The Proclamation and Rugby: Developments in the Latter as a Reality Check on the Former

[Amulek]

On 9/29/2020 at 1:21 PM, bluebell said:

I know that track and field is really struggling with this issue (bio males in girls sports) at the high school level in some areas.  Any place that tries to push back and keep it strictly based on biology is being bullied.  But I think this is a situation of people (good people, who are on a difficult road or love someone who is) refusing to accept certain realities that they need to accept--such as that biological males have an advantage over biological females.

This has been an ongoing issue in the Olympics as well - for many years, in fact. 

In my opinion, the whole point of the women's category in elite sports is to provide a space free of competition from athletes with male bodies.

And that is for a good (and obvious) reason. When male bodies compete against female bodies in elite sports, the guys win - hands down, every time. 

I remember seeing a chart once that showed the fastest women of all time for a couple of common track events; their times were plotted on a chart along with all of the times for those same events completed by collegiate athletes during the previous year. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the takeaway I remember is that the fastest women of all time would struggle to even get a spot on an middling college track team. They would never make it onto an Olympic team if they were competing with men; and, even if you forced them to be included in the events, they would never end up on the podium. 

And it isn't all just about testosterone levels prior to competitions either. Having access to testosterone during puberty produces significant performance gaps, even if one then manages testosterone levels to fall within certain criteria later in life. Which, when you think about it, makes sense. I mean, if someone like LeBron James were to go on hormone therapy and reduce his testosterone levels to that of a woman, he would still be a flippin' giant.  

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Amulek

[Amulek]

dup...

Edited October 1, 2020 by Amulek

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Materialism" = 

I'm assuming you are referring to the second definition, yes?

If so, I don't understand the irony, since Latter-day Saint doctrine is "materialistic" in a sense:

Yes, but this is just semantics. You can believe in the existence of "fine or pure" matter that can be detected by "purer eyes" but cannot be detected by scientific instruments. But that is a different class of matter. The point is that if a spirit has a sex and a body has a sex, it is conceivable that within one soul (i.e. one body joined with a spirit) the sex of one doesn't align with the sex of the other.

Quote

First, I'm not sure how you arrive at the "should" here.

It is extremely common in science fiction that when bodies can host souls, sometimes the sex of the soul will be different than the sex of the body. It "should" be obvious that it is conceivable for a woman to inhabit a male body, just as it "should" be obvious that a man could put on a woman's glove.

Quote

Second, the author of the "mix-up" would, in your view, be...?

The Fall?

Quote

Third, is "mix-up" a euphemism for "error?"  It seems like it.

In the same way that any other physical defect is an error.

Quote

Fourth, the proposition that "there is a mix-up in the alignment of the physical body and the individual's mental perception of it" is perhaps a nuanced revision of your point that I could accept.  Can you?

If there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex, it is conceivable that some physical details of one don't match the physical details of the other. That is the point. If somebody doesn't believe that spirits exist then they are forced to revert to your position--it is logically impossible for the sex of a body to be different than the sex of a spirit; since spirits don't exist, they don't have sexes that could mismatch.

Quote

Fifth, I'm not sure what this has to do with "materialism."

In dualism, there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex. There could be a mismatch. With materialism, spirits with sexes don't exist, so there is no possibility of a mismatch.

Quote

First, I have serious reservations about taking any doctrinal cues from Saturday's Warrior.

It's just an illustrative example.

Quote

Second, Pam's paralysis is not a "mix-up."

You can call it whatever you want--a trial of the mortal probation, a symptom of the fallen world, a terrible accident, a foreordained challenge.

Quote

Third, "dancing" is conduct, and is nothing like "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

No analogy is perfect.

Quote

Fourth, I'm still not sure what this has to do with "materialism."

In dualism, there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex. There could be a mismatch. With materialism, spirits with sexes don't exist, so there is no possibility of a mismatch.

Quote

First, I'm again not sure how you arrive at the "should" here.

It "should" be obvious that it is conceivable for a woman to inhabit a male body, just as it "should" be obvious that a man could put on a woman's glove.

Quote

Second, do you likewise think that "through a quirk of biology of this imperfect world" a wolf's spirit could "find herself trapped" in a human body?  If not, why not? 

In the bible, some humanoid spirits found themselves trapped in the bodies of some pigs, so you tell me why not.

Quote

If gender is malleable, why not species?  

According to mainstream biology, every species gradually evolved from a different species. There is never a point where you say, for example, that a specific individual is a Homo erectus and its child is a Homo sapiens.  I know that traditionally, Mormonism taught that evolution was false and that there are hard immutable edges between all species. Under that view, it makes sense to think that there is an infinite pool of chicken spirits that are destined to inhabit an infinite number of chicken bodies. But we now know that the vast majority of species go extinct. So what happens to dodo spirits when dodo birds no longer exist? Is it conceivable that a dodo spirit will be sent to a pigeon's body when dodos no longer exist? Given what we know about evolution, how could species not be malleable?

Quote

Third, do you likewise think that "through a quirk of biology of this imperfect world" a spirit could experience multiple mortal probations?

In the movie Heaven Can Wait, an angel makes a mistake and Joe Pendelton dies before he was supposed to. So, he's sent back to earth in a different body so he can finish his life's mission. Lots of people who believe in spirits believe in multiple mortal probations (i.e. reincarnation). You can believe whatever you want, of course.

Quote

Fourth, is anything you are telling us here we "should" be open to at all tethered to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel?  Or are you just making things up as you go along?

I'm pointing out an irony in your beliefs. One would think that people who think spirits with sexes inhabit bodies with sexes, it is possible that the sex of one doesn't align with the sex of the other. And one would think that people who don't believe in spirits wouldn't believe that such a misalignment is possible.

Quote

Ah.  So by "materialism" you are referring to "a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world…denies the existence of God and the soul."

Correct.

