Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Including not ridiculing or condemning me if you have the idea that I am not normal. 

I don’t think you are not normal.  Even if you were not normal, in and of itself that makes not difference to me.  I could care less if someone is outside the norm. 

It is why they are outside the norm that might concern me, though most outside the norm attributes or behaviours concern me not at all. 

Quote

Not condemning or ridiculing others doesn't mean we can't state what normal is when some people seem to have trouble understanding what normal is, though.

It is how we choose to speak of normality that is of concern. Most things that use the phrasing “that’s not normal!” are borderline imo.  The focus then is not on the attribute or the behaviour’s characteristics, but the sole fact that the individual is different. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Calm

[let’s roll]

On 10/3/2019 at 10:36 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

But when speaking of "the rule" it would seem wise to at least acknowledge ambiguities and how there may be some uncertainty about how those ambiguities will play out in the future. For those who experience "the rule" there really isn't much reason to address it. It only matters because there are people in the margins that don't fit the rule.

So if it is "the rule" or "normal" that biological gender at birth will match eternal identity, then there must be some acknowledgement of the exceptions. I'm not seeing any of that. That makes people who are the exceptions feel like they don't matter or don't fit into God's plan. So while Oak's comments probably work for the vast majority of people, they don't acknowledge those whose experience is outside "the rule".

I expect Pres. Oaks agrees with the Savior’s explanation regarding those whose life experiences are outside the norm...such things occur that the glory of God might be made manifest.  Ours is to determine, in multiple respects, how we can bring that about.  That, or squander the opportunity to do so.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

expect Pres. Oaks agrees with the Savior’s explanation regarding those whose life experiences are outside the norm

Inside the norm as well. All things testify of God and Christ. 

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Removing organs such as the uterus or testicles results in much more than just change of appearance even if done for the purpose of appearance change. 

Are you referring to changes to "normal" body functions, maybe?  Removing a uterus from a woman (the sex that "normally" has a uterus, right?) will change or alter her bodily functions, but I would argue that woman is still a woman.

And removing testicles from a man (the sex that "normally" has testicles, right?) will change some of his bodily functions as well, but I would argue that man is still a man.

So, yes, removing organs changes both appearance and bodily functions, but removing things from a body of a particular sex doesn't really alter that person's sexual nature.  The spirit inside that body is still whatever sex it was in heaven.

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Oaks comments are hopelessly ill informed to the point it's intentionally ignoring science.  If you look at the statistics for just medically intersex, not specifically just transgender, they look like this. 

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births

Klinefelter (XXY)one in 1,000 births

Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births

Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births

Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births

Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals

Vaginal agenesisone in 6,000 births

Ovotestesone in 83,000 births

Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause)one in 110,000 births

Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother)no estimate

5 alpha reductase deficiencyno estimate

Mixed gonadal dysgenesisno estimate

Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft)one in 2,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis)one in 770 births

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Source

With this we have the statistic that we often see the estimate of 1.7% of the population.  That is an estimated 128 million people globally.  That means the worldwide intersex population is 8 times larger than the membership in the LDS Church.  

Phaedrus 

So? Seriously why do these numbers matter?

How is this different than other congenital medical problems?

We all have problems. We all have temptations.

Are you saying all these people have immoral lifestyles?

Edited October 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The spirit inside that body is still whatever sex it was in heaven.

That's the problem 

No one including the person knows what that is, and the person who makes decisions  about their own body is it in a better position than you to judge that

 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Are you referring to changes to "normal" body functions, maybe?  Removing a uterus from a woman (the sex that "normally" has a uterus, right?) will change or alter her bodily functions, but I would argue that woman is still a woman.

And removing testicles from a man (the sex that "normally" has testicles, right?) will change some of his bodily functions as well, but I would argue that man is still a man.

So, yes, removing organs changes both appearance and bodily functions, but removing things from a body of a particular sex doesn't really alter that person's sexual nature.  The spirit inside that body is still whatever sex it was in heaven.

 

I am not addressing that in my comments you are quoting. I am focusing on purely whether or not transgender surgery is purely cosmetic or not. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Calm

[Glenn101]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:30 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

This makes sense. And I can appreciate them clarifying the Church's position as it relates to policies. But I think when one of the highest ranking church leaders, who is purported to speak for God, makes a statement the lines blur between church policy and eternal gospel get blurred. So if he said something like "we don't know how this will work in the eternities, but here and now we will treat it as xxx", that would make sense to me. It would be a humble admission of not understanding how it will work in the eternities while also affirming church policies. But IMO he states it more like an eternal truth.

