearly opt to keep ignoring my suggestions that you educate yourself on the issue. Alright, then, since I don't have access to the FP and it is obvious enough to you that you can speak for them on this matter, please, you tell me how to know that a person is, for instance, a boy (from the Church's point of view). I'll even give you a list of possible criteria (feel free to add to it):

1) has penis

2) has testicular tissue

4) has male spirit

5) has the ability to produce spermatozoa

6) likes girls

7) believes self to be a boy

8 ) Has the Y chromosome in at least some cells (feel free to change it to "all cells")

So which one of these makes a person a boy? Or is it several of these criteria? Or all of these plus some? Or some of these plus some? Or some other single criterion I haven't mentioned (note: you can't say "the fact that God made him a boy", since I'm asking you how it's possible for us to know this person is, in fact, a boy)? Or any x items from the list? Please tell me, SP, I'm all attention. Just come right out and tell me, because I'm sincerely telling you it's not obvious to me. Your analogy with "up" and "down" also puzzles me, as I have never heard of directions that simultaneously possessed the characteristics of both "up" and "down". An up can become a down when you turn something upside down, though. Besides, up and down are relative to your position. Don't get offended, but I suggest you do not use this analogy again.

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.

Whether or not I believe that is true (which I am desperately trying to continue to do, BTW) is irrelevant to the thread. However, let me remind you of the time when women couldn't pray in the Sacrament meeting. Then someone brought it up, and the Church realized that there was no scriptural or any kind of basis for this whatsoever, so now we can do it. I'm sure that there were people who held on to the erroneous assumption that since it was the Church's current policy, God must have directly authorized it. They were wrong. I understand that you think it's obvious that transsexual people can in no way possess a spirit of a gender opposite to the one assigned to them at birth. However, answer my question about how to dtermine when someone is a boy first, and then we can further discuss scriptural homosexuality and other issues.

[SolarPowered]

OK, since you seem to be bound and determined to go down a rabbit hole that is practically guaranteed to get this thread locked down, I will spell it out for you:

A boy has:

* A penis

* Testicles

* A "Y" chromosome

A girl has:

* A vagina

* A womb

* Ovaries

* Two "X" chromosomes

A very small percentage of the population (around two per ten thousand people) does not fit into one category or the other. But this discussion isn't really about those people, is it? It's about people who are either male or female, and want to be the other.

[Zoidberg]

OK, since you seem to be bound and determined to go down a rabbit hole that is practically guaranteed to get this thread locked down, I will spell it out for you:

A boy has:

* A penis

* Testicles

* A "Y" chromosome

A girl has:

* A vagina

* A womb

* Ovaries

* Two "X" chromosomes

Well, I hope the thread won't be locked down. I'm also not badgering you. I'm just asking to define something that I (really) do not find obvious. Neither of your definition mentioned anything eternal. Male/female spirit, for instance. So what you are effectively saying is that the Church believes that the fact that a person has a penis, testicles and a Y chromosome is sufficient evidence to conclude that person's eternal gender is male, right? It doesn't matter what kind of people this discussion is about. Is it true in 100% of all cases that if all three conditions are present, the person's eternal gender is male?

[SolarPowered]

Is it true in 100% of all cases that if all three conditions are present, the person's eternal gender is male?

Why would it not be? Are you suggesting that God would send a female spirit to inhabit a male body? I rather doubt that.

[Zoidberg]

Why would it not be? Are you suggesting that God would send a female spirit to inhabit a male body? I rather doubt that.

No, I'm not suggesting anything like that. Let's take a penis. Must it always be present in order to be able to determine a person is a man? If it is cut off, is that person no longer a man? Alright, I'll cut you some slack and assume you meant a person must be born with a penis. This does not always happen. There is a condition called penile agenesis (when a boy is born without a penis). It's very rare (1 in 20 million). However, it doesn't matter how rare it is. The medical professionals are somhow able to assign the child to be male, despite the presence of a penis, which, according to you, is a necessary criterion of determination of one's maleness. So, then, are the doctors wrong and we really have no way of knowing what eternal gender someone with penile agenesis has? Or is the presence of a penis not a necessary criterion, after all?