Quote

My analysis contemplates "the existence of God and the soul," yet you are calling it "materialistic."  That's sort of odd.

I'm calling you a dualist who vehemently refuses to acknowledge that if there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex, it is logically conceivable that one doesn't match the other. If somebody sincerely says "With every fiber of my being, I feel like on the inside I am a woman," I would expect somebody who believes in dualism and in the ability of arriving at spiritual truth through feelings to respond to this by saying, "If you feel that way so strongly, maybe the sex of your spirit really is female." You don't say that, and I find it ironic.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Analytics

[strappinglad]

If it is logical that there could be a " mix-up " between a spirit's gender and a body's gender , then it is just as logical that there could be a mix-up between a spirit's species and a body's species. Hence, a cow spirit in a dog's body, or a man's spirit in a cow's body. So, the Hindus have it correct!! Welcome to the rabbit hole . 

[Analytics]

Some people are scientifically classified as "intersex", meaning that biologically, they are both (or neither) male and (nor) female.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

If you dualists think there is an unbreakable rule where in absolutely no circumstances will a female spirit ever be born in a male body or vice versa, does it follow that people with intersex bodies also have intersex spirits?

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Where does personal choice end when an individual is emotionally ill or psychologically damaged? 

Mental health is another issue.  But that should be evaluated by a professional.  Whoever does the surgery should have ever assurance that the person is not mentally ill.  But one can not ASSUME mental health issues just because someone wants to modify their bodies. 

 

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

If such an individual wants to drive their car into the concrete support columns on an interstate, should they be allowed to do so? How about those people who jump into a lions display at a zoo and then are attacked? Should personal choice ever be hindered or prevented?  

This is a completely different subject.  I didn't say there are no limits to personal liberty.  When others are involved such as weakening a freeway overpass or the possibility of others being injured, THEN those things need to be taken into consideration.  Certainly with your zoo question, I doubt very much that the zoo would give their consent.  You are comparing apples to oranges, with different considerations that need to be addressed.  

 

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Why do we spend so much money assisting those individuals who would like to commit suicide?  Isn't that a personal choice?  

Sometimes suicide is a personal choice.  Sometimes it is a result of a mental issue, or stress or other factors.  Again, this is not the same as someone who wants to tattoo their face.  

 

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It seems to me that we all know that we have some truly deranged humans in the world. Instead of allowing them individuals to so whatever they choose, we prevent some individuals from doing so and yet allow others to destroy their lives and continue to live in a deranged world of their own creation. 

Sometimes I think some of us need a good, quick kick in the backside to help us wake up to our own stupidity in order to return to a life that leads to a higher degree of satisfaction and, hopefully, happiness.  

Are you familiar with Rick Genest?  He is a guy that has tattooed his entire body including his head with his brains and skull being revealed.  Because of that, he has had a successful career as a fashion model as well as working for Lady Gaga and other well known stars.  He was in movies with such stars as Keanu Reeves on a TV series, as well as working in the music industry.  He gave a TEDx talk about "Normal is an illusion".  You might be interested in hearing his point of view.  If you want the short version start at about 7:00.  By appearance, he is exactly the kind of "freak" we have been talking about.  Can you assume he is mentally ill?  Not in the least.  Do you really think you have a right to not allow this person to express himself in the way he wants?  

One of the problems I have with this kind of attitude you are expressing is you assume that because you are happy with your way of life, you think you should be able to control others to conform with that view.  There are people who think Mormons need to be saved from bad choices they have made.  They think they are locked in a cult that needs outside intervention to "show them" the proper way to help them wake up to their own stupidity in order to return to a life that leads to a higher degree of satisfaction and, hopefully, happiness.  Do you not see the dangers in dictating how others should live their lives and curbing the choices they make just because you view them as being abnormal?  

Maybe I am just not that worried about someone who doesn't conform to what the majority thinks is normal.  I see no reason to force them to conformity.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

but this is just semantics. You can believe in the existence of "fine or pure" matter that can be detected by "purer eyes" but cannot be detected by scientific instruments.

“Purer eyes”... not really how I have heard ‘quickening’ described, rather a different state of something.  As to why such matter can be seen at sometimes and not others...since we currently have tools that allow us to see matter or energy not apparent to the naked human eye, why would it be far fetched that God might use something that allows mortals to temporarily be aware of forms of spirit matter with or without coexisting physical matter?

There are plenty of examples of matter that has existed when the then scientific instruments could not detect such and there is speculation of more forms of matter we still cannot detect directly (dark matter), so I don’t see this currently unseen by the naked eye attribute of spirit as making Saints materialists in name only, rather than actual materialists in concept. 
 

Quote

With materialism, spirits with sexes don't exist, so there is no possibility of a mismatch.

If spirit is after all another form of currently existing though unmeasurable matter, why can’t a spirit have the corresponding spiritual attribute of sex in physical bodies?  A physical body experiences emotions in certain ways, if a spirit exists, is it illogical to assume it too may have corresponding experiences to physical emotions?

Quote

One would think that people who think spirits with sexes inhabit bodies with sexes, it is possible that the sex of one doesn't align with the sex of the other.

While that is one possibility, there are others including that spirit and physical bodies are formed not independently, but around a seed/code (intelligence) that creates the spirit form that then hosts the intelligence that carries that seed...a form of DNA that works not body to body, within similar materials, but across types of material (intelligence to spirit to physical to whatever comes next).  Not like a hermit crab moving into a shell and then into a crack in the rock home, but more like the creation of a turtle where first the DNA is collected, which triggers certain growth and the basic nervous system is formed and the heart and then other foundational physical structures and the further refinement in the multitude of varied cells of the body with the shell being the final outer manifestation of the DNA seed that started it all.  The shell may appear to be separate, but it is a fundamental part of the turtle and it will die without it.  There is no turtle without its shell. The shell that is left is not the turtle either. 