On the other hand is there any scriptural evidence that would tend to show that it is not an eternal truth? Even anecdotal evidence? What is the alternative explanation? Is it that the spirits really do not have a gender and are assigned bodies that may be best suited to them in mortality? If so, then that would allow for the idea that God sometimes makes mistakes when making those assignments. That would shoot down the scriptural concept of God being infallible. He would just be a more advanced human but not perfect, not omniscient, not all knowing. Do you have any alternative ideas that would make it feasible for a spiritual sexual identity to be malleable which would not destroy the current understanding of male and female and eternal families?

I am not trying to be combative but am trying to ask questions that come to my mind.

Glenn

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the problem 

No one including the person knows what that is, and the person who makes decisions  about their own body is it in a better position than you to judge that

 

This is the core concern, imo. Whether or not we can determine the sex of a spirit from the physical aspect of an individual.  Even if the sex of a spirit is eternal, does that force the mortal body to match it?

For those who don’t believe in spirit, substitute “mind”...

If it doesn’t, then the question becomes why is it wrong to try and match it using mortal resources?

If somehow it does (if we can guarantee it matches up except in rare cases biological sex is unable to be determined), then the question is how do we choose to help those who are under the delusion it doesn’t match?  Are they really in the best position to judge?  And how do we treat those of indeterminate sex?

I would assume church policy remains case by case for situations involving indeterminate sex while policy for those with clear biological sexual characteristics of one sex is the person’s sex is what it is biologically defined as.

I think some confusion on this topic is the result of conflating intersex with transgender. They are not the same.  When speaking of existing policy, that likely refers to those with clear biological sex even if Oaks’ talk had implications for intersex individuals (in the sense it may have ignored them).

Edited October 4, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

New perspective here on the idea of what this thread is about - Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?:

I just had a thought about how our spirit is whatever sex it was when we were in heaven, and if that is true, as I believe it is, then the sex of our mortal body wasn't necessarily determined when our mortal body was biologically formed in our mortal Mother's womb.  Maybe it was, but maybe not.

Picture this: A spirit is chosen to take a particular mortal body being formed in a particular mortal Mother's womb.  The sex of the spirit has already been determined, either as a son or a daughter of God.  But what about the sex of the body in the Mother's womb?

Does God, or maybe the spirit that will be taking that mortal body, influence the mortal body in the Mother's womb to become either male or female, according to the sex of the spirit that will be taking that body? 

Or does God and that spirit leave that all up to biology with no additional influence other than what is inherent in that mortal body that God created when he created Adam and Eve which has now come down these many generations?

I think I may have just opened up a whole new can of worms here that some people may not have considered before.

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Ahab

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That's the problem 

No one including the person knows what that is, and the person who makes decisions  about their own body is it in a better position than you to judge that

 

I'm picturing you and me standing at the window of a baby delivery room in a hospital when they bring in one of your grand children.

I see something on that child and say:  Congratulations, mski!  It's a boy!

And then you say something like: Yeah, maybe, or at least it kind of looks like it.  But we really can't be sure, can we?  Maybe there is a girl in that boy's body just waiting to come out!

Have fun, bro.  Whatever you get I hope you are happy with them.

[Calm]

 

Quote

Is it that the spirits really do not have a gender and are assigned bodies that may be best suited to them in mortality? If so, then that would allow for the idea that God sometimes makes mistakes when making those assignments.

Unless God allows for mismatching for other reasons.  Thus not a mistake, but a consequence of a mortal existence. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is the core concern, imo. Whether or not we can determine the sex of a spirit from the physical aspect of an individual.  

In almost all instances, we can.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if the sex of a spirit is eternal, does that force the mortal body to match it?

I think so.  From the Proclamation: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

I think it would be hard to suggest that an "essential characteristic" that is part of a person's "eternal identity and purpose" can nevertheless be changed during his/her mortal probation.

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

If somehow it does, then the question is how do we choose to help those who are under the delusion it doesn’t match?