[The Dude]

A very small percentage of the population (around two per ten thousand people) does not fit into one category or the other. But this discussion isn't really about those people, is it? It's about people who are either male or female, and want to be the other.

It isn't about homosexuality anymore. That may have been the thinking behind the eternal gender declaration, but now the declaration has created a conundrum for naturally ambiguous people who are found in our species. Is eternal gender true for them? If it is, then there is a conundrum. Can't answer it? Then maybe the declaration wasn't fully thought out, or isn't fully understood by you. But god knows what he's doing, we are assured.

If the first presidency declared up/down directionality to be an eternal function, this would naturally raise a question about up/down in outerspace. It would be a conflict with relativity. If the church then said "but most people live their whole lives on earth so we shouldn't concern ourselves with outerspace directionality," that would make them sound very dull-witted.

[SolarPowered]

No, I'm not suggesting anything like that. Let's take a penis. Must it always be present in order to be able to determine a person is a man? If it is cut off, is that person no longer a man? Alright, I'll cut you some slack and assume you meant a person must be born with a penis. This does not always happen. There is a condition called penile agenesis (when a boy is born without a penis). It's very rare (1 in 20 million). However, it doesn't matter how rare it is. The medical professionals are somhow able to assign the child to be male, despite the presence of a penis, which, according to you, is a necessary criterion of determination of one's maleness. So, then, are the doctors wrong and we really have no way of knowing what eternal gender someone with penile agenesis has? Or is the presence of a penis not a necessary criterion, after all?

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that when all of one set of characteristics or the other is present, then that person is clearly either male or female. I acknowledged that there are a small number of "accidents of nature" that don't fit into one category or the other.

Yes, these "accidents of nature" exist. But that doesn't appear to be the real issue here; rather, the issue here is people who in fact are clearly male, or are clearly female, who have decided that they want to be the other sex. The fact that there exist people with ambiguous sexual equipment does not make the other 99.98% of us ambiguous as well.

[Hammer]

It isn't about homosexuality anymore. That may have been the thinking behind the eternal gender declaration, but now the declaration has created a conundrum for naturally ambiguous people who are found in our species. Is eternal gender true for them? If it is, then there is a conundrum. Can't answer it? Then maybe the declaration wasn't fully thought out, or isn't fully understood by you. But god knows what he's doing, we are assured.

If the first presidency declared up/down directionality to be an eternal function, this would naturally raise a question about up/down in outerspace. It would be a conflict with relativity. If the church then said "but most people live their whole lives on earth so we shouldn't concern ourselves with outerspace directionality," that would make them sound very dull-witted.

God knows all things. Do we need to right now? Do you go looking for the nets the tuna are being caught in just so you can be caught with them and gain understanding for their plight?

God is in charge. He is the creator and knows where these special people will go and be.

[Zoidberg]

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that when all of one set of characteristics or the other is present, then that person is clearly either male or female. I acknowledged that there are a small number of "accidents of nature" that don't fit into one category or the other.

Yes, these "accidents of nature" exist. But that doesn't appear to be the real issue here; rather, the issue is people who in fact are clearly male, or are clearly female, who have decided that they want to be the other sex. The fact that there exist people with ambiguous sexual equipment does not make the other 99.98% of us ambiguous as well.

Well, the issue between you and me at the moment is whether or not there is an obvious definition of gender. It seems obvious to me that there isn't, so I have been using specifics to make you see that. You keep saying "clearly male". I don't know what that means. Tell me if the doctors are wrong in assigning the male gender to a person born with penile agenesis, then we'll return to the discussion of transsexualism. If you just keep saying "the definition of gender is obvious and the Church has it" and I keep saying "the definition of gender is not obvious and the Church doesn't have one", we won't be able to really discuss anything, as those statements are underlying premises of both our arguments. One of us has to change their opinion on this to "speak the same language", so to speak it might be me if you can effecively show me how the definition of gender and the fact the Church has one are so obvious. So please answer my question about penile agenesis.

Hammer, I know I don't know they why's and the how's, nor do I need to. I just wish the Church would realize the same thing and leave certain individuals alone.

