Gender Is An Eternal Characteristic (except in animal world)

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

This morning I was reading the book : Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden Jim Al-Khalili,, and I learned something interesting about clownfish.  As explained by Wikipedia:

I thought this was really interesting.  If Nemo is successful in life, he'll grow up a male and will then become a female.  Do you think this weird fact will cause anybody to accuse Disney of using a clownfish in this movie to confuse children of gender identity?

If God really is in charge of things and really thinks that gender is eternal, why did he create certain animals this way?

Just something to think about...

Nemo starts out life clowning around and spends the second half of it fishing around… You know, “gerund-fluid.”

God revealed the purpose for human gender; it's part of how we work, mortally and immortally. Other life forms work differently.

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't think that is 100% true--Boyd K. Packer compared human sexuality to sexuality in the animal kingdom, and used his observation of animal behavior as an example of sexual taboos that are so awful not even animals do them.  For example, he said, "Animals by and large are promiscuous in responding to their mating instincts. Nevertheless, their mating rituals follow set patterns and have rigid limitations. For instance, animals do not pair up with their own gender to satisfy their mating instincts." https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

(Apparently he never saw a nature documentary about one of our closest relatives, the bonobos (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOZyN88RBU)

In any case, God's ways are certainly not man's ways, but it seems to me that if God's opinions on gender identity were are rigidly black-and-white as the apostles', then God would have consistently created animals with fixed genders.

As a general authority, he is speaking in generalities to emphasize a specific point, and he uses such qualifiers as "ordinarily," "rarity," "almost," :by and large," "nevertheless," etc.

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't think that is 100% true--Boyd K. Packer compared human sexuality to sexuality in the animal kingdom, and used his observation of animal behavior as an example of sexual taboos that are so awful not even animals do them.  For example, he said, "Animals by and large are promiscuous in responding to their mating instincts. Nevertheless, their mating rituals follow set patterns and have rigid limitations. For instance, animals do not pair up with their own gender to satisfy their mating instincts." https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

(Apparently he never saw a nature documentary about one of our closest relatives, the bonobos (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOZyN88RBU)

In any case, God's ways are certainly not man's ways, but it seems to me that if God's opinions on gender identity were are rigidly black-and-white as the apostles', then God would have consistently created animals with fixed genders.

Statements from ignorance don't go over well.

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nemo starts out life clowning around and spends the second half of it fishing around… You know, “gerund-fluid.”

God revealed the purpose for human gender; it's part of how we work, mortally and immortally. Other life forms work differently.

The point is, if somebody feels deep down with clarity, consistency, and conviction that their real gender doesn't match the body that they find themselves with, can you be 100% sure that the problem is with their feelings and not their body?

 

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, Analytics said:

God's ways are certainly not man's ways, but it seems to me that if God's opinions on gender identity were are rigidly black-and-white as the apostles', then God would have consistently created animals with fixed genders.

You are acknowledging your own assumptions, which is good. I think that's the key. You assume that "if God's opinions on gender identity were as rigidly black and white as the apostles'," then this must necessarily manifest itself down through all types of life. You then list examples from the animal world that show gender and sexuality to be different from man's and conclude that LDS doctrine appears ridiculous.

There are other assumptions, though --- assumptions that are based on LDS doctrine. One is that man is different from other forms of animal life --- not *just* another animal. Under this assumption, man is a spirit child of God, and as such, is the only form of life on earth that has the potential to become like God. This possibility does not exist among other forms of animal life. This is because man's intelligence is of a higher order than lower life forms --- with lower life forms having lower forms of intelligence. Part of this state of things is that only man has complete agency and will to accept or reject God's will. When God commands, intelligence and element obey His commands with exactness. Man does not, however; man has the ability and capability to follow his own will,and this is a crucial component of our potential divine destiny --- in either direction (exaltation or damnation). Only man can become like God *or* choose to reject God. Lower forms of life fill the measure of their creation. 

Under this assumption, gender and sexuality is indeed an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose --- for mankind. Because we are actual spirit children of God, and because our intelligences are of a much higher order than lower ones.

