Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Having said that, I believe gender is very different. I believe gender lives in the soul (psychology). It is primarily a function of the mind, will, and feelings. Once again, I need to acknowledge the overlapping of the three. Exclusivity of each of the tripartite aspects of humanity exists, but overlap happens regularly. So, if gender lives (primarily) in the soul, then there are as many unlimited potentials for human gender distinctions as the soul (mind, will, and emotions) can create. I think that is endemic to humanity. Gender is as varied as any other "soul" trait.

I see this as a reasonable conclusion and my own conception is much like it.

Mapping this idea onto LDS beliefs….

Even if someone believes gender is eternal (and what does that even mean when the existence of the eternal self has gone from intelligence alone to the addition of a spirit and then the addition of a mortal body, which one day will be an immortal perfect body and likely keep progressing eternally rather than become static imo since progression has been its constant state from the beginning), I don’t understand why someone would assume the mortal expression of gender is equivalent to the perfected eternal version given how messed up the mortal expressions of our physical forms can be and how limited out spiritual expressions seem to be.  There are other aspects of the mind that are expressed that show significant limitations and possible damage even…extreme sociopathy for one example.  One just has to look at the variety of significant mental illness to recognize mortality does not allow us perfect expression of our eternal mental being any more than it does our physical and spiritual aspects.  Given this, why would anyone assume that the attribute of gender is somehow protected in mortality from such confusions?

If a charitable society makes adjustments to allow those with physical challenges to more fully participate in the community, to not miss out on activities and experiences they can accomplish with such accommodations and does that same for many other mental challenges, it makes sense to me that there should be adjustments when it comes to gender as well. What those need to be is certainly open to debate, I get that, because we have limited economic resources to apply to such.  A few wider parking spaces reserved nearer the activity costs little, but requiring ramps and elevators everywhere could amount to significant costs where the need isn’t that great (building codes requiring every two or more story home to include an elevator would be unreasonable since many will never have that need).  Makes sense to me that no to low cost adjustments when identified are accepted as immediate relief for those in need.  
 

Allowing those with physical challenges to get on and off the plane first because it will take longer for them to get settled or to make connections rather than requiring them to wait to be the last so as to avoid risk of injury in the crowd is another simple no cost except a bit of patience requirement.

Out of curiosity…Does anyone here believe handicapped parking shouldn’t be a standard part of our community accommodations because it might require a few more steps of those of us who don’t currently need that aid?  Is there some reason you feel you have an inherent right to park as close to a store as possible and it should be an individual’s choice whether or not to make that charitable adjustment for someone in need?  Do you perhaps believe it should always be first come first served no matter the risk to others?

Edited Saturday at 07:57 PM by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

My perspective has been and remains that humans are tripartite: body, soul, and spirit. The three often overlap and interrelate. As a young psychology professor in a conservative context, I frequently ran into those who denied the psychological, claiming that all human challenges were either spiritual (requiring a pastor) or physical (requiring a medical doctor). I still have wounds from those debates.

In my tripartite view, the body is the biology; the soul is the mind, will, and emotions (psychology); and the spirit (is the God-breathed part) unique to humans. These are overlapping circles where at the center all three interact. Neither is exclusive to the other two.  Related to this thread, I believe sex is fundamentally biologically (body) determined and is seen in humans along a normal distribution. The vast majority of folks are within 95% of the center, with 2.5% on either outer limit of the curve.  So I think 95% of humanity is biologically male or female, with at most 5% being outliers. I don't think that perspective is non- or anti-Biblical; its writers had no concept of normal distribution or the bell curve of human reality. So yes, God formed humanity as "male and female," but that does not rule out statistical outliers within the normal distribution found in the bell curve.  

Having said that, I believe gender is very different. I believe gender lives in the soul (psychology). It is primarily a function of the mind, will, and feelings. Once again, I need to acknowledge the overlapping of the three. Exclusivity of each of the tripartite aspects of humanity exists, but overlap happens regularly. So, if gender lives (primarily) in the soul, then there are as many unlimited potentials for human gender distinctions as the soul (mind, will, and emotions) can create. I think that is endemic to humanity. Gender is as varied as any other "soul" trait.

Therefore, I think that gender and sex are two unique and very different constructs. The personal, social, and perhaps even spiritual implications for that vary as widely as does humanity. I am reasonably sure it's not helpful to automatically label those variations as "sin," unless they are, well . . . sinful. That is another topic. As a director of counseling services at two Christian colleges, I am one who has encountered many "struggling with their gender" students. This certainly included "spiritually struggling" students, especially back in the 1960s and 1970s. Part of my work was with the struggler and part with the community. I failed more often with the latter than with the former. 

I don't know if any of this is important, but it is my experience and resulting perspective as a counselor in a quasi-fundamentalist/quasi-evangelical setting for numerous years. I simply offer it in that sense. 