Yes, The Dude, it is much more efficient to proclaim "absolute" truths. Who cares if reality does not always fit into this picture? If a missionary says "I think the Church is true" or "the Prophet will not lead the church astray in 99.81% of the time", who in their right mind would want to join the Church? Which is sad, because the truth should be their primary concern (or the search for the truth), not the appeal to converts/members.

[SolarPowered]

Zoidberg, President Faust was formerly a lawyer. Elder Oaks was formerly a Utah Supreme Court Justice. There are other former lawyers in the Quorum of the Twelve. These people use words very carefully. When they choose to use a word like "gender," and do not qualify it by specifically defining the word, they mean it to be understood in the way that the "reasonable man" would understand the word. For the word "gender," that meaning is as I defined it, above. Except for the qualifications about X and Y chromosomes, "gender" (in whatever language) has been understood in exactly that way since the beginning of recorded history.

Regarding your question about penile agenesis, I have already addressed it. President Kimball acknowledged that there are "accidents of nature"; this is one of them. In that particular case, as you have described it, it appears that medical science has already determined that the person is male in order to make that diagnosis, so yes, so I would not disagree with an assignment of "male" to that person. However, I want to be clear that that is not my determination to make, but those who are involved with the situation.

The existence of such "accidents of nature" does not alter the fact that around 99.98% of us are very clearly male or female, as the "reasonable man" would understand it, and as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve certainly meant by the word "gender" in the "Proclamation on the Family."

To put it bluntly, you can't wiggle out from responsibility for what the prophets have taught by attempting to redefine their words. "Gender" means something, and has meant the same thing (in whatever language) for thousands of years. The fact that you and various other people are now attempting to revise that meaning does not revise the meaning of what the prophets have spoken.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

Thanks for that visual image!

[Zoidberg]

Zoidberg, President Faust was formerly a lawyer. Elder Oaks was formerly a Utah Supreme Court Justice. There are other former lawyers in the Quorum of the Twelve. These people use words very carefully. When they choose to use a word like "gender," and do not qualify it by specifically defining the word, they mean it to be understood in the way that the "reasonable man" would understand the word. For the word "gender," that meaning is as I defined it, above. Except for the qualifications about X and Y chromosomes, "gender" (in whatever language) has been understood in exactly that way since the beginning of recorded history.

Regarding your question about penile agenesis, I have already addressed it. President Kimball acknowledged that there are "accidents of nature"; this is one of them. In that particular case, as you have described it, it appears that medical science has already determined that the person is male in order to make that diagnosis, so yes, so I would not disagree with an assignment of "male" to that person. However, I want to be clear that that is not my determination to make, but those who are involved with the situation.

The existence of such "accidents of nature" does not alter the fact that around 99.98% of us are very clearly male or female, as the "reasonable man" would understand it, and as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve certainly meant by the word "gender" in the "Proclamation on the Family."

So you have effectively admitted that in order to be considered a man, one does not need a penis, right? Should I continue about testicles and the Y chromosome? The question is not about the 99.98 percent of us. The question is about the definition of gender and whether or not it is obvious. Penile agenesis sufferers often undergo SRS and are raised as females, even though they are male. But the medical science nowadays can make a vagina better than a penis. That's your only reason for the surgery performed on these people. Is it really a valid reason? Should the Church let this individual hold the priesthood, since they are really a man, even though they may dress, look, act and live in a female gender identity (since the surgery they've undergone was "corrective")?

Now you are suggesting that the former lawyers in the Quorum of the Twelve are "choosing to use words" in the proclamation. Ummm, what's happened to it being divinely inspired? So God did not put these exact words in their mouths? Was this revelation communicated by a vision or, perhaps, in some other words? Then why are not those words presented to us? I believe this is the first official declaration that was released by the first presidency (and therefore, should be considered doctrinal, or, at least, the official position of the Church right now) where the notion of eternal gender was expressed, rather vaguely, I must say. A statement like "we were either male or female in the pre-existence, will continue to be either male or female on Earth and in the eternities" would have been less vague. So is that how a reasonable man understands the statement on gender? I'm asking since I would probably not meet your qualifications for being a reasonable man, or any kind of man, for that matter .