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2016 by rongo

[rockpond]

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Do you think this weird fact will cause anybody to accuse Disney of using a clownfish in this movie to confuse children of gender identity?

Don't tell Kathryn Skaggs (the Well Behaved Mormon Woman who wrote about Disney's Frozen gay agenda).

[Ahab]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The point is, if somebody feels deep down with clarity, consistency, and conviction that their real gender doesn't match the body that they find themselves with, can you be 100% sure that the problem is with their feelings and not their body?

 

I think the point is that how someone feels is irrelevant to his or her true gender identity.

The true gender identity of someone born as a female in heaven, for example, will always  be female even if sometimes she "strongly feels" that she is a male.  And it works the same for a male too.

Regardless of how a person feels, and regardless of what a person's mortal body looks like,  a person's true gender identity never changes.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I don't think that is 100% true--Boyd K. Packer compared human sexuality to sexuality in the animal kingdom, and used his observation of animal behavior as an example of sexual taboos that are so awful not even animals do them.  For example, he said, "Animals by and large are promiscuous in responding to their mating instincts. Nevertheless, their mating rituals follow set patterns and have rigid limitations. For instance, animals do not pair up with their own gender to satisfy their mating instincts." https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

Yes, it's called teaching by analogy. Perhaps you've heard of it.

Every intelligent person understands that no analogies are 100% perfect, for the very simple reason that if any two things resembled each other that closely, they'd be identical; and if they were identical, they'd cease to provide a useful analogy.

But of course, the fact that no analogies are perfect means that the imperfections can be exploited for polemical purposes. It takes very little or no talent to do that.

And in any event, the target of your polemic is the Proclamation, not every moral teaching every Church leader has ever offered. Does the fact that you are trying to shift the goalposts amount to a tacit admission that you missed your target?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

(Apparently he never saw a nature documentary about one of our closest relatives, the bonobos (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOZyN88RBU)

I know enough about bonobos to know that their alleged homosexual activity is tied to the building and maintaining of their matriarchal hierarchies. Their actual mating is heterosexual, of course.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

In any case, God's ways are certainly not man's ways, but it seems to me that if God's opinions on gender identity were as rigidly black-and-white as the apostles', then God would have consistently created animals with fixed genders.

Thank you. The key being that it seems to you.

You are setting up your mere opinion as the standard by which revealed truth is to be judged.

How very humble. Or something.

Nevertheless, the Proclamation which you are trying to undermine speaks only of human beings.

As you would know if you troubled yourself to read it before looking for a way to attack it.

 

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think the point is that how someone feels is irrelevant to his or her true gender identity.

The true gender identity of someone born as a female in heaven, for example, will always  be female even if sometimes she "strongly feels" that she is a male.  And it works the same for a male too.

Regardless of how a person feels, and regardless of what a person's mortal body looks like,  a person's true gender identity never changes.

Sex is not gender. Also while God doesn't make mistakes, this world is full of them.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The point is, if somebody feels deep down with clarity, consistency, and conviction that their real gender doesn't match the body that they find themselves with, can you be 100% sure that the problem is with their feelings and not their body?

 

I would think gender is a physical attribute.  We would have more  certainty in identifying gender by looking at the physical manifestations of it.  

 

Tell me, how much success do you have in identifying the sex of a dog by asking it how it feels today?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The point is, if somebody feels deep down with clarity, consistency, and conviction that their real gender doesn't match the body that they find themselves with, can you be 100% sure that the problem is with their feelings and not their body?

 

Yes.

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

In Sea Horses it is the male that carries the young. Earthworms are hermaphroditic. In Crocodiles temperature of nest determines sex. I'll worry about it when I become a Sea Horse, Earthworm, and a crocodile.

As someone who fully physically, emotionally, and spiritually self-identifies with my own biologically-manifested gender myself, I agree with what you're saying above, sometimesaint, because questions of gender-non-conformity don't apply to me.

And I would presume that for all/most of us who fully self-identify with our own biologically-manifesting gender, the question of what gender we are, or variations of gender within our own bodies, isn't an issue that raises concerns/questions or that carries much significance.