If there is an original code/seed, then it is also possible that the original source of the seed/code is the original source of what we label “sex”, that is then expressed in the spirit that then also guides the construction of physical sexual attributes of the body. It is not similar to the case of a suit of clothes being sent to the wrong address then as what is viewed as ‘clothing’ is somewhat analogous to a turtle’s shell....not made by someone else, but grown by the creature that uses it. 
 

For a mistake to be made, there would need to be a mutation or interference with cell growth...something that might be eliminated if there was some form of quality control or a way to prevent such mutations/errors...which should be possible for a perfect being as Latter-day Saints believe God to be.

 

Otoh, it is a possibility in my view that God might allow ‘construction’ mistakes in mortality in regard to sex as it is apparent imo that he does with other aspects of our physical body.  Also even if sex is eternal and what is seen in all forms of expression of sex (physical structure and behaviour), I don’t see it as automatic that the mortal expression of what sex is a perfect expression any more than I see it as automatic my eternal self has brown eyes with gold flecks, though I believe eyes are part of the eternal body.  Perhaps what appears as a mismatch is actually an incomplete manifestation, parts are currently lacking leading to a misunderstanding of how the whole is meant to function or what the whole actually is.  A wagon missing its wheels and axles and something to pull it might be confused with a storage bin, but if the intent is to add what’s missing in the future, could it not be still be labeled a wagon?

——

But back to assumptions....if the premise that the belief for Latter-day Saints is there is a spirit body and a physical body independently constructed that are matched in the process of beginning a mortal life is wrong and it is instead our actual belief allows for a process that somehow enables a spirit body to more or less grow a ‘form fitting’ physical shell to carry it based on its own ‘biology’ like a turtle forms a shell, then it makes no sense to describe the physical form of a spirit as mismatched.  
 

Latter-day Saints don’t completely separate the growing of the physical body within the mother from the spirit that will use that body conceptually speaking, leaving possible ways the spirit could influence the growth of the body so it could only result in a body where sex is consistent in all expressions in all the being’s existence. 
 

While Latter-day Saints talk about when the spirit might enter the body and we have examples of Christ’s spirit showing himself before he was born, so the spirit can exist independently from the body, it appears the body cannot exist independently from the spirit as it swiftly decomposes after death or would if left to nature.  Why is this if it is a separate body?  While there may be logical reasons, it is also logical that the body decomposes because there is something materially missing from it.  That the spirit that was within was as much a material part of it as the heart or brain.  And this was achieved not by matching two parts of a machine together, but by the spirit being part of the growth of the body in some fashion. 
 

For example, while our doctrinal framework accepts that genetics from parents have a significant effect on appearance and function of the body, we do not exclude the possibility that in the process of the pregnancy the spirit also contributes in some fashion. What if the spirit contributes a part of itself to the mix just as the father and mother do?...a third seed that can only bond with certain sperm and afterwards contributes to the merging of egg and sperm...three forms of DNA combining to create the genetic/spiritual code of the physical body and it is this initial coding that allows the spirit to fully bond with the physical body it is already part of.  This spiritual DNA perhaps creates the connections that then allow the spirit to become one with the physical. 
 

Or another possibility is that the spirit has some form of energy that activates the ability of egg and sperm to combine and it then feeds and directs the body’s growth just as the mother’s body provides the physical components that not only build the body, but influence characteristics through the environment created in the womb. 
 

Our theology being rather minimal allows for a wide range of solutions, many that make talk of a mismatch as nonsensical as saying a snake could be mismatched with its skin because it sheds it. 
 

So our theology can be true materialist if by that meaning everything is matter/energy with the reasonable addition that we still lack scientific knowledge of all forms of matter, though we are learning more and more as time goes on.   And our theology allows for no possibility of mismatching because the process of creating life is not just matching spirit with physical. 
 

It also allows for natural physical errors in a body as evidenced by missing or dysfunctional parts though.

—

Got to ask why it should it be assumed the error is in the body and not that the body has it right in transgender individuals?  Not insisting it can’t be that way, but want to know the reasoning.  If one does not believe there is a separate self and sex is just an attribute of the body, since the mind is also an attribute of the body, why is one attribute of the body seen as the ‘true’ body and the other not?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

But one can not ASSUME mental health issues just because someone wants to modify their bodies. 

Why not if their culture defines mental health that way?

What is mental health is not an objective standard as demonstrated by how it has changed over time. 
 

So I think saying one should not in our culture assume is appropriate...., but “can not” assumes there is a fixed target among other things.

Added:  what if in the future we find out the only way to maximize comfort and satisfaction and happiness by however we choose to measure it is through adjustment of neurotransmitters because any surgical or permanent cosmetic change requires damaging of cells and that damage leads to some sense of discomfort, possibly small, but enough so the mind can never reach a state of full satisfaction?  At that point if we have enough knowledge of neurotransmitters to remove any sense of body dysphoria, could we not assume mental illness of a person insisted they needed to modify their bodies since they would know that was not an effective treatment?

Edited October 2, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

If it is logical that there could be a " mix-up " between a spirit's gender and a body's gender , then it is just as logical that there could be a mix-up between a spirit's species and a body's species. Hence, a cow spirit in a dog's body, or a man's spirit in a cow's body. So, the Hindus have it correct!! Welcome to the rabbit hole . 

Depends on how the mix up occurred. If just random matching sure, but if the body sent out something like pheromones or each body had a ‘lock’ that only a spirit of the same species had the ‘key’ to, it could be restricted to species but perhaps male/female pheromones were close enough in composition they could be mixed up.  And ‘keys’ between species could be very different, etc etc. 

It is all speculation though, so one could argue “why not”?  I suspect the answer would be because we don’t see people acting like cows or pigs from birth, so one speculation doesn’t match what we see as well. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Calm

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

“Purer eyes”... not really how I have heard ‘quickening’ described, rather a different state of something.  