I'm glad you are using more careful language now. At least your position no longer seems so radical. You are no longer claiming that the Church's supposed definition of gender is obvious to everyone; you realize that it was PROBABLY meant to be INTERPRETED the way a reasonable MAN (which, I imagine, you consider yourself) would interpret it. Unfortunately, 0.018% of the Church's membership is composed of unreasonable women like myself, to whom certain things that reasonable men are able to discern are not clear.

If I can show you that there can be men without testicles or the Y chromosome, will you admit that there might not be an objective basis for knowing whether or not one is a man? And that, perhaps, a person's self-identification as male/female could be considered equally valid/invalid in gender assignment? And that maybe the Church is currently being too harsh on these individuals with their flat out refusal to let them hold the priesthood/go to the temple? Perhaps that ftm transsexual was wrong all along and they are a woman and will spend eternity as a woman, but God will not judge them because they were sincere in their belief? (Since you seem to be saying that it's okay for intersex people to live in the wrong gender identity and that God will not hold it against them?)

[Zoidberg]

Thanks for that visual image!

You are welcome! Thoughts? (when you're done puking )

[Deborah]

And that maybe the Church is currently being too harsh on these individuals with their flat out refusal to let them hold the priesthood/go to the temple?

Logically how can they go to the temple and make covenants which are gender specific if they don't know their gender?

[SolarPowered]

Unfortunately, 0.018% of the Church's membership is composed of unreasonable women like myself, to whom certain things that reasonable men are able to discern are not clear.

I am not sure how to understand that statement. You appear to be stating that you were born with an intersex condition. Do I correctly understand that you are stating that?

[Zoidberg]

Logically how can they go to the temple and make covenants which are gender specific if they don't know their gender?

That's a very good point. However, since SP (to whom the fact the Church has a definition of gender that is obvious to any reasonable man, is obvious) has agreed that there are certain cases in which we may not know for sure what gender a person is (intersex condition), then it logically follows that people with intersex condition should not be allowed to hold the priesthood/go to the temple either. However, the Church has no position on intersex individuals (even though their number is very likely to be higher than that of people who have undergone SRS both in and outside the Church).

I am not sure how to understand that statement. You appear to be stating that you were born with an intersex condition. Do I correctly understand that you are stating that?

No, I was trying to be smartalec. I was saying that, IMHO, only about that miniscule percentage of the Church membership would probably even form the questions that I have formed and to whom it would not be obvious that the Church has an obvious definition of gender (or any definition). I am not and have never been aware of myself having intersex condition. I'm not sure that I could currently claim to be a woman according to the criteria you have provided, since I have a vagina, a womb, and ovaries, but I have not had any chromosomal testing done, so I cannot claim with 100% knowledge that I have two X chromosomes (I also don't have any children and have never been tested for fertility, if that is of any relevance). I am pretty sure I don't have less than two, I possibly could have more than two. I don't know if you meant "exactly two" or "at least two", so I guess it would depend upon your clarification and my chromosomal analysis (which I, unfortunately, will not subject myself to in order to satisfy your curiosity about my gender). Now that I have told you all this awfully personal info about myself, let me assure you that I consider myself a woman no matter what you or anybody else may say, including science. Which makes me think that self-identification is an important part of gender. Which you are ignoring. I was also baffled by your non-inclusive language and the presupposition that the Proclamation was written for a "reasonable MAN". Perhaps that could provide some insight as to why it doesn't seem obvious to me, since I'm not a man, according to you (I can claim neither a penis nor testicles).

[SolarPowered]

I was also baffled by your non-inclusive language and the presupposition that the Proclamation was written for a "reasonable MAN".

Actually, the word "man" is indeed inclusive:

man

man (m

[cartoon bluejay]

How do you define gender?

Isn't it defined by the society or the culture inwhich you live? If I'm LDS - is my gender an eternal concept? Is my gender defined in the scriptures? Is my gender defined by the prophet? Do I find that definition in the Proclamation to the World?

