Maestrophil Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: " Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs when the body cannot use androgens at all. People with this form of the condition have the external sex characteristics of females, but do not have a uterus and therefore do not menstruate and are unable to conceive a child (infertile). They are typically raised as females and have a female gender identity. Affected individuals have male internal sex organs (testes) that are undescended, which means they are abnormally located in the pelvis or abdomen. Undescended testes have a small chance of becoming cancerous later in life if they are not surgically removed. People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome also have sparse or absent hair in the pubic area and under the arms." https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome Btw, reductively but generally, genetic males have the Y chromosome, genetic females do not. Genetic females have two X chromosomes, while genetic males have one X chromosome. Again, there are various levels of sexual deformity - yes, it is medically referred to as a deformity. Not common, nor normal. Does that mean we should be unkind? - of course not. Does that mean we should re-define 'normal? - again, not in my opinion. Also, how do we know those who are making the loudest noise about their 'identity' have these conditions? We don't. Unless we subject everyone to a medical exam to determine if they have a true medical intersex condition - I would presume that many who self-identify as having gender issues are not medically so challenged. Luckily, it is not my place to judge - but to be loving and kind to all. But I have no problem with the leader of the church clarifying that the official position of said church is that God has created spirits male and female - and that any androgyny here on Earth will be made whole/correct in the hereafter. I feel so much for the pain, that I can't begin to comprehend or understand, that those with sexualities that fall outside the sanctioned 'norms' experience, and the challenge it would be to reconcile that with the standards presented by the church. I have painful struggles of my own based on my situations and perceptions that are painful and hard for me as well - and I can only imagine those would be amplified if added sexual identity issues to my shelf.
Ahab Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: " Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female external sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs when the body cannot use androgens at all. People with this form of the condition have the external sex characteristics of females, but do not have a uterus and therefore do not menstruate and are unable to conceive a child (infertile). They are typically raised as females and have a female gender identity. Affected individuals have male internal sex organs (testes) that are undescended, which means they are abnormally located in the pelvis or abdomen. Undescended testes have a small chance of becoming cancerous later in life if they are not surgically removed. People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome also have sparse or absent hair in the pubic area and under the arms." https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome Btw, reductively but generally, genetic males have the Y chromosome, genetic females do not. Genetic females have two X chromosomes, while genetic males have one X chromosome. Thank you for those details. I think I understand a little bit better now. Still, though, when seeing a baby that has newly been born, I am going to proceed with my previous tradition of calling it a boy if it looks like a boy and calling it a girl if it looks like a girl. If I'm ever wrong about that I likely won't ever know it unless that person born as a baby is someone I will get to know during the course of his or her life and I see some facts to tell me that I was wrong about what the sex of that person actually is. Hearing about someone who wants to have a sex change operation just doesn't do it for me. Not enough details. Not enough facts to show me that the sex of that person is anything other than what it looks like to me. Good thing I usually treat people the same whether they are male or female, I think. I try to be nice to everybody, regardless of whatever they think. Edited October 3, 2019 by Ahab 1
The Nehor Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: As opposed to President Oaks hurtful remarks, the church penalising them for their gender expression, all the negative social consequences that follow in the church, and of course the hostility they already have to deal with in the world. Which is denying them the right to exist? As to the rest: And before you call that unChristlike the Holy Ghost has given me such admonitions in the past so I don’t consider it out of character.
JAHS Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Everyone has trials that are unique to them and are hard to live with and remain a member. That is one of the tests of life. To be able deal with those challenges while remaining faithful. We don't get any reward for surrendering. Can you name a few other physical handicaps that makes it hard to be a member?