This expression comes from D&C 131:7. "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

 

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Got to ask why it should it be assumed the error is in the body and not that the body has it right in transgender individuals?  Not insisting it can’t be that way, but want to know the reasoning.  If one does not believe there is a separate self and sex is just an attribute of the body, since the mind is also an attribute of the body, why is one attribute of the body seen as the ‘true’ body and the other not?

First of all, thanks for your comments. Personally, I tend to trust mainstream science on how life works, but I knowledge that there is still enough mystery for there to be some sort of "spirit" participating in the process as you describe. I like the turtle analogy.

I am personally aquatinted with one transgender woman. Before changing, he was a successful executive in the insurance industry and well-regarded in his profession. A stable, productive, successful, and socially engaged winner at life. Then as he was approaching 60 years old, he changed from a man to a woman. She says that from deep within her soul, she knows with every fiber of her being that on the inside, she is really a woman.

From the Mormon paradigm where we believe that spirits are real, spirits have sexes, and we can know eternal truth about spiritual things through spiritual impressions, I would expect at least a certain level of deference to the possibility that these feelings she is feels so profoundly come from the real source of spiritual truth and aren't some mental disorder.

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Mental health is another issue.  But that should be evaluated by a professional.  Whoever does the surgery should have ever assurance that the person is not mentally ill.  But one can not ASSUME mental health issues just because someone wants to modify their bodies. 

 

This is a completely different subject.  I didn't say there are no limits to personal liberty.  When others are involved such as weakening a freeway overpass or the possibility of others being injured, THEN those things need to be taken into consideration.  Certainly with your zoo question, I doubt very much that the zoo would give their consent.  You are comparing apples to oranges, with different considerations that need to be addressed.  

 

Sometimes suicide is a personal choice.  Sometimes it is a result of a mental issue, or stress or other factors.  Again, this is not the same as someone who wants to tattoo their face.  

 

Are you familiar with Rick Genest?  He is a guy that has tattooed his entire body including his head with his brains and skull being revealed.  Because of that, he has had a successful career as a fashion model as well as working for Lady Gaga and other well known stars.  He was in movies with such stars as Keanu Reeves on a TV series, as well as working in the music industry.  He gave a TEDx talk about "Normal is an illusion".  You might be interested in hearing his point of view.  If you want the short version start at about 7:00.  By appearance, he is exactly the kind of "freak" we have been talking about.  Can you assume he is mentally ill?  Not in the least.  Do you really think you have a right to not allow this person to express himself in the way he wants?  

One of the problems I have with this kind of attitude you are expressing is you assume that because you are happy with your way of life, you think you should be able to control others to conform with that view.  There are people who think Mormons need to be saved from bad choices they have made.  They think they are locked in a cult that needs outside intervention to "show them" the proper way to help them wake up to their own stupidity in order to return to a life that leads to a higher degree of satisfaction and, hopefully, happiness.  Do you not see the dangers in dictating how others should live their lives and curbing the choices they make just because you view them as being abnormal?  

Maybe I am just not that worried about someone who doesn't conform to what the majority thinks is normal.  I see no reason to force them to conformity.

 

Yes, I do think it appropriate for a society to have limits - what is allowed and what is not. 

I don't think I have ever stated that there should be strict limits, just that for those that want to bend, twist, or exceed the limits of society that there be consequences. 

I think you stated earlier that you don't like tattoos or body piercings; I am one of those people also. Yet it did not stop our daughter from getting tattoos - that is plural mind you. My best friend from high school now has countless tattoos. Maybe a better way to describe my position, is that I really appreciate beauty and most tattoos are not beautiful, but I have seen a few - very few - that I thought were works of art. 

I am thinking of the 13th Article of Faith - 13 "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."  I want that type of society in which to live. I think tattoos would exist in that society as well as some body piercings. Trying to look like a demon - not so much.

I recognize that any society, regardless of its rules, can be dangerous when carried to extremes. However, that does not negate the value of a society having rules. For example, I support folks that want to protest, but if you get out in the middle of a road or an interstate, I have no problem with a vehicle running over them. Stupidity should never be respected or promoted. If you want to protest, then stand where trucks and other vehicles do not travel.  

Humans left to their own devices can build great societies and they can destroy societies. My ideas are built on what builds strong societies rather than those that are decadent and primed for a fall, an obliteration, and ceasing to exist. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

This expression comes from D&C 131:7. "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

 

Thanks for reminding me.  I guess "purer eyes" sounds a bit strange to many (or maybe I am just projecting) as in conversations I have it is generally just referred to as quickening.

I just checked the Conference Corpus and found "purer eyes" has only been used 3 times, last in 1979 quoting the scripture.  Quickening hasn't been mentioned too often either, 19 times total, one or two times a decade since the 50s mostly.  Purer eyes is used in True to the Faith, which is significant.  Not too many references on the Church's website, all quoting scripture.  Otoh, quickening by the Spirit has a number of references, so does appear to be the more common phrasing.

Just satisfying my own curiosity if my experience was unusual or not, no need to reply.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

From the Mormon paradigm where we believe that spirits are real, spirits have sexes, and we can know eternal truth about spiritual things through spiritual impressions, I would expect at least a certain level of deference to the possibility that these feelings she is feels so profoundly come from the real source of spiritual truth and aren't some mental disorder.

I do believe deference to internal feelings should be given, both in medical and religious settings.  If we truly believe that joy for mankind is God's work and he wants us to participate in bringing people this experience, then we need to seriously listen to individuals on how they believe this will happen for them...though in the context of what we have also learned in life.