Regardless of what my biological makeup is - gender is a role assigned by the society or culture you live. So - in the LDS culture there are more than two genders. There is the gender role for a man who marries and has children, there is a gender role for a woman who marries and has children. There are also roles for men and women who get married but don't have children and then of course - the roles for men and women who never get married. Is that six different gender roles?

[Deborah]

So - in the LDS culture there are more than two genders. There is the gender role for a man who marries and has children, there is a gender role for a woman who marries and has children. There are also roles for men and women who get married but don't have children and then of course - the roles for men and women who never get married. Is that six different gender roles?

??? There is male and female. That is it. Marital status has nothing to do with gender. One can be male and married or not married or female and married and not married. Even a person with homosexual feelings is male or female, regardless of their "feelings" which may or may not be biologically induced. The issue of chromosome deficiency in determining gender is an anomaly of mortality and will be fixed in eternity. Even so in most cases there is usually a genetic leaning toward one sex or the other. I think too many are making too much of too little.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1: 27.

[Maidservant]

If the first presidency declared up/down directionality to be an eternal function, this would naturally raise a question about up/down in outerspace. It would be a conflict with relativity. If the church then said "but most people live their whole lives on earth so we shouldn't concern ourselves with outerspace directionality," that would make them sound very dull-witted.

This analogy is pretty interesting to ponder from all angles, and I appreciate yours. If this analogy holds, then applying 'eternal' to gender would be, um, a mistake as gender is a local effect? (I do swallow whole the statement in the Family Proclamation by the way, "essential characteristic" -- which by the way leaves a little room if you notice since it doesn't say 'eternally assigned' it just says 'essential' -- but I personally prefer to think I have always been a woman in some sort of cosmic yin/ yang sort of sense.) On the other hand, being taught about 'local effects' and 'ignoring' outerspace ones might be a safety issue (yes, even in sexuality) as if you tried to apply the 'up' 'down' (or lack thereof) of outerspace on the third rock from the sun, you just end up eating dirt.

Part of this issue is something that I have been pondering for some time (for other reasons), and that is how a spirit enters its earthly body (the infant). And you bring up an idea, does a penis-xychromosome-testes body attract a male spirit -- what would be the mechanics of that attraction. Or is it more like an angel with a clipboard saying to a boy spirit -- "That's you down there being conceived. A male body. Now jump." Ha ha.

But, you know, I can only say what has already been said. Those three features make a biological man and we can trust that the spirit is male. We shouldn't hurt ourselves thinking about it.

I have long thought that any theory in the gospel ought to take into account those born hermaphroditacally or similar. I don't think there is a condemnation for this struggle. But I don't think it constitutes an 'alternative'. I think DNA processes failed at some point; and also organic failures that are not genetic can occur in the processes of the development of a fetus or child. Then a continuing developing child may experience more failures or trauma environmentally, spiritually, emotionally or organically that may cause them to question their gender or to experience a gender opposite of their chromosomes and genitalia. (I am not speaking of homosexuality at this point only gender identification. A homosexual male is still male and has male purpose in this life.) I remember WANTING to be a boy for several years. But I never thought I WAS one.

Bluejay, gender roles are what gender does in the society it is a part of (for better or worse). Roles are not the gender itself. I, myself, take a very dim view of gender roles traditional to most cultures of the world, and the one I live in, the 'Western' culture.

[SolarPowered]

Part of this issue is something that I have been pondering for some time (for other reasons), and that is how a spirit enters its earthly body (the infant). And you bring up an idea, does a penis-xychromosome-testes body attract a male spirit -- what would be the mechanics of that attraction. Or is it more like an angel with a clipboard saying to a boy spirit -- "That's you down there being conceived. A male body. Now jump." Ha ha.

I too have been thinking about the relationship between our bodies and our spirits. Consider the appearance of the premortal Christ to the brother of Jared in the Book of Ether:

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

It would appear the Jesus' premortal spirit already had the shape that His body would have during mortality.

Also, understand that we are now in "Time", but that God's realm is "Eternity", where there is no "Time", where "all things are continuously before him", and that there is "one Eternal round."

I suspect that, somehow, in Eternity time does not operate as we understand it here, and our premortal bodies are in fact in the shape that our eventual perfected bodies will take.