However, I recognize that a relatively-limited segment of humanity for whom gender is NOT as simple as it is for the rest of us.  Individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia or genitalia of both genders; individuals who's observable genitals don't match the gender coding of their chromosomes; individuals who self-identify as the opposite gender which is physically manifesting; individuals who were born with genitals of both genders and were 'assigned' one gender by a doctor, and later discover the doctor may have chosen the 'wrong' set of genitals; individuals who were raised as a certain gender, only to have the opposite gender manifest itself once they reach puberty, etc.

To those individuals who live in that minority group,  I think it's understandable that gender variations and anomalies which manifest across the animal kingdom would serve as data points that help them understand that 'nature' sometimes isn't as cut and dried as the rest of us presume, and further serve as examples which may help them in their struggle to find understanding and meaning for the gender variations which they are experiencing.  Through discussions of clownfish or wrasses or moral eels or crocodiles or earthworms or seahorses, they may see variations in the natural world which offer them evidence and necessary hope that their emotional, physical, and spiritual struggle to understand the eternal nature of their own ambiguous/non-conforming gender is real.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As someone who fully identifies with my own biologically-manifested gender myself, I agree with what you're saying above, sometimesaint, because questions of gender-non-conformity don't apply to me.

And I would presume that for all/most of us who fully identify with our own biologically-manifesting gender, the question of what gender we are, or variations of gender within our own bodies, isn't an issue that raises concerns/questions or that carries much significance.

However, I recognize that a relatively-limited segment of humanity for whom gender is NOT as simple as it is for the rest of us.  Individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia or genitalia of both genders; individuals who's observable genitals don't match the gender coding of their chromosomes; individuals who self-identify as the opposite gender which is physically manifesting; individuals who were born with genitals of both genders and were 'assigned' one gender by a doctor, and later discover the doctor may have chosen the 'wrong' set of genitals; individuals who were raised as a certain gender, only to have the opposite gender manifest itself once they reach puberty, etc.

To those individuals who live in that minority group,  I think it's understandable that gender variations and anomalies which manifest across the animal kingdom would serve as data points that help them understand that 'nature' sometimes isn't as cut and dried as the rest of us presume, and further serve as examples which may help them in their struggle to find understanding and meaning for the gender variations which they are experiencing.  Through discussions of clownfish or wrasses or moral eels or crocodiles or earthworms or seahorses, they may see variations in the natural world which offer them hope that their struggle to understand their gender is real.

 

For people with a non-ambiguous biological gender, do you think it can be changed whenever it suits them?

I am willing to go with "I Don't know" when it comes to the rare case of someone who's gender is biologically ambiguous, but I think that someone might be having some mental issues if they don't accept who their physical characteristics.

As much as I would like to be a 7 foot tall basketball player, If I were to start demanding that everyone treat me like one, as well as try to mutilate my body to have the appearance of one,  You could all be justified in committing me.

 

 

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Our bodies might be fallen. Our bodies might be defective and have issues but that does not mean I am a cat trapped in the body of a human.  There is no indication that anyone will be resurrected with a body of a different gender.  

I'm not sure there's any indication that anyone WON'T be resurrected with a body of a different gender, especially when considering the biological variations of those born with ambiguous genders or genitalia of both genders or who's DNA doesn't match their biologically-manifesting gender.  According to LDS cultural beliefs, I'd always been taught that such individuals' bodies were 'different' due to the nature of the fall (just like other body variations such as missing/partial limbs, etc.).

It seems to me that the reality of individuals manifesting gender variations are at odds with any universally-applied presumption that "gender is eternal" for everyone.  While it may be 'the rule,' it's not that simple for the exceptions.  At some point, the wisest course seems to be to admit that when it comes to the existence of such individuals, "we simply don't know," rather than double-down into asserting a universal application of a dogmatic statement which clearly is at odds with the biological realities of a select few.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Clear! 

I mean, uh, Wipe Out!

Oh never mind.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Sex is not gender. Also while God doesn't make mistakes, this world is full of them.

Sex, for people, is either male or female.

I usually put an M on the forms asking for mine.

