Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just worry about prescription drugs and their side affects.

Drugs are drugs, imo.  "Natural" are just as likely to have side effects as prescription.  St. John's Wort for example, not good for me at all.  Lots of supplements that are supposed to help with anxiety increase it for me...just like the prescribed ones.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

is illegal to perform sex changing surgery before the minor reach the legal age of 18.

(This comment is meant to be neutral to a religious context though it may be possible that religious people are more prone to deeply desiring biological children)

I wish it was a few years more though legally understandable why not (if they can choose an occupation where they can be killed---military---then why not other life altering/risky choices?) simply because the desire some people have for having their own biological children often does not hit until they are older.  In my experience 18 year olds can't really place themselves in that situation of how they will feel older when choices are no longer there.  But not being able to have bio children is probably only clinically troubling to a small portion, most couples/individuals who can't procreate themselves are able to take the lack of biochildren in stride and adapt, so I may be thinking there is a greater cost to not waiting than there really is.

(When I was 18, I had a friend a few years older who had to have her uterus and ovaries removed when a teen due to health issues.  Her situation and having to accept not having any biochildren even before she had given much, if any, thought to it had a big impression on me as well as the many childless couples over the years.)

Edited October 6, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I believe mitigating pain and improving quality of life are noble medical goals. I am just not convinced that this falls into that category. Does it actually help? This is also the destruction of functioning human organs. It seems to me to be equivalent to transabled people who intentionally disable parts of their body because that is “who they are”. Would you argue we should help them lop off their limbs?

I agree with you and I too am not convinced that these procedures are the same..  But it certainly are simularities.  A nose job or a boob job is often done just to make the person feel better about how they perceive themselves. 

No one is suggesting we help lopping off anything. I am not the person dealing with the issue. I am saying they have their free agency.    I am saying we should not get a vote.   And I am saying  that it is wrong to toss someone out of the church over what medical procedures they choose to have.  What are the eternal ramifications for having a uterus or a penis removed?    Why does the Church care whether they have these procedures and how does excommunicating them bring them closer to God?  

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

What are the eternal ramifications for having a uterus or a penis removed?

I would see it in the same category as sterilization for medical (psychological) reasons.  I don't know if in the past that could have gotten a member excommunicated or under discipline if the choice was viewed as more for personal preference than medical necessity.

I assume the Church sees it as something more though.

I don't see excommunication as inherently bringing someone closer to God, but rather removing covenants so they don't continue to sin against them. (Think of it as the difference between staying married with someone you know is continually committing adultery vs. getting a divorce from them so they are no longer harming you or themselves in that way through their sinful choices; it is still sinning, but less damaging to all involved imo).

However, sometimes the experience of excommunication can wake someone up and teach them how much they value their covenants so that when they are reestablished they are more committed to keeping them than they were prior to the excommunication.  This happened from what I heard and saw with a friend and their spouse (the spouse was affected even though not excommunicated as they changed their mind about going to counseling and worked on becoming more supportive, more communicative, etc).

addition:  we don't excommunicate for anorexia even though it can cause life long changes (I know one woman who wasn't even severe who lost her period almost completely and therefore may have prevented herself from having children, though that result was not consciously chosen of course, unlike transgender surgery).

Edited October 6, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree with you and I too am not convinced that these procedures are the same..  But it certainly are simularities.  A nose job or a boob job is often done just to make the person feel better about how they perceive themselves. 

No one is suggesting we help lopping off anything. I am not the person dealing with the issue. I am saying they have their free agency.    I am saying we should not get a vote.   And I am saying  that it is wrong to toss someone out of the church over what medical procedures they choose to have.  What are the eternal ramifications for having a uterus or a penis removed?    Why does the Church care whether they have these procedures and how does excommunicating them bring them closer to God?  

As vain and foolish as I consider most nose and breast cosmetic surgery to be (though I do allow there are times it is very helpful if due to deformation, accident, or after breast cancer) I do not see it as the same. Changing the form of the body is different then destroying an organ or limb.