Just my humble opinion.

[cartoon bluejay]

??? There is male and female. That is it. Marital status has nothing to do with gender. One can be male and married or not married or female and married and not married. Even a person with homosexual feelings is male or female, regardless of their "feelings" which may or may not be biologically induced. The issue of chromosome deficiency in determining gender is an anomaly of mortality and will be fixed in eternity. Even so in most cases there is usually a genetic leaning toward one sex or the other. I think too many are making too much of too little.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1: 27.

So - are we only defining gender in the biological sense and excluding the social and cultural definitions of gender. I think there's more to it than just the biological definition - there are social and cultural norms that help define gender. If we extend that to the eternities - IMO, you need to consider marital status. How are the gender roles different between a celestial being, terestial being, and a telestial being? In my mind, that opens the door for countless definitions of eternal nature of gender.

[Zoidberg]

Yes, I am ignoring "self-identification." Except for those few cases of ambiguous genitalia, the determination of a person's gender is an objective reality, not a subjective, emotional determination.

You're continuing to ignore the fact that there is nothing "unambiguous". Your genitalia might look perfectly normal, but your chromosomes can be a mess. You can have no external genitalia, but have testicular tissue and be XY, and it will be pretty clear you're male. Also, are you allowing subjective, emotional determination in the case of intersex persons, if I understand correctly?

This analogy is pretty interesting to ponder from all angles, and I appreciate yours. If this analogy holds, then applying 'eternal' to gender would be, um, a mistake as gender is a local effect? (I do swallow whole the statement in the Family Proclamation by the way, "essential characteristic" -- which by the way leaves a little room if you notice since it doesn't say 'eternally assigned' it just says 'essential' -- but I personally prefer to think I have always been a woman in some sort of cosmic yin/ yang sort of sense.) On the other hand, being taught about 'local effects' and 'ignoring' outerspace ones might be a safety issue (yes, even in sexuality) as if you tried to apply the 'up' 'down' (or lack thereof) of outerspace on the third rock from the sun, you just end up eating dirt.

The only problem I am having with the Church's (and SP's) definition of gender (if one, in fact, exists), is that it ignores a number of people that's considered "insignificant". It's like saying "Christ loved 99.8% of us and showed that percentage the way to salvation... the rest of you can wander in darkness and figure it out on your own".

Part of this issue is something that I have been pondering for some time (for other reasons), and that is how a spirit enters its earthly body (the infant). And you bring up an idea, does a penis-xychromosome-testes body attract a male spirit -- what would be the mechanics of that attraction. Or is it more like an angel with a clipboard saying to a boy spirit -- "That's you down there being conceived. A male body. Now jump." Ha ha.

If anything, the former. Otherwise some women with Turner, for instance, would have the eternal gender of a male (if they have a non-functional Y chromosome, but it's not immediately obvious it's non-functional), which our friend SP probably wouldn't like.

But, you know, I can only say what has already been said. Those three features make a biological man and we can trust that the spirit is male. We shouldn't hurt ourselves thinking about it.

No, we shouldn't. You are all talking about external assessment of gender and that external characteristics are somehow more important than self-determination (which could include revelation from God, but that's too subjective to assess, so revelation is good... but only when something that already agrees with Church policies is being revealed). My main point, however, was that the Church shouldn't hurt people because their idea of gender does not fit into the Church's "up and down" picture.

I have long thought that any theory in the gospel ought to take into account those born hermaphroditacally or similar. I don't think there is a condemnation for this struggle. But I don't think it constitutes an 'alternative'. I think DNA processes failed at some point; and also organic failures that are not genetic can occur in the processes of the development of a fetus or child. Then a continuing developing child may experience more failures or trauma environmentally, spiritually, emotionally or organically that may cause them to question their gender or to experience a gender opposite of their chromosomes and genitalia. (I am not speaking of homosexuality at this point only gender identification. A homosexual male is still male and has male purpose in this life.) I remember WANTING to be a boy for several years. But I never thought I WAS one.

Like "penis envy" ? Besides, people with GID DO think that (which does not come ffrom perceived cultural advantages of a certain gender). Now, if you want to tell me that there is no such thing as GID or that it shouldn't be in the DSM, that's a different issue.