I honestly have a hard time with understanding the "I knew I was a .... inside".  I think of how I know who I am and there is no real sense of my interior self as "I am a woman".  My internal compass is "I am me" with all the behaviours that make me up, but what besides being a mother and certain biological attributes is "womanhood"?  I haven't gone around and asked others, but I wouldn't be surprised if I am unusual in this.  But it is hard for me to imagine what they mean because when I try to think of what I see myself as unchanging, there is nothing there but my sense of consciousness as a unique individual, Me.  Even 'daughter' and 'sister' and 'mother' feel like just roles I step into and out of rather than part of my identity.  I am guessing the closest I get to it is looking in the mirror and thinking "that's not me" since my thirties or maybe even earlier, so I do get feeling a disconnect from one's body to some extent.

However, I also believe there should be a line that probably should be determined by psychologists and medical doctors in regards to what damage to one's body is acceptable in changing our external image to match our internal one and what level moves into harmful.  There are people who are so certain their limbs are not their own that when they could not convince others to cut them off, they did it themselves or damaged the limb so severely doctors couldn't save it.  Such insistence can lead to them being incapable of caring for themselves, so it just isn't a choice that impacts them.

Also, should those who have been brought up in a relatively decent environment in terms of education and job training, health advantages be able to claim ethnic or racial categories on scholarships or other supports meant to help those lacking in such opportunities because they identify being a doubt in their mind with an ethnic or racial group not their own when this means this could lessen the already not great chance for a minority to get such opportunities?

If lines are drawn in such cases giving preference to others' view of an invidual's identity, then it seems acceptable to me to view it as reasonable that there should be lines drawn somewhere in the discussion about transgender transitions.  I am not making any claims on what those should be as I believe if done, they should be based on long term studies of the physical and mental health of those who experience such feelings with the context of various medical and psychological treatments.  From what I have seen so far, I expect it will not be a one size fits all if this happens.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes, but this is just semantics. You can believe in the existence of "fine or pure" matter that can be detected by "purer eyes" but cannot be detected by scientific instruments.

That's more than just "semantics."  

And there are all sorts of things that "cannot be detected by scientific instruments."  That doesn't mean they don't exist.  

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

But that is a different class of matter. The point is that if a spirit has a sex and a body has a sex, it is conceivable that within one soul (i.e. one body joined with a spirit) the sex of one doesn't align with the sex of the other.

I think that's a pretty hard line to sell, particularly in the Restored Gospel paradigm.

I also think it is far more "conceivable" that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue, not a "mix-up" in which the spirit of a woman is placed in a male body, or vice versa.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

It is extremely common in science fiction that when bodies can host souls, sometimes the sex of the soul will be different than the sex of the body.

First you cite "Saturday's Warrior," now "science fiction."  And you're speaking of things are are essentially untestable, so we are essentially going almost purely by faith.

I believe that we all have spirits, and that we are the children of Heavently Father.

I also believe that Heavenly Father has prepared a "Plan of Salvation" for us that involves, inter alia, God speaking to us and providing guidance through prophets and apostles.

I also believe that in 1995 the Lord inspired His prophets and apostles regarding the contents of the Proclamation, including its statement that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

I think that it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to reconcile your proposed "mix-up" (a female spirit housed in a male body) with the foregoing concepts.

I also believe that a mental health condition called "gender dysphoria" exists, and that this is a far more feasible and appropriate explanation for why some people, well, feel dysphoria about their gender.

Similarly, I feel that "species dysphoria" is attributable to a mental health condition, rather than to a "mix-up" where the spirit of a wolf, or a cat, or whatever is housed in a human body.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

It "should" be obvious that it is conceivable for a woman to inhabit a male body, just as it "should" be obvious that a man could put on a woman's glove.

Again, I'm not sure how you are getting to "should."

"It 'should' be obvious" seems to be code for "You 'should' acquiesce to, and not question, my personal speculative opinion on this matter."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the same way that any other physical defect is an error.

So you think God will sometimes place a female spirit in a male body, and that this is comparable to God placing a human spirit into a body with some sort of physical defect?

Just trying to be clear here.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

If there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex, it is conceivable that some physical details of one don't match the physical details of the other.

I think "conceivable" is pretty weak tea.

I also think that the Proclamation clarifies the issue fairly well, particularly given what we now know about gender dysphoria.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Fourth, the proposition that "there is a mix-up in the alignment of the physical body and the individual's mental perception of it" is perhaps a nuanced revision of your point that I could accept.  Can you?

That is the point. If somebody doesn't believe that spirits exist then they are forced to revert to your position--it is logically impossible for the sex of a body to be different than the sex of a spirit; since spirits don't exist, they don't have sexes that could mismatch.

If our meaty tabernacles are all that there is, if there is no "spirit" or "soul" to be - through a "mix-up" - placedin the wrong gendered body, then the discussion is moot.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

In dualism, there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex.

Yes.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

There could be a mismatch.

I think that "could be" is pretty hard to square with the Proclamation.

I also think the "mismatch" is better attributed to a mental health condition.  

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

With materialism, spirits with sexes don't exist, so there is no possibility of a mismatch.

With that presupposition in place, yes.

But then, if there "no possibility of a mismatch," then we're left with . . . gender dysphoria as the explanation for why some people feel like they are in the "wrong" body gender-wise.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

For example, in the play Saturday’s Warrior, on the inside Pam is a dancer—that is what she loves to do more than anything. Yet her physical body doesn’t reflect that—for some unstated reason, she is paralyzed from the waste down and can’t dance. But the incongruity between her physical body and her spirit doesn’t mean that on the inside she really isn’t a dancer. 

First, I have serious reservations about taking any doctrinal cues from Saturday's Warrior.

It's just an illustrative example.

But you are presenting it in the context of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You are presenting it as "illustrating" those doctrines.  I don't think that works.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Second, Pam's paralysis is not a "mix-up."

You can call it whatever you want--a trial of the mortal probation, a symptom of the fallen world, a terrible accident, a foreordained challenge.