Yeah, it is their call and I do not get a vote but they are out of the Church. The eternal ramifications? You knowingly and willingly hindered or destroyed your ability to have posterity. They can repent and return to the Church and receive baptism and confirmation and can join for the first time if they transitioned before they first encountered the church and be baptized and confirmed but they cannot hold the Priesthood or go through the Temple. Their progress in this life is limited. The decision is horrific in its eternal implications. Treating it lightly might suggest to those who struggle with dysphoria that they can transition and be fine. It is too close to encouraging sin.

Excommunication is designed to help people repent. That is what it is for. It does not always work but that is the intent. It also gets you out of covenants and if you are sinning that can be an eternal blessing.

Edited October 5, 2019 by The Nehor

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree with you and I too am not convinced that these procedures are the same..  But it certainly are simularities.  A nose job or a boob job is often done just to make the person feel better about how they perceive themselves. 

No one is suggesting we help lopping off anything. I am not the person dealing with the issue. I am saying they have their free agency.    I am saying we should not get a vote.   And I am saying  that it is wrong to toss someone out of the church over what medical procedures they choose to have.  What are the eternal ramifications for having a uterus or a penis removed?    Why does the Church care whether they have these procedures and how does excommunicating them bring them closer to God?  

I think sex reassignment surgery goes far beyond making a person feel better about themselves, and often introduces new problems and horrible, unintended consequences affecting self-esteem, self-worth and identity. I think it can be thought of as a kind of divorce, which people do not do just to feel good about themselves.

These complex decisions take a long time to make and execute. Professional standards of care recognize this. Seeking and accepting ecclesiastical involvement should be no less deliberate. A person has every advantage in settling the matter of Church membership to their satisfaction and agency, especially if they are ministered to in love, compassion and with inspiration. The Lord will guide all His children facing serious challenges and dilemmas.

[Calm]

I think transgender surgery is in a much more complicated circumstance religiously speaking than xenomelia or other body dysphorias in that if the Church was to remove it from excommunication status based on the belief transgenderism is a mental disorder and those experiencing it were therefore not accountable for their choices, they could easily be accused of infantilizing trans individuals where I think few would criticize the Church for taking the position those with xenomelia, etc are mentally dysfunctional.  If treated as accountable for their choices, the Church is criticized for not having compassion for people who are suffering.  

I suspect the Church is going to have to come up with a clearer explanation of the policy and why...though I doubt it will satisfy critics as it will likely be based on religious beliefs (sexuality of the individual is eternal, binary, and unchanging).

Edited October 6, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

For me, bottomline is I would expect body dysphorias to have similar treatments.  (My background is clinical psychology) Treatment for other forms of body dysphorias include counseling and medications (usually antidepressants, hospitalization is recommended if unable to care for oneself or in danger of harming oneself).

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/body-dysmorphic-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353938

Edited October 6, 2019 by Calm

[longview]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you recommend the Church excommunicate anyone who makes a decision that might make them miserable?

No.  But I do not think this kind of argument is productive.  It is like saying I am miserable for obeying the Word of Wisdom (and I do not want to give up my vices).

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you have any data that shows transgender people are more happy if they don't transition?

No.  But I believe this scripture applies:  Alma 41:10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.  (In other words, delusions by the devil NEVER was happiness).

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I personally do not believe any minor should have any transition surgery.  I have no idea how I feel about drugs delaying puberty.  I have never had to deal with that nor do I know enough about the pros and cons and possible long term side effects of the issue.  What I do know is that this is a decision best left up to the child, their parents and their medical doctors. I am none of those.

I strongly disagree.  It is abhorrent for the child to be subjected to this kind of abuse.  The child is naive.  The parents are most likely acting in accordance with the extremes of radical social engineering.  There are too many "doctors" that are unethical or corrupt (such as abortionists, oxycontin dispensers, etc).

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think you should be able to decide medical decisions of other parents children?

It is illegal to perform sex changing surgery before the minor reach the legal age of 18.

