The Family Proclamation and the NHS

[smac97]

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, we read:

Quote

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. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

The Proclamation's use of "gender" is clarified here:

Quote

How does the Church define gender?

Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is biological sex at birth.

In a similar vein, from yesterday's Telegraph: Sex is biological fact, NHS declares in landmark shift against gender ideology

Quote

The NHS is to declare that sex is a matter of biology in a landmark shift against gender ideology.

I think we will see more of this in the days ahead.  Reconciling ourselves with basic biological facts such as these has been a long time coming.

Quote

Changes to the health service’s written constitution proposed by ministers will for the first time ban trans women from women-only wards, and give women the right to request a female doctor for intimate care.

The NHS constitution, a document that aims to set out the principles and values of the health service and legal rights for patients and staff, was last updated in 2015. It has to be updated at least every 10 years by the Secretary of State. 

Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed the significant shift, which comes after years of wrangling and follows accusations that the health service had been captured by “gender ideology”.

Ideological pressures have, in some quarters, predominated over scientific and empirically demonstrable realities.  I am glad we are getting past this sort of thing.

Quote

In 2021, NHS guidance said trans patients could be placed in single-sex wards based on the gender with which they identified.

The new constitution will state: “We are defining sex as biological sex.”

"We are defining sex as biological sex" seems like a tautology.  A truism.  An axiom.  This definition ought be no more necessary than "we are defining circles as round, and water as wet."  We are living in strange times. 

Quote

The clarification means that the right to a single-sex ward means patients would “not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite biological sex”.

Until now, no commitment was made to biological sex, meaning some female patients complained that they were forced to share sleeping space with trans women – those who are born male but identify as female.

Women’s rights campaigners said the move was a “return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.”

However, NHS leaders raised concerns that the health service was being “dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate”.

Perhaps the NHS is being dragged out of the "culture wars debate."

Quote

The changes to the constitution are a further indication of a change in attitudes after the Cass review into the NHS’s gender identity services found evidence that allowing children to change gender was built on weak