I didn't raise Pam's paralysis.  You did.  And you called it a "mix-up."  Essentially, you are saying that God, the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect creator of the heavens and the earth, made a mistake.

If you are going to postulate about our beliefs, you need to accurately state those believes.  Attributing error to God is not compatible with our beliefs.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Third, "dancing" is conduct, and is nothing like "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

No analogy is perfect.

I agree with that.  But I think there is a vast difference between "dancing" and "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

It "should" be obvious that it is conceivable for a woman to inhabit a male body, just as it "should" be obvious that a man could put on a woman's glove.

Still not clear on how you are getting to things like "should" and "obvious" and "conceivable."  You seem to be just making things up as you go along.

Where are you getting your analytical framework?  Do you have one?

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Second, do you likewise think that "through a quirk of biology of this imperfect world" a wolf's spirit could "find herself trapped" in a human body?  If not, why not? 

In the bible, some humanoid spirits found themselves trapped in the bodies of some pigs, so you tell me why not.

That seems like an exceedingly poor precedent.  Per the New Testament narrative (Mark 5), "unclean spirits went out {from a possessed man], and entered into the swine," which then "ran violently down a steep place into the sea ... and were choked in the sea."  Those pigs had spirits of their own (see D&C 77:2–3).

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Is it conceivable that a dodo spirit will be sent to a pigeon's body when dodos no longer exist? Given what we know about evolution, how could species not be malleable?

Again, "conceivable" seems like mighty weak tea.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the movie Heaven Can Wait, an angel makes a mistake and Joe Pendelton dies before he was supposed to. So, he's sent back to earth in a different body so he can finish his life's mission. Lots of people who believe in spirits believe in multiple mortal probations (i.e. reincarnation). You can believe whatever you want, of course.

Well, I has assumed we were speaking, arguendo, about this issue as it arises in the context of the Restored Gospel.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm pointing out an irony in your beliefs.

Not seeing the irony, though.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

One would think that people who think spirits with sexes inhabit bodies with sexes, it is possible that the sex of one doesn't align with the sex of the other.

Not sure how you get to "it is possible."  I mean, at all.  Given what we believe about A) the character and attributes of God, B) the content of the Proclamation regarding gender, and C) the reality of gender dysphoria, I don't think we can really say "it is possible that the sex of one doesn't align with the sex of the other."

I mean, you can say that.  Sure.  Have at it.  But what you are saying seems incompatible with the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm calling you a dualist who vehemently refuses to acknowledge that if there is a spirit with a sex that inhabits a body with a sex, it is logically conceivable that one doesn't match the other.

Well, no, I don't think it's "logically conceivable" given A, B and C above.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody sincerely says "With every fiber of my being, I feel like on the inside I am a woman," I would expect somebody who believes in dualism and in the ability of arriving at spiritual truth through feelings to respond to this by saying, "If you feel that way so strongly, maybe the sex of your spirit really is female."

"I would expect" being the operative wording here.

What you expect is neither here nor there.  Applying the doctrines of the Restored Gospel as I understand them, as well as incorporating my understanding of the mental condition generally described as "gender dysphoria," and applying my native capacity to reason, find what you "would expect" to be unrealistic and fanciful.  I'm fine with you believing such things, but when you try to fault others (such as myself) for not conforming to your personal expectations, and when you try to impute illogic for not agreeing with your expectations, I don't think that works.

Thanks,

-Smac

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You don't say that, and I find it ironic.

d

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So I’m super curious how the spirit gender / body gender thing is supposed to line up. It seems the consensus that misalignment is impossible. Is it based on chromosomes? Like if you have a Y chromosome then for sure you get a male spirit? What about individuals with swyer’s syndrome. They are born with female parts, identify as female but have one x and one y? What then? Does the spirit match the parts or the chromosome? Like with swyer’s the child was genetically destined to be a boy, but nature messed up. Does the spirit match the genes or the mistake?
 

If it matches the parts, what happens when those parts are ambiguous? 

Why would we assume that the spirit would match the physical parts and not the brain? Our genes impact our development. What if our brain developed in a typically female way while our reproductive parts went male. Which does the spirit match? Why? How do you know!?

[Kenngo1969]

I think what a lot of people, with due respect, are missing, overlooking, or perhaps denying outright in this discussion is that the Spirit was created first.  It has no defects.  We want all of the answers now, and we think we've got them now, so we ... tinker.  One of the things I like about the play Flowers for Algernon (and I am developmentally disabled, just as the play's protagonist is in the beginning (though I'm not cognitively disabled)) is that two of its main messages are that "all that glitters ain't gold, necessarily," and "just because we can tinker doesn't mean we should."  Perhaps those lessons are applicable to these kinds of situations as well.

I don't wish to deny or to downplay the challenges that inhere when a spirit is introduced into this fallen world in an imperfect mortal tabernacle.  I have enough of those challenges myself.  I can't even begin to imagine what someone who is intersex faces.  While the Proclamation on the Family is a general doctrinal statement and is not meant to address every possible permutation, if it is correct about gender's eternal role, if someone asks his/her/fill-in-the-blank here Heavenly Father about his/her/fill-in-the-blank here Divine, Eternal Worth as a Son or Daughter of God, I believe God is duty-bound to reaffirm that worth according to the other principles elucidated in the Proclamation even if He leaves the perplexities inherent in individual situations to be answered in a future day.

 

[Kenngo1969]

SeekingUnderstanding,

I don't know why, but I was surprised to see you give a rep point to my post!

Thank you, though!

I'm sure that Cute Little Person in your avatar photo is all growed up, now: She usta be a Cute Little Person, now I'll bet she's a Cute Adult Person!!!

We've certainly had our disagreements in the past, but I wish you and yours well.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

SeekingUnderstanding,

I don't know why, but I was surprised to see you give a rep point to my post!

Thank you, though!
 

I found it vulnerable, honest and compassionate. Disagree with some but that’s okay. 