Those drugs are highly questionable for altering the biochemistry.  I read an news item a week ago that they are seeing seriously adverse effects of some of the drugs including increasing death rates.  18 year olds should not be in such a rush for surgical mutilation (like I said they most likely not find any real satisfaction).

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, longview said:

I read an news item a week ago that they are seeing seriously adverse effects of some of the drugs including increasing death rates.

There is one item going around claiming deaths from the hormone suppressant drugs, but most likely it is because they are given in many cases to cancer and other patients who are either terminal or have high death rates due to disease, so you should make sure to doublecheck all news items for awhile in case that mistake gets perpetuated.

That being said, it does concern me greatly.  I think too many think of hormone treatment as for menopause or birth control, so they see it as relatively harmless.

There is also the issue that 80% of youth who experience gender dysphoria resolve it without any gender changing treatment as they get older (in essence grow out of it, I haven't seen an explanation but wouldn't be surprised if it had to do in part with how their brains react to changing hormones and it takes awhile to stabilize or it could be with greater self awareness and reasoning abilities they start perceiving their experiences differently).

If youth are given suppressant drugs at an early age and they start living as trans, I see the possibility of it preventing or at least delaying their dysphoria from resolving.  If delayed, they may opt for surgery at 18 when it otherwise would have been unnecessary.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I would see it in the same category as sterilization for medical (psychological) reasons.  I don't know if in the past that could have gotten a member excommunicated or under discipline if the choice was viewed as more for personal preference than medical necessity.

I assume the Church sees it as something more though.

I don't see excommunication as inherently bringing someone closer to God, but rather removing covenants so they don't continue to sin against them. (Think of it as the difference between staying married with someone you know is continually committing adultery vs. getting a divorce from them so they are no longer harming you or themselves in that way through their sinful choices; it is still sinning, but less damaging to all involved imo).

However, sometimes the experience of excommunication can wake someone up and teach them how much they value their covenants so that when they are reestablished they are more committed to keeping them than they were prior to the excommunication.  This happened from what I heard and saw with a friend and their spouse (the spouse was affected even though not excommunicated as they changed their mind about going to counseling and worked on becoming more supportive, more communicative, etc).

addition:  we don't excommunicate for anorexia even though it can cause life long changes (I know one woman who wasn't even severe who lost her period almost completely and therefore may have prevented herself from having children, though that result was not consciously chosen of course, unlike transgender surgery).

I get all of that.  I just don't see what the sin is or what covenants they are breaking or how they repent once they have transformed which is what triggers the excommunication.  The whole excommunication seems irrational in this case.  It seems like another policy coming from fear.  I get that Church don't like someone going through this process.  I don't particularly like it or agree with it.  But I can't see excommunicating them for a deeply personal choice just because I don't fully understand or can't identify what they are going through.  

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As vain and foolish as I consider most nose and breast cosmetic surgery to be (though I do allow there are times it is very helpful if due to deformation, accident, or after breast cancer) I do not see it as the same. Changing the form of the body is different then destroying an organ or limb.

Yeah, it is their call and I do not get a vote but they are out of the Church. The eternal ramifications? You knowingly and willingly hindered or destroyed your ability to have posterity. They can repent and return to the Church and receive baptism and confirmation and can join for the first time if they transitioned before they first encountered the church and be baptized and confirmed but they cannot hold the Priesthood or go through the Temple. Their progress in this life is limited. The decision is horrific in its eternal implications. Treating it lightly might suggest to those who struggle with dysphoria that they can transition and be fine. It is too close to encouraging sin.

So does the whole argument come down to doing something to prevent having children?  Is a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied an excommunication offense?

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Excommunication is designed to help people repent. That is what it is for. It does not always work but that is the intent. It also gets you out of covenants and if you are sinning that can be an eternal blessing.

What covenants are broken and just how does one repent from transitioning?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Those drugs are highly questionable for altering the biochemistry.  I read an news item a week ago that they are seeing seriously adverse effects of some of the drugs including increasing death rates.  18 year olds should not be in such a rush for surgical mutilation (like I said they most likely not find any real satisfaction).