One way is to teach correct principles.  Pretending that the delusion is real is not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

You keep saying that these people are not normal.  You do realize members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not normal either.   In fact they are down right pecular.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

For those who don’t believe in spirit, substitute “mind”...

Or even for those who do believe in spirit, I would say this is an excellent way to understand it better.  

And of course it fits will with the philosophical position I take- every "thing" is a product of the "mind" and the way individuals see themselves and the world.

There is no escaping that.  "Where" is everything we think and know?  We Pragmatists say "in the mind" or "mental states".

Yet again I have to plug Rorty and his defining (in my MIND) quote:

Quote

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."

The world as we know it can be nowhere else except in our minds.

That's virtually a tautology as clear as A=A

If it IS their mental picture, it IS "truly" what they think they are, and cannot be otherwise.  Yes that is semantics, but in speaking, what isn't?

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get along without language? 

...."Through a glass darkly, but then face to face"

Edited October 4, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind spirit - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

Still not a perfect iteration of truth though because I have a house out there somewhere independent of my spirit, and there are a lot of other things out there independent of my spirit, too.

Hence, all there is that is true cannot be contained in a sentence or in a spirit or even all spirits and sentences combined.  And why not?  Because there is more truth out there than can be contained in those things.  Truth is eternal.  It just keeps on going and going and going....

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If it IS their mental picture, it IS "truly" what they think they are, and cannot be otherwise.  Yes that is semantics, but in speaking, what isn't?

Speaking generally now and not specific cases....

But what does this imply when it comes to medical treatment?  Do you treat on the basis of what they think they are whatever that is or what is seen by the community as functional/healthy?

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Speaking generally now and not specific cases....

But what does this imply when it comes to medical treatment?  Do you treat on the basis of what they think they are whatever that is or what is seen by the community as functional/healthy?

 

I think what he is getting at is that to cure them you have to somehow get them to change their minds or how they see things as "they really are".  If they're deluded they are deluded and they will stay that way until they are no longer deluded.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/3/2019 at 8:49 AM, CV75 said:

He says, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” So whatever confounding of the ideal that develops after the post-Creation Fall will be restored to the original proper binary order and proper and perfect frame (Alma). So I think  "biological sex at birth" refers to the ideal order of the finished plan and not to the various departures that we see occurring in mortal life.

Yes, this!

[Ahab]

“When counseling with any members experiencing challenges related to their sexual orientation, Church leaders should affirm that God loves all His children, including those dealing with confusion about their sexual identity or other LGBT feelings,” President Oaks said. “Such members and their families have unique challenges. They should be offered hope and be ministered to as directed by the Spirit according to their true needs, remembering the admonition of Alma to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (see Mosiah 18:9).”

“Because we love God and understand His great plan of salvation and the significance of His commandments, we manifest our love for our neighbors by helping them come unto Christ, repent, and keep His commandments. This is part of bearing one another’s burdens that they may be light.”

So I suppose repentance means that if someone has had sex "change" surgery they should change it back to what it was before they changed it.  And we should manifest our love for our neighbors who have done that by helping them do that to the extent that we can help them.

 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Speaking generally now and not specific cases....

But what does this imply when it comes to medical treatment?  Do you treat on the basis of what they think they are whatever that is or what is seen by the community as functional/healthy?

 

I know you know how I feel on a lot of this but let me make it a longer description on the off chance that someone actually reads it.

I do get a lot of questions offline about my various theories.

In the way my mind works, this parallels the problem of physicalism in which the "mind" is confused with the body as others observe it and not as the individual experiences it.  Logically it is the same problem as trying to translate a first person statement about personal experience into a third person statement about one OBSERVING and DEFINING what they observe ABOUT a person

The first person statement "I am hungry" is NOT LOGICALLY equivalent to "Bukowski's brain shows activity at location xyz due to neural input from location ABC".  This is a fallacy which is often made especially in religious contexts due to reductivist physicalism.  A complex personal experience is reduced by another NOT having the experience into a physical observation of what is happening to someone else's body.  "Joseph's first vision, if it happened at all, was the product of faulty neural activity" would be an example.

One is a statement about an experience I am having and the other is a description of bodily functions OBSERVED by someone else- so each statement is coming from different points of view.

Another analogy would be describing an object as "square" while another person describes the object as a "triangle" due to a different viewpoint- where the person who perceives the square is seeing a pyramid shape from the bottom and the person seeing the pyramid from the side perceives a triangle. 