Meadowchik Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 43 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Which is denying them the right to exist? People who are gender non-conforming have been born into the church, blessed as infants, baptised at eight, gone through membership faithfully and at some point, when no longer able to fit into the gender binary, literally do not have the right to exist as a normal church participant. The church has the right to decide and the church has chosen to not accept them. This is not treating the "least among us" well, and I really hope it changes, and soon. 3
Ahab Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: People who are gender non-conforming have been born into the church, blessed as infants, baptised at eight, gone through membership faithfully and at some point, when no longer able to fit into the gender binary, literally do not have the right to exist as a normal church participant. The church has the right to decide and the church has chosen to not accept them. This is not treating the "least among us" well, and I really hope it changes, and soon. What support do you have for these statements? And what do you mean by "normal church participant"? People like that are clearly not "normal" by any stretch of the word so how or why should they be considered to be "normal"? Normal or not, they still have the right to exist on this planet and they can participate in the church as long as they abide by Church rule.. meaning it is the Church who decides how much anyone can participate in it, through the priesthood of God.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 3, 2019 Author Posted October 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: What support do you have for these statements? And what do you mean by "normal church participant"? People like that are clearly not "normal" by any stretch of the word so how or why should they be considered to be "normal"? Normal or not, they still have the right to exist on this planet and they can participate in the church as long as they abide by Church rule.. meaning it is the Church who decides how much anyone can participate in it, through the priesthood of God. Wow, man. That's kind of ugly. But I am definitely pleased that you recognize their right to exist 1
Calm Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: What support do you have for these statements? And what do you mean by "normal church participant"? People like that are clearly not "normal" by any stretch of the word so how or why should they be considered to be "normal"? Gender identification is just one attribute a person has. Some may be outside the norm in that area while being quite "normal" in other ways, as in likes to go to movies and out to eat, watch sports, read books, be with friends, etc. 1
The Nehor Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: People who are gender non-conforming have been born into the church, blessed as infants, baptised at eight, gone through membership faithfully and at some point, when no longer able to fit into the gender binary, literally do not have the right to exist as a normal church participant. The church has the right to decide and the church has chosen to not accept them. This is not treating the "least among us" well, and I really hope it changes, and soon. Gender transition (whether hormones or surgery or both) is a choice. It is also a very recent choice. People with gender dysphoria throughout history did not have a choice and survived. So can people today. If those whoare considering voluntary gender transition measures want to belong to the church there is one choice. If they do not we can wish them well, part ways, and they can make another choice. Unrepentant transgender individuals are not allowed membership or to make covenants and are subject to mandated church discipline. Oh, and same probably applies to that transreptile person from earlier.
Maestrophil Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: People who are gender non-conforming have been born into the church, blessed as infants, baptised at eight, gone through membership faithfully and at some point, when no longer able to fit into the gender binary, literally do not have the right to exist as a normal church participant. The church has the right to decide and the church has chosen to not accept them. This is not treating the "least among us" well, and I really hope it changes, and soon. CFR that they can't participate as normal church members. My understanding is that as long as they don't have reassignment surgery/procedures, and keep the law of chastity as defined by the church, they are not restricted from membership. They may not be able to participate in their 'desired' roles - in other words, a female trans who considers herself a male, can't hold the priesthood and would have to assume a female role in the temple, as would a biological male. 1
Wellmired Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Ahab said: What support do you have for these statements? And what do you mean by "normal church participant"? People like that are clearly not "normal" by any stretch of the word so how or why should they be considered to be "normal"? Normal or not, they still have the right to exist on this planet and they can participate in the church as long as they abide by Church rule.. meaning it is the Church who decides how much anyone can participate in it, through the priesthood of God. With regard to normal or not: Yes I have met a few of these (((transvest ? what the PC name oh TransGENDER), I also have know working associates that were gay women and men in the past and I have to say they really seemed close to model citizens but the trans are another thing and I really don't think I would have them teaching or running summer camps or being priests. No reply necessary. Wasn't sure, no I didn't read everything in here , a time thing .. just FYI ... sports ... military, firefighting/police .. well I guess not the latter ... was just something I seeN the other day or today, maybe of interest or discussion fodder. For example, one topic, you don't see them in many men's sports, like boxing, oh... right-- as they are women, maybe a bad example. Report: Women's Rugby Referees Quit, Claiming 'Transgender Players Are ... https://www.waynedupree.com/rugby-transgender-referees-quit/ Report: Women's Rugby Referees Quit, Claiming 'Transgender Players Are Breaking Women's Bones' Women are not only being sidelined, and cheated out of their hard work and dreams thanks to transgender athletes, but now, they're also getting their bones broken by them. Broken Bones vs. Hurt Feelings: UK Rugby Refs Quitting After Bearded ... https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/october/broken-bones-vs-hurt-feelings-uk-rugby-refs-quitting-after-bearded-transgender-women-hurt-female-players The referees say the transgender women are injuring female players and they are afraid of being sued. Broken Bones vs. Hurt Feelings: UK Rugby Refs Quitting After BeardedTransgender 'Women' Hurt ... https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/29/transgender-women-rugby/ Women's rugby referees in England are quitting their jobs over the inclusion of the male athletes, according to a report in The Sunday Times this weekend. "Being forced to prioritize hurt feelings over broken bones exposes me to personal litigation from female players who have been damaged by players who are biologically male. Edited October 3, 2019 by Wellmired added : .