A common saying is that there are as many genders and sexualities as there are people. The broad labels we use are a categorization tool and they are useful in a lot of contexts.

I am bisexual and that is a huge spectrum. You have those who are primarily interested in one gender with only limited attraction to the other gender or those who are attracted to a lot of the people of one gender and only a few of the other. Then there are those for whom the attractions are more equal. Then you have what kind of person you are attracted to on a physical level, what kinds of personalities you are attracted to, etc.

A lot of this also applies to monosexuals who have a wide diversity in what kinds of attraction they feel and how they view and experience gender.

[smac97]

On 7/4/2026 at 11:36 AM, The Nehor said:

Most gender affirming  surgeries done on minors are done on cisgender people. Gynecomastia is “surgical mutilation” and is often done on children, much more often on cisgender boys than anyone else. Are you calling for a ban on this procedure?

For my part, no, I am not calling for a blanket ban on all surgeries for minors.

Gynecomastia surgery is typically performed to correct a physical medical condition (excess breast tissue in boys, often caused by puberty, hormones, or medication). It is not the same as gender-affirming surgeries, which involve removing healthy organs (breasts, testicles, etc.) in an attempt to align the body with a perceived gender identity.  

Perhaps we are encountering a definitional issue.  "Gender affirming surgery" seems to refer to a category of medical procedures that does not include what you are referencing above.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Gender-affirming surgery is an umbrella term for a series of surgical procedures that help transgender, non-binary, and gender non-confirming individuals alleviate their gender dysphoria and promote a sense of congruence between their physical body and gender identity. Not everyone needs surgery to affirm their gender. Below we outline the different types of gender affirmation surgeries that are documented in the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) Standards of Care 8 (SOC8). 

I think most people, when they think of or reference "gender affirming" procedures, do not have Gynecomastia in mind.  They differentiate it in terms of designation ("Gynecomastia" v. Gender-Affirming “Top Surgery” (Double Mastectomy)), who the patient is (a biological male with excess breast tissue v. a biological female who "identifies" as male), what the purpose of the procedure is (to correct a physical abnormality / medical condition v. attempting to "affirm" the patient's "gender identity"), the medical basis for it (treating a diagnosable condition (hormonal, medication-induced, pubertal, etc. v. treating psychological distress (Gender Dysphoria), what the procedure entails (removing excess glandular tissue and fat v. removal of healthy female breast tissue), the longitudinal data supporting it, the irreversible impact of it (not affecting core sexual/reproductive function v. irreversible removal of healthy organs), and so on.

Gynecomastia surgery restores a more typical male chest appearance for a boy/man.

“Top surgery” removes healthy breasts from a girl to make her look more like a boy.

One is corrective of a physical deviation; the other is elective cosmetic/psychological intervention on a minor.

And then there are other "gender-affirming" procedures which are even more life-altering:

Quote

Quick links to options on this page: 

• Adam’s apple surgery
• Body contouring
• Facial surgery
• Genitoplasty
• Hysterectomy
• Nipple reinnervation
• Oophorectomy
• Orchiectomy
• Vocal surgery

Top surgery:

• Gender-affirming mastectomy
• Gender-affirming breast augmentation

Bottom surgery:

• Phalloplasty and metoidioplasty, including vagina-preserving options
• Vaginoplasty and vulvoplasty, including penile-preserving options
• Hysterectomy
• Genitoplasty
• Oophorectomy
• Orchiectomy

Bottom surgery options also include:

• Penectomy
• Scrotectomy
• Scrotoplasty
• Urethroplasty
• Vaginectomy

These are irreversible procedures, many of which involve infertility, sexual dysfunction, and regret — which is why several European countries (UK via the Cass Review, Sweden, Finland, Norway) have sharply restricted them for minors due to weak evidence of long-term benefit.

Adults can, generally, do what they please with their bodies (though I think there are ongoing questions about comorbidities, lack of informed consent, lack of longitudinal data, etc.), but I think many people do not support these procedures for minors where they are life-altering, sterilizing surgeries based on a contested ideological model, and when most gender dysphoric children historically desist with watchful waiting and therapy.

On 7/4/2026 at 11:36 AM, The Nehor said:

Also this is not radicalism for the sake of radicalism.  That is just “othering” people and ascribing a kind of hive mind mentality to transgender people who are depraved because they just want to be depraved. That is not how transgender people or people in general work. You don’t understand why transgender people seek surgical intervention because you don’t listen to their stories. You make up what to your mind are the most satanic or evil reasons why they would do something and assume it is true.

Is it possible, in your view, for people to "listen to their stories" and still come away with substantial concerns about these medical procedures, particularly when children/minors are involved?  I have previously posted this list of concerns:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Social contagion risks. 
• Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

Even adults, who should enjoy presumptive autonomy regarding their own medical decisions, should still be evaluated for these factors.  Would you agree with that?

Thanks,

-Smac