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm sure that Cute Little Person in your avatar photo is all growed up, now: She usta be a Cute Little Person, now I'll bet she's a Cute Adult Person!!!
 

haha no she’s still a baby. My oldest are seniors in high school and somehow my wife convinced me we needed this one too. 

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

We've certainly had our disagreements in the past, but I wish you and yours well.

You as well. Peace. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/3/2020 at 5:41 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I found it vulnerable, honest and compassionate. Disagree with some but that’s okay. 

Thank you.

(If you agree with me in every particular on any given subject, you should probably have your head examined!
 

Quote

 

haha no she’s still a baby. My oldest are seniors in high school and somehow my wife convinced me we needed this one too. 

Somehow (though I have never labored under the illusion that I am God's gift to women ), I have escaped the attention of the female of the species in its entirety!

Quote

You as well. Peace. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Analytics]

On 10/2/2020 at 4:24 PM, smac97 said:

What you expect is neither here nor there.  Applying the doctrines of the Restored Gospel as I understand them, as well as incorporating my understanding of the mental condition generally described as "gender dysphoria," and applying my native capacity to reason, find what you "would expect" to be unrealistic and fanciful. 

Hypothetically, if spirits exist and have sexes, and spirits are paired up with physical bodies, the sex of the spirit could be different than the sex of the body. My only reason of pointing this out is that having a spiritual impression that a certain characteristic of your physical body doesn't align one-to-one with a characteristic of your spirit body is hypothetically possible and categorically different than a spiritual feeling of something that is not hypothetically possible, such as 1 + 1 = 3.

Restating and clarifying my point, Mormons believe the following (and correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Physical bodies have sexes
2. Spirits are real and also have sexes
3. People can know with certainty the truth of spiritual things through spiritual feelings and impressions, because such spiritual feelings are a source of truth from God that can be trusted
4. When somebody has a strong and clear spiritual feeling that the sex of their spirit is different than the sex of the body, such a feeling is not and could not be a source of truth form God and thus, the feeling is actually a mental condition rather than true spiritual inspiration.

Irony depends upon the observer, and I'm simply pointing out that to me, belief #4 seems a bit ironic because it seems to contradict belief #3. But I recognize that you are free to have faith in whatever you want.

But I'll restate a question I asked above that I don't think anyone has answered.

Some people are scientifically classified as "intersex", meaning that biologically, they are both (or neither) male and (nor) female.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

If you think there is an unbreakable rule where in absolutely no circumstances will a female spirit ever be born in a male body or vice versa, does it follow that people with intersex bodies also have intersex spirits?

Edited October 5, 2020 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Hypothetically, if spirits exist and have sexes, and spirits are paired up with physical bodies, the sex of the spirit could be different than the sex of the body.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you are just making things up as you go along.  You are providing no framework for your hypothetical.  There are no rules, so anything goes.  Anything is "possible" or "conceivable" or "could be."  Animal "spirits" in human bodies are, by your reckoning, something that "hypothetically ... could be."  If, as you seem to be suggesting, we are playing by Calvinball rules, then why not?

That doesn't work for me.  I'm going with the framework provided by the Restored Gospel.  Within that framework, we have living prophets and apostles who provide us with truths that we can then utilize to sort out questions and ideas that are otherwise endlessly imponderable (which is, I think, where you are).

Within that framework, including the Proclamation, and given what we understand about the mental health condition generally described as "Gender Dysphoria," I can't go along with purely speculative what-ifs like what you present above.  The Proclamation clarifies "[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  That helps me in sorting out my position on this issue, which is that an individual's claim that they are a female spirit in a male body, or vice versa, is better attributed to Gender Dysphoria.

Quote

My only reason of pointing this out is that having a spiritual impression that a certain characteristic of your physical body doesn't align one-to-one with a characteristic of your spirit body is hypothetically possible and categorically different than a spiritual feeling of something that is not hypothetically possible, such as 1 + 1 = 3.

I'm not sure what this means.

Quote

Restating and clarifying my point, Mormons believe the following (and correct me if I'm wrong):

1. Physical bodies have sexes
2. Spirits are real and also have sexes
3. People can know with certainty the truth of spiritual things through spiritual feelings and impressions, because such spiritual feelings are a source of truth from God that can be trusted
4. When somebody has a strong and clear spiritual feeling that the sex of their spirit is different than the sex of the body, such a feeling is not and could not be a source of truth form God and thus, the feeling is actually a mental condition rather than true spiritual inspiration.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. I think the Spirit is the ultimate mechanism for discerning the "truth of all things" (Moroni 10:5).  However, our capacity to utilize that mechanism is, or can be, hampered.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12).  We have finite information available to us.  We have biases and personal preferences that can color and distort our perceptions and reasoning and conclusions.  We are given all sorts of differing perspectives and ideas from the world, with varying degrees of quality and accuracy.  So we need a sort of quality control, a set of checks and balances.  Michael Ash has described this as "a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool," which four legs are "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason."  So yes, "{p}eople can know with certainty the truth of spiritual things," but that doesn't mean we always do.  We are human.  We can and do mess up.  Hence the value of having the scriptures, and living prophets and apostles, and our own ability to reason and investigate, as these help us to discern truth from error, to differentiate ideas being taught by the Spirit from ideas that are less correct or even flat-out wrong.
4. That's my position, yes (except I would tweak it to read "When somebody has a strong and clear spiritual feeling that the sex of their spirit is different than the sex of the body...")

Quote

Irony depends upon the observer, and I'm simply pointing out that to me, belief #4 seems a bit ironic because it seems to contradict belief #3.

I don't think it does.  Latter-day Saints have never subscribed to the notion that "If I feel it, it must be so."  To the contrary, we have all sorts of scriptural exhortations against being deceived and mislead.

Quote

But I recognize that you are free to have faith in whatever you want.