Danzo Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: To be fair though how often do you interact with them in a setting or venue that is upsetting to them? Do you seek out transgender opinions on flower arranging, impressionist art, hockey games, or your city’s zoning laws? I remember going to a city counsel meeting (I was there to talk about an unrelated parking issue). when all heck broke lose because the city might or might not proclaim a transgender rights day. I could care less either way (the proclamation would have no legal effect), but you would think, based on the reaction that everyone was out to murder the children. The following city counsel meeting went on so long that I think the counselors might have agreed to the proclamation just to get the public comment section of the meeting over with, so they could go home. After viewing the video of the testimony with our family, we all had to agree that the people that identified as transgender who testified definitely had problems and they deserved our compassion, but a proclamation by the city probably wouldn't give them the help they needed. On a personal level, I remember one of my clients who had problems with their child. When the state agreed to pay for this teenager's mutilation surgery it was supposed to solve all (his /her?) problems. Several years down the road, the child is still as dysfunctional as before. I have no doubt the child has problems, but I don't think the surgery as solving them.
Ahab Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 49 minutes ago, Calm said: Gender identification is just one attribute a person has. Some may be outside the norm in that area while being quite "normal" in other ways, as in likes to go to movies and out to eat, watch sports, read books, be with friends, etc. No, not just one attribute. It is the main attribute secondary only to the fact that that person is a person. After that fact, gender is what determines what a person actually is. A male, or a female. There is no 3rd choice, unless maybe someone or some people are both. Activities that a person does to be active are not what make that person a person, or the kind of person a person is. Kind as in male or female. If there is any reason for a person to freak out I think it would have to have something to do with not knowing what kind of person a person is. Am I a boy or a girl? Or am I both? If I didn't know what I was I would be in total freak mode right now. So I can sympathize with people who may not know what they are. Bottom line answer is still the same, though. A person is either a male or a female or maybe, just maybe, possibly both. I think it would be kind of neat to be both male and female, and I think maybe in some way all of us are.
Tacenda Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Gender transition (whether hormones or surgery or both) is a choice. It is also a very recent choice. People with gender dysphoria throughout history did not have a choice and survived. So can people today. If those whoare considering voluntary gender transition measures want to belong to the church there is one choice. If they do not we can wish them well, part ways, and they can make another choice. Unrepentant transgender individuals are not allowed membership or to make covenants and are subject to mandated church discipline. Oh, and same probably applies to that transreptile person from earlier. 🤮
carbon dioxide Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: People who are gender non-conforming have been born into the church, blessed as infants, baptised at eight, gone through membership faithfully and at some point, when no longer able to fit into the gender binary, literally do not have the right to exist as a normal church participant. The church has the right to decide and the church has chosen to not accept them. This is not treating the "least among us" well, and I really hope it changes, and soon. Treating the least among us does not mean we just accept anything to appease those people. Gender non-conforming people can live their lives as they choose but some things are as they are. Especially in the Church where gender has some significant roles. A female who does not conform for her gender and views herself as say male cant then ask for the priesthood. That is not going to work.