So the Church now excommunicates people based on taking drugs that may cause a risk to their lives?  I just don't see the role the Church needs to play in all of this except maybe as a warning against this and helping people be fully aware of those risks.  There are a LOT of high risk activities youth engage in. A LOT.  I just don't see the Church going around excommunicating members for engaging in them.  

Still not seeing a reason to excommunicate.  

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

I get all of that.  I just don't see what the sin is or what covenants they are breaking or how they repent once they have transformed which is what triggers the excommunication.  The whole excommunication seems irrational in this case.  It seems like another policy coming from fear.  I get that Church don't like someone going through this process.  I don't particularly like it or agree with it.  But I can't see excommunicating them for a deeply personal choice just because I don't fully understand or can't identify what they are going through.  

 

I am agreeing the Church must see it as something more than unnecessary or even dangerous body altering because they don't excommunicate for that.  Nor do they excommunicate for sterilization, not even when done for convenience as far as I am aware; choosing not to procreate is also not excomunicable.  

I suspect the issue is founded in a belief that our gender is God's Will and there is a fundamental assumption that in nonintersex/non biologically confusing cases that gender does match obvious biological sex as planned by God (at least in the sense he has structured the world).  By refusing to accept one's eternal gender as demonstrated by one's biological form, and going so far as to permanently alter one's body into another form demonstrates a rebellion against God as our creator and one significant enough to merit excommunication.

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am agreeing the Church must see it as something more than unnecessary or even dangerous body altering because they don't excommunicate for that.  Nor do they excommunicate for sterilization, not even when done for convenience as far as I am aware; choosing not to procreate is also not excomunicable.  

I suspect the issue is founded in a belief that our gender is God's Will and there is a fundamental assumption that in nonintersex/non biologically confusing cases that gender does match obvious biological sex as planned by God (at least in the sense he has structured the world).  By refusing to accept one's eternal gender as demonstrated by one's biological form, and going so far as to permanently alter one's body into another form demonstrates a rebellion against God as our creator and one significant enough to merit excommunication.

Ok.  So is it Gods will that some have both sexual identities?   

[Meadowchik]

On 10/4/2019 at 3:09 AM, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

On 10/4/2019 at 3:14 AM, carbon dioxide said:

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.

 

It's extremely human to perceive outlier behaviour as some sign of bad to come, a reaction as old as history itself.

It is better, though, to examine the behaviour and judge it on its merits. Transgender people want to express a gender different from their biological gender. Some choose surgery, or hormones or a combination of them, some choose other alterations. 

The primary question for me is, can they still choose to love and learn, to have valuable relationships and be responsible? Absolutely. Sometimes the transition even allows them to do this better.

So the actual indicator is of the institution. What does it say about an institution when its foundations cannot tolerate some people choosing gender transition?  It says those foundations depend mightily on authoritarian gender-role enforcement.

This is not a good sign for the church. I hope I will see it break away from this dependency in my lifetime.

[Meadowchik]

On 10/3/2019 at 10:20 PM, Maestrophil said:

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.  

It looks like you CFRed it yourself.

[Meadowchik]

On 10/3/2019 at 10:04 PM, 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.

Inasmuch as ye have done it into the least of these...

[Jake Starkey]

I am comfortable in know that the we know very little about the nature/nutureworlds of intersex biology and psychology.

[lightparticle]

I am transgender. I'm not going to dazzle you with fancy statistics or peer reviewed science studies, though I have them. I'm not going to beg and plead for your acceptance because I don't need it, and my love of God and His love for me are not reliant on the outcomes of your arguments about my genetics, biology, existence, mental health, identity, or worthiness.

You see, just a few years ago, before I even started transitioning, when I revealed I was transgender, members of the ward very publicly (in person and online) accused me of being a threat to children, of bringing evil into the church, and of being an apostate seeking to destroy the ward. Much of the ward unabashedly took part in this flogging. Rumors were spread, and "helpful suggestions" began such as people telling my wife to divorce me and other such nonsense. It got so out of hand that the bishop had to intervene (special 5th Sunday class session -- nothing says fun like having your life discussed by the entire ward). In short order, our family left the church over this hostility. I started transition after we left.