Bluejay, gender roles are what gender does in the society it is a part of (for better or worse). Roles are not the gender itself. I, myself, take a very dim view of gender roles traditional to most cultures of the world, and the one I live in, the 'Western' culture.

Well, certain roles (motherhood, for instance) are tied very closely to the biological sex. As in, if you have a functional womb and ovaries, start having babies (after being married in the temple, of course). Now, imagine that we took an individual's identification into account... That would shake the foundations of patriarchy. It would be interesting to hear some more thoughts on why people who have undergone SRS are denied the priesthood/temple recommend (even if they got baptized after the SRS). Does it have to do with the person's eternal gender or more with the mixed signals it would send if someone who appears to be a woman held the priesthood?

I too have been thinking about the relationship between our bodies and our spirits. Consider the appearance of the premortal Christ to the brother of Jared in the Book of Ether:

It would appear the Jesus' premortal spirit already had the shape that His body would have during mortality.

So our mortal body is a reflection of what our spirit looks like?

Also, understand that we are now in "Time", but that God's realm is "Eternity", where there is no "Time", where "all things are continuously before him", and that there is "one Eternal round."

I suspect that, somehow, in Eternity time does not operate as we understand it here, and our premortal bodies are in fact in the shape that our eventual perfected bodies will take.

I think I side with people who think time does not exist. However, that's a topic for another thread (actually, I believe it has been raised on this board before).

So - are we only defining gender in the biological sense and excluding the social and cultural definitions of gender. I think there's more to it than just the biological definition - there are social and cultural norms that help define gender. If we extend that to the eternities - IMO, you need to consider marital status. How are the gender roles different between a celestial being, terestial being, and a telestial being? In my mind, that opens the door for countless definitions of eternal nature of gender.

I started specualting about different "eternal gender" possibilities more to determine what the Church's exact definition of it is and how this definition could affect the treatment of certain marginalized groups of people who don't fit into the "traditional" picture. I think gender is definitely too fluid in mortality to determine an exact one-size-fits-all dichotomy. SP and Pres. Kimball suggested just leaving a group of people out of it as a solution, which I don't agree with. Moreover, among this group of people there are individuals who are being completely ignored (intersex people) and those who are being persecuted for certain behaviors that do not conform to our traditional view of gender and gender roles (LGBT people); I'm including gays in with the transsexuals for this purpose because the Church has long subscribed to heterosexuality as a part of our eternal identity and, more importantly, purpose (to make new bodies in this life and spirits in the next). So I agree that if we look at self-identification as part of someone's identity and think of sexual orientation, marital status or sexuality as a gender role that's not a part of this identity, that would be inconsistent. However, the Church would like to stay as far away from saying that homosexuality could be a part of one's identity as possible, comparing it to red hair or playing baseball in high school. So bluejay is right. Your marital status and sexuality are definitely important parts of your identity; however, they are not necessarily logical extensions of your assigned biological sex, which the First Presidency would like to have us believe right now.

I don't know how many of you guys have heard about David Reimer. His story is worth looking into. It definitely flies in the face of those people who believe that boys can start liking boys or think they are girls as a result of environmental factors. It also flies in the face of those people who think gender is completely socialized and we could make a boy into a girl and they wouldn't know the difference. His story only further convinces me that self-identification is probably the most important part of our gender.

[myleague]

Curious, is gender spiritually defined or physical or both? Could a spirit be female and my some mutation or retardation of the physical being end up in a male body and vice versa? We were all perfect spirits, but the majority of us have come into a world to less than perfect bodies. Could gender be one of those variables that can be mixed up as well?

[Zoidberg]

Curious, is gender spiritually defined or physical or both? Could a spirit be female and my some mutation or retardation of the physical being end up in a male body and vice versa? We were all perfect spirits, but the majority of us have come into a world to less than perfect bodies. Could gender be one of those variables that can be mixed up as well?

That was one of the possibilities I was speculating about. If that were true, however, the Church's position on transsexuals would be totally unfounded (which I believe it is). Thanks for understanding.