What is your scientific understanding of what gender is all about?

[Daniel2]

21 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

For people with a non-ambiguous biological gender, do you think it can be changed whenever it suits them?

I am willing to go with "I Don't know" when it comes to the rare case of someone who's gender is biologically ambiguous, but I think that someone might be having some mental issues if they don't accept who their physical characteristics.

As much as I would like to be a 7 foot tall basketball player, If I were to start demanding that everyone treat me like one, as well as try to mutilate my body to have the appearance of one,  You could all be justified in committing me.

I believe agency governs us all, and if someone wants to alter their appearance, that is their choice. 

Who am I to challenge someone's else's self autonomy and self-identity, if their choices are not harmful to others and don't interfere with others' rights? 

I may think that Mormonism is crazy and the way it causes some of my family to reject me is upsetting... but if someone chooses to live as if they are the offspring of a supranatural being who resides on a planet near the star Kolob, and who believes that if they live as the LDS church prescribes, that they will someday become like God, then who am I to stop them--so long as their beliefs aren't harmful to others and don't interfere with others' rights?

Utah is well known as one of the leading states in plastic surgery, especially makes overs and breast augmentation among women.

For people with non-ambiguous secondary sex characteristics (such as breast size), do you think it can be changed whenever it suits them?

If one can change their breasts, nose, mouth, face, cheeks, thighs, waist, abs, etc... why can't others alter their gender?

The answer to that question, of course, depends on whether you're looking for an answer reflecting civil ability vs. religious identity.  I think most of us would agree that individuals can change their gender, if they so desire, from a legally-permissible perspective.

The question we're discussing more is if it's theologically appropriate.  I know the LDS church's position is that gender reassignment surgery is never advisable, and individuals are subject to church discipline, including probable excommunication.  And that's the church's right to set their own standards.

All I'm saying is that for me, personally, I find no reason to doubt the sincerity or question the sanity of the transgender individuals I personally know in my own life--especially those who are LDS and have spent decades pouring over LDS doctrine and in intensive therapy with qualified specialists trained to help them with such challenging questions.  The individuals I know are well-grounded individuals who have thoughtfully approached the issue with far more self-awareness that the understanding or awareness or judgment that others give them.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sex, for people, is either male or female.

Insofar as you are using the term "sex" to mean "gender," this is true for the majority of us, but it is not a universal truth.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think the point is that how someone feels is irrelevant to his or her true gender identity.

The true gender identity of someone born as a female in heaven, for example, will always  be female even if sometimes she "strongly feels" that she is a male.  And it works the same for a male too.

Regardless of how a person feels, and regardless of what a person's mortal body looks like,  a person's true gender identity never changes.

Ahab, how do you know this?  Just would like to read this somewhere.  Thanks.

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sex, for people, is either male or female.

I usually put an M on the forms asking for mine.

What is your scientific understanding of what gender is all about?

Sex is having XX or XY chromosomes. But we also have XXX, XXY, XYY, and more. Fortunately those individuals are usually sterile, so present no real threat to the gene pool.

Gender is the cultural presentation of sex. Which varies from culture to culture. IE; Here in the US wearing a dress is associated with being female. However several Polynesian cultures both males and females wear dresses, at least on ceremonial occasions. Let's also not forget the Kilts of the Scots.

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I believe agency governs us all, and if someone wants to alter their appearance, that is their choice. 

Who am I to challenge someone's else's self autonomy and self-identity, if their choices are not harmful to others and don't interfere with others' rights? 

I may think that Mormonism is crazy and the way it causes some of my family to reject me is upsetting... but if someone chooses to live as if they are the offspring of a supranatural being who resides on a planet near the star Kolob, and who believes that if they live as the LDS church prescribes, that they will someday become like God, then who am I to stop them--so long as their beliefs aren't harmful to others and don't interfere with others' rights?

Utah is well known as one of the leading states in plastic surgery, especially makes overs and breast augmentation among women.

For people with non-ambiguous secondary sex characteristics (such as breast size), do you think it can be changed whenever it suits them?