I didn't transition for personal pleasure, sexual fantasy, or any other contrived and idiotic reason. My reason for transition is between me and God. (Matthew 19:12)

I don't know why this has been my life assignment. Perhaps the test isn't mine. Perhaps it is everyone else's. What I do know is that I am happy, my family is happy, and God is happy with me (John 9:1-3)

I have never wanted to destroy the church. I only wanted to be the real me within it. I guess that's not to be.

From my own experience, if this is how church members follow the second most important commandment to an adult, I can only imagine how a youth is treated by the ward and by non-accepting parents. The difference is that a youth can't just escape parents and the church -- and that is why we protest.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

So does the whole argument come down to doing something to prevent having children?  Is a vasectomy or getting your tubes tied an excommunication offense?

What covenants are broken and just how does one repent from transitioning?

Not just down to that. It is also a desecration of the temple your spirit dwells in. The Church handbook actually advises against getting a vasectomy except in rare circumstances. Many members do anyways. 

I would argue that it breaks the covenant of baptism in taking the name of Christ upon yourself. Not what Christ would do. You repent by admitting it was wrong and correcting it as possible. In some cases though if the transition is complete and irreversible you may never be able to attend the temple. I am not an expert there though. I have never had to deal with a penitent in this arena though. I would probably contact Salt Lake for help if I was.

There is pain and I empathize with that and hate when people suffer but when people want to do things that will cut them off from the gospel and infinite happiness I cannot support it. I can understand it but not endorse it or pretend it is okay. I am convinced following this path will lead to pain. They can choose to do it but not while in the Church.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

I am transgender. I'm not going to dazzle you with fancy statistics or peer reviewed science studies, though I have them. I'm not going to beg and plead for your acceptance because I don't need it, and my love of God and His love for me are not reliant on the outcomes of your arguments about my genetics, biology, existence, mental health, identity, or worthiness.

You see, just a few years ago, before I even started transitioning, when I revealed I was transgender, members of the ward very publicly (in person and online) accused me of being a threat to children, of bringing evil into the church, and of being an apostate seeking to destroy the ward. Much of the ward unabashedly took part in this flogging. Rumors were spread, and "helpful suggestions" began such as people telling my wife to divorce me and other such nonsense. It got so out of hand that the bishop had to intervene (special 5th Sunday class session -- nothing says fun like having your life discussed by the entire ward). In short order, our family left the church over this hostility. I started transition after we left.

I didn't transition for personal pleasure, sexual fantasy, or any other contrived and idiotic reason. My reason for transition is between me and God. (Matthew 19:12)

I don't know why this has been my life assignment. Perhaps the test isn't mine. Perhaps it is everyone else's. What I do know is that I am happy, my family is happy, and God is happy with me (John 9:1-3)

I have never wanted to destroy the church. I only wanted to be the real me within it. I guess that's not to be.

From my own experience, if this is how church members follow the second most important commandment to an adult, I can only imagine how a youth is treated by the ward and by non-accepting parents. The difference is that a youth can't just escape parents and the church -- and that is why we protest.

I am sorry you endured that.

I can share an anecdotal account as well. I was in a ward with a young sister that wished to become a man. She was sucked into online communities and spent a huge amount of time there. Her mother was supportive. Her father was not in the picture. Her brother withdrew, disliking the transition. She would get up and advocate for gender transition in Fast and Testimony meeting and was counseled not to do this but she continued to do so. She would advocate in seminary and was removed from it. The Young Women of the Ward and their leaders loved her and took care of her but could not tolerate her teaching it.

There was a lot of concern in the leadership about balancing trying to help her without letting her encourage the other youth in believing this was an option. When she was a Laurel she spoke to a Beehive at Mutual one evening about the whole idea and the firestorm started. The parents of the Beehive were understandably upset.