Thank you.  I reciprocate the sentiment.

Quote

But I'll restate a question I asked above that I don't think anyone has answered.

Some people are scientifically classified as "intersex", meaning that biologically, they are both (or neither) male and (nor) female.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

I disagree with the premise ("that biologically, they are both (or neither) male and (nor) female").  Again, the Proclamation helps provide clarity: "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."

I am sure that great difficulties can arise for that tiny percentage of humanity who are "intersex" (1.3 per 1,000 births in this article).  However, for me the question about whether human sexuality is "a dichotomy or a continuum" is answerable.  I think it's the former.  Arguing from the margins doesn't seem appropriate.

Quote

If you think there is an unbreakable rule where in absolutely no circumstances will a female spirit ever be born in a male body or vice versa,

I'm always open to greater light and knowledge, of course.  But at present, I think the Proclamation helps clarify "the rule" (together with what we know about Gender Dysphoria).

Quote

does it follow that people with intersex bodies also have intersex spirits?

No, it does not follow.  Again, I reject the premise.  Human sexuality is dichotomous.  Male and female.  That there are some instances of latent or patent ambiguity, such that it becomes difficult or impossible to specifically categorize an individual as male or female, does not negate the dichotomy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 5, 2020 by smac97

[Calm]

This discussion pretty much depends on how spirits get hooked up with bodies, which is something we don't know.

But it seems odd given LDS theology on other aspects including God's awareness and care in even little mundane at times (I don't believe he is always micromanaging, I believe there are occasionally "tender mercies" to help us endure, to communicate God's peace to us) to assume that bodies are created independently of the spirit and then the spirit gets chosen for some reason and they get stuck together.

It makes much more sense given visions reported of future children and other experiences and teachings that there is direct spiritual involvement in the creation of the body in order to meet the needs of the spirit (as well as other needs including how the environment interacts with biology).  If so, it makes sense that sex gets lined up appropriately, though due to the many influences on physical development, expression may be incomplete similar to what happens with birth defects*** (I am assuming a spirit would have full range of movement but might be limited in expressing that range of movement physically due to missing limbs or paralysis, nerves that tend to misfire, too much or too little hormones, etc.) and environmental influences (if a child lacks experiences in sports or people don't exercise, they will only develop physically to a certain point rather than full potential).

If the nature of whatever eternal attribute sex is the mortal manifestation of is more complicated or nuanced than the physical attribute or is something relatively basic that is being applied to multiple systems in the body, it might explain why sometimes it appears there is a mismatch.  But what is seen as a mismatch is likely imo a problem of clear communication at times between spirit and body.  I go there because so many biological, social, and psychological issues seem to be based on communication issues.  Things are functional, but not getting the full message to operate fully, thus leading to misunderstandings on what is to be done or should be done.

In mortality, this might appear to be the same result of mismatching sex of body with sex of spirit, but implications would be changing the sex of the body would be the wrong treatment.  Instead improving physical, spiritual, social communication and letting the body correct itself seems appropriate.  

Unfortunately we are not there yet where healing in any area can be guaranteed.  So does this lack mean it is okay to take what measures we can do such as a prosthetic limb?  I think we need to be cautious we are not doing more harm than good by our incomplete treatments.  Some treatments may impede what the self can achieve through healing.  Thus there may appear to be a short term benefit, but less long term benefits are then possible.

***in fact, I think it is a given any physical expression of our eternal nature is incomplete because mortality limits what we can be aware of and I think that goes down to the cellular level.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Calm

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, it does not follow.  Again, I reject the premise.  Human sexuality is dichotomous.  Male and female.  That there are some instances of latent or patent ambiguity, such that it becomes difficult or impossible to specifically categorize an individual as male or female, does not negate the dichotomy.

Human sexuality might be dichotomous in an ideal world of Plato's Forms that you are imagining, but in the physical world, human sexuality is not dichotomous. That is the empirical reality.

But in any case, I appreciate you addressing the question.

Best.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

No, it does not follow.  Again, I reject the premise.  Human sexuality is dichotomous.  Male and female.  That there are some instances of latent or patent ambiguity, such that it becomes difficult or impossible to specifically categorize an individual as male or female, does not negate the dichotomy.

Human sexuality might be dichotomous in an ideal world of Plato's Forms that you are imagining,

I don't look to Plato.  

You are arguing from the margins.  That doesn't work for me.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

but in the physical world, human sexuality is not dichotomous. That is the empirical reality.

Yes, human sexuality is dichotomous.  That is the empirical reality.  Again, you are arguing from the margins.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But in any case, I appreciate you addressing the question.

Best.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't look to Plato.  

You are arguing from the margins.  That doesn't work for me.

Yes, human sexuality is dichotomous.  That is the empirical reality.  Again, you are arguing from the margins.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you clarify your argument? If you were arguing, "human sexuality is typically dichotomous," I would be arguing from the margins to point out situations when human sexuality is not dichotomous. But the way I understand your point, you are claiming that "human sexuality is dichotomous, without qualification." If that is your claim, then pointing out counterexamples isn't arguing from the margins. It is providing examples that the unqualified dichotomy doesn't always hold.

Focusing on my point, either there is a strict, unbreakable rule between the sex of one's spirit and the sex of one's body, or there is not. If there is a strict, unbreakable rule, then that would indicate that people with intersex bodies have intersex spirits. But if people with intersex bodies do not have intersex spirits, that proves my point and indicates that the Family Proclamation isn't as universally applicable as some might imagine. In any case, I hope you can at least understand why transgender and intersex people often feel, well, marginalized by the Church.

To remind you of the context, this is a thread that is using female transgender rugby players to make a point about sexuality in general. Did your extensive research on the topic reveal how many people fit into this category? I'm guessing it is less than four or five worldwide. Talk about arguing from the margins!

Edited October 6, 2020 by Analytics