carbon dioxide Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 The sad part is that this is even an issue. Pretty much every society, group of people in all of human history has not had a problem with gender. Male is male and female is female. I think even the cavemen had this one down. The fact that it is even a subject today is evidence that our society is coming off the tracks.
changed Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation". From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology. I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters. Question- Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience? https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA Here is a nice cartoon explaining non-binary gender https://thenib.com/gender-isn-t-binary-and-neither-is-anatomy?fbclid=IwAR24LQanogY9k-nztf3HhAqW_9hagtbGNqXx0OoEUFINDyWfNLyMug8Px-4
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: 🤮 I agree. The transreptile person is kind of gross. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, Calm said: CFR please. I just read something that had the frequency of intersex (perhaps this is not what you are referring to) the same as redheads in the population. Not very helpful. At what point is red hair light Auburn? Are we talking carrot top, strawberry blonde, or the infinity of variations in the real world? What was that thing again about facts vs interpretations? Ambiguous descriptions of ambiguous data it's not very helpful Edited October 4, 2019 by mfbukowski
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ambiguous descriptions of ambiguous data it's not very helpful Leonard Sax, 'How Common Is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling', Journal of Sex Research 39:3 (Aug. 2002), pp. 174--78: Quote Anne Fausto-Sterling's suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling's estimate of 1.7%. 2
california boy Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) What does it matter? Why kick out more sheep from he fold over cosmetic surgery? Something that thousands of women in the Church do to make themselves feel better about who they are. Do you think God cares what a person calls himself? Will not all of this be repaired in the resurrection? I thought the mandate of the Church was to bring people to Christ. Does kicking them out of the Church help to accomplish that? I don't know much about transgender people. What I do know is that they seem to be suffering. I don't judge their efforts to ease their suffering any more than what other people do to ease their suffering. I put my arms around them and let them know that they are loved. The last thing they need is to be eradicated from those who should be loving them. Edited October 4, 2019 by california boy 1
Tacenda Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: I agree. The transreptile person is kind of gross. No, I think it was reading yours and others' posts that made me so sick to my stomach. There's not even a time or place that any of yours and others' thoughts would be good because they only lead to devastation IMO. The person receiving the statements feeling devastated. I long for the church that didn't have to do that, people should come first. It's not all about procreation, not everyone is going to fit that LDS mold. I honestly believe the transgendered or ? aren't doing what they're doing for attention or for any other immoral reason. They are born that way in most cases and it interprets their feelings. I appreciate the posts on this thread that point this out.
longview Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I honestly believe the transgendered or ? aren't doing what they're doing for attention or for any other immoral reason. Are you aware Bruce Jenner is fabulously more wealthy than he was before he publicly declared his intent to "transform" himself? There is a "narrative" out there.
JLHPROF Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I long for the church that didn't have to do that, people should come first. It's not all about procreation, not everyone is going to fit that LDS mold. That's exactly what it's all about. Not fitting the mold is completely irrelevant. Fitting God's work and glory is everything.
stemelbow Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 (edited) Quote “They are among the challenges that persons can experience in mortality, which is only a tiny fraction of our eternal existence.” It used to be considered quite a challenge to be born black as well--seeing as the presumed truth was that those who are black were unfaithful before this world was, or were cursed via Cain, or ham or whoever. As time has passed those past revelations are considered stupid and the masses need not treat people as if their race is a challenge for them to have to endure. I think this will turn out similar in time. There will remain those archaic thinking types who presume answers that they seemingly have no clue about. Perhaps it won't be considered a challenge one day, and we'll be a happier more healthy people overall. That's kind of what progress is supposed to be about. The Church stubbornly held on to racism even though the rest of the world was catching on to the foolishness that it was. The church was seen as holding on to archaic thinking, prizing tradition over the obvious. What can we say the Church is almost always behind, unable to see anything ahead. It just moves after the world moves, afraid of truth and goodness all too often. Ah well...what more can we say? Edited October 4, 2019 by stemelbow
Recommended Posts