There were PR concerns and worries about liability if children were taught about this when too young. The Bishop was on a first name basis with people in Salt Lake while trying to navigate this.

I think the ward did everything they knew how to navigate this. If you are correct it sounds like your ward did not and I wish it had been handled better for you.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Inasmuch as ye have done it into the least of these...

Excommunication can be a merciful act.

[lightparticle]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am sorry you endured that.

I can share an anecdotal account as well. I was in a ward with a young sister that wished to become a man. She was sucked into online communities and spent a huge amount of time there. Her mother was supportive. Her father was not in the picture. Her brother withdrew, disliking the transition. She would get up and advocate for gender transition in Fast and Testimony meeting and was counseled not to do this but she continued to do so. She would advocate in seminary and was removed from it. The Young Women of the Ward and their leaders loved her and took care of her but could not tolerate her teaching it.

There was a lot of concern in the leadership about balancing trying to help her without letting her encourage the other youth in believing this was an option. When she was a Laurel she spoke to a Beehive at Mutual one evening about the whole idea and the firestorm started. The parents of the Beehive were understandably upset.

There were PR concerns and worries about liability if children were taught about this when too young. The Bishop was on a first name basis with people in Salt Lake while trying to navigate this.

I think the ward did everything they knew how to navigate this. If you are correct it sounds like your ward did not and I wish it had been handled better for you.

For the record, I didn't do any advocating. I didn't do any preaching about it. I told the bishop and a few close friends. It got out from there when someone copied my personal post from Facebook and passed it on -- life of its own at that point. To stop rumors and other hearsay, the bishop and stake president allowed me to share testimony and tell the ward at that point, as long as it wasn't advocating. I did precisely that (which they did thank me for). Most of my testimony was about how God helps us through our lives. In only one sentence did I briefly mention that I was trans. Instead of helping, it fanned the flames and resulted in the massive wave of hostility. I cut off contact with 99% of the ward. We stopped attending shortly after that and really have not been back since.

I know not everyone is like that. I'm not saying they are. Unfortunately, there are a lot that act poorly about that which they don't understand. Rather than trying, they take general statements from the leadership and run to the extremes.

[Tacenda]

45 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

I am transgender. I'm not going to dazzle you with fancy statistics or peer reviewed science studies, though I have them. I'm not going to beg and plead for your acceptance because I don't need it, and my love of God and His love for me are not reliant on the outcomes of your arguments about my genetics, biology, existence, mental health, identity, or worthiness.

You see, just a few years ago, before I even started transitioning, when I revealed I was transgender, members of the ward very publicly (in person and online) accused me of being a threat to children, of bringing evil into the church, and of being an apostate seeking to destroy the ward. Much of the ward unabashedly took part in this flogging. Rumors were spread, and "helpful suggestions" began such as people telling my wife to divorce me and other such nonsense. It got so out of hand that the bishop had to intervene (special 5th Sunday class session -- nothing says fun like having your life discussed by the entire ward). In short order, our family left the church over this hostility. I started transition after we left.

I didn't transition for personal pleasure, sexual fantasy, or any other contrived and idiotic reason. My reason for transition is between me and God. (Matthew 19:12)

I don't know why this has been my life assignment. Perhaps the test isn't mine. Perhaps it is everyone else's. What I do know is that I am happy, my family is happy, and God is happy with me (John 9:1-3)

I have never wanted to destroy the church. I only wanted to be the real me within it. I guess that's not to be.

From my own experience, if this is how church members follow the second most important commandment to an adult, I can only imagine how a youth is treated by the ward and by non-accepting parents. The difference is that a youth can't just escape parents and the church -- and that is why we protest.

Thank you ever so much. May I ask, as has been wondered or stated about Caitlyn Jenner, she just wants attention. What would your answer back be to the poster that stated it? Not trying to condemn this poster, but would love a person that is going through it or having gone through it such as yourself, please explain how it isn't about getting attention. 

Thanks again for posting this, we need you to help open eyes.