If one can change their breasts, nose, mouth, face, cheeks, thighs, waist, abs, etc... why can't others alter their gender?

The answer to that question, of course, depends on whether you're looking for an answer reflecting civil ability vs. religious identity.  I think most of us would agree that individuals can change their gender, if they so desire, from a legally-permissible perspective.

The question we're discussing more is if it's theologically appropriate.  I know the LDS church's position is that gender reassignment surgery is never advisable, and individuals are subject to church discipline, including probable excommunication.  And that's the church's right to set their own standards.

All I'm saying is that for me, personally, I find no reason to doubt the sincerity or question the sanity of the transgender individuals I personally know in my own life--especially those who are LDS and have spent decades pouring over LDS doctrine and in intensive therapy with qualified specialists trained to help them with such challenging questions.  The individuals I know are well-grounded individuals who have thoughtfully approached the issue with far more self-awareness that the understanding or awareness or judgment that others give them.

If someone were to try to cut off their arm, because they didn't think they should have one, would it concern you? Assuming there was nothing medically wrong with the arm?

Or would you find no reason to doubt their sincerity or question their sanity?

Edited January 21, 2016 by Danzo

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

The point is, if somebody feels deep down with clarity, consistency, and conviction that their real gender doesn't match the body that they find themselves with, can you be 100% sure that the problem is with their feelings and not their body?

 

That point was far from clear. I thought you were pointing out what you consider to be a “weird fact” and a speculation about the actions of how people can use it to accuse others.

I also said, “As a general authority, he is speaking in generalities to emphasize a specific point, and he uses such qualifiers as "ordinarily," "rarity," "almost," “by and large," "nevertheless," etc.” For this reason, I don’t expect to know what the problem is in the circumstance you describe (and it can manifest in so many different ways), and I acknowledge that it may have to do with so many other factors than merely the person’s feelings and body. But I do know that both rare and common conditions test our souls in this life.

The eternal nature of human gender as a matter of faith certainly puts the circumstance you describe within the purview of God’s management, just as any other law, principle, commandment, etc. He makes the ultimate call for gender assignment, and those who deal personally with gender identity within the Restored Gospel have a resource for comfort and decision-making even in this life.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Under this assumption, gender and sexuality is indeed an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose --- for mankind. Because we are actual spirit children of God, and because our intelligences are of a much higher order than lower ones.

That's part of my point.  As a naturalist, when I hear the stories of people that strongly self-identify with the opposite gender, I shrug my shoulders, think that it's weird, and  don't give it much thought.

But if gender really is an eternal characteristic, that would explain why somebody might feel that they were born in the wrong body; if spirits are real and have genders, it's conceivable that on occasion the spirit's gender won't match the body it is in.

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's part of my point.  As a naturalist, when I hear the stories of people that strongly self-identify with the opposite gender, I shrug my shoulders, think that it's weird, and  don't give it much thought.

But if gender really is an eternal characteristic, that would explain why somebody might feel that they were born in the wrong body; if spirits are real and have genders, it's conceivable that on occasion the spirit's gender won't match the body it is in.

I’m glad the Lord doesn’t shrug His shoulders, think it’s weird and doesn’t give it much thought—about anything we face. I’m glad we have resources in and through the Church to help individuals face any “weird” issue.

It is also conceivable to me that on occasion a spirit's eternal gender doesn’t match the temporal phenotype that is expressed, just as I’m sure that there are phenotypical women who are genetically male and who are female spirits. Someone does have answers in due time.

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Ahab, how do you know this?  Just would like to read this somewhere.  Thanks.

It's what the Proclamation on the Family is saying, to me, and I am saying what I am saying as someone who approves of that message as I understand it.

The sex we are when we are born as children of our parents in heaven is the sex we will always be, regardless of how we feel about that and regardless of what we choose to do to or have done to our bodies.  We ARE either male or female, not both at the same time, even though both males and females have a lot of things in common, including the common X chromosome while we are mortals. 

So we are what sex we are born as when we are born in heaven, regardless of any screw ups we may go through in mortality,  and when we are resurrected we will be restored as we were meant to be, physically, when we were born in heaven.