Each statement is TRUE but from different points of perception, and the person who says "Yes, but what shape is a pyramid REALLY?- which is true and which is false??" is simply not understanding that different valid points of view can exist and both are valid depending on the different viewpoints of the observers.  Making one statement false does not necessarily make the other one true- the realm of discussion is not "binary".

So to actually attempt to answer your question- I think a blended answer is called for, because as in the question of the pyramid the answer is NOT binary.

Quote

 

"Do you treat on the basis of what they think they are whatever that is or what is seen by the community as functional/healthy?"

 

I would say you treat based NOT on what the community sees as functionally healthy but what the person sees as functionally healthy because they are the only one to judge what mental state will make them functionally healthy.

On the other hand there are factors in which the community will be involved which complicates the issue, the main one being the cost of treatment if that is a community consideration.   Someone like Bruce Jenner for example, (sorry for getting these pronouns wrong because I have not followed the issue or know her new name etc) I presume, could afford to do whatever medically to himself that he sees fit without his decision affecting the community's monies because he's got enough money of his own to do whatever he wants.

So following the gospel, "Give unto Caesar"..."give unto the medical system the things that are the system's and to the individual, the things that the individual's"

If the individual can afford whatever treatment he/she wants, it should be theirs.

If the treatment comes out of the community coffers, the community is going to have a say about it any way you look at it anyway.

So this is really a question for the community to answer.   I think as has been suggested the standards for what is defined as "cosmetic surgery" should be applied here - NOT because that is RIGHT necessarily but it it follows the guidelines the community has established as acceptable treatment toward what the community considers "normal"

It is like, imo, a baby born with a cleft palate.  The surgery is not complex and so advantageous to the individual that I think the community should support that.  One gets a functional citizen where without the surgery that may not happen.

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So this is really a question for the community to answer. 

Which community?  The secular community? The Church community? Whichever community is willing to foot the bill? Both communities combined into one all encompassing community?  Even if different communities have different perspectives and do not agree?

If in the perspective of the Church representative responsible for deciding what the Church will pay a specific course of treatment is deemed necessary and some other community says a different treatment is needed, whose perspective should prevail?

The goal should be to get the person the proper treatment, regardless of who pays for it or decides what is needed.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wouldn't it be nice if He let all of us be born and live w/o any problems or challenges?

Wait- that was someone else's plan

Do you think any person should use medical science to try and change physical problems that may occur at birth?  Isn't free agency the other guys plan?

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

Thank you.  That backs up what I said about a man still being a man even if he looks like a woman.  Even exactly like a woman.  He is still really a man no matter what kind of surgery has been done on his body.

I don't disagree on a very biological sense.  But so what?  The person has his agency.  And what harm does it to him or to others?  Does excommunicating the from the Church cause them to draw closer to Christ?  If it does, what does that say about the Church?  Why should you care what plastic and hormonal surgery someone has?  Do you call people who have breast implants or any other type of cosmetic surgery as being not norma.?  Should they be excommunicated from the Church as well?  If not, why not?  

I believe in Christ..  I believe in the resurrection.  I trust God to help all of his people move forward.  And you nor the Church have any idea what God will do to help ALL who suffer.  

 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Removing organs such as the uterus or testicles results in much more than just change of appearance even if done for the purpose of appearance change. 

Being male or female or another gender...is that only appearance in your opinion? (Serious question)

My personal opinion is yes.  The physical changes are only physical.  Just like any other cosmetic or hormonal treatment.  But why should anyone care?  If a person wants to be identified as a different sex, then I am going to respect their wishes.  If physiological, that helps them find peace in their lives, then I am going to support them and refer to them as they wish to be seen by themselves and others.  I am willing to bear another burden.  It is really a very small thing to ask.  It doesn't affect me or anyone else one bit.  

I honestly don't know very much about being transgender.  But I do know that what these people go through in order to feel comfortable in their own bodies is one of the most difficult things I have ever seen anyone go through.  That drive to become who they feel they are inside is so great they are often willing to give up everything else in their lives for it.  For. heavens sake, I am not going to tell them they can't do it, nor am I willing to shun them.  Those are probably the two most cruel things I could possibly do.  I am just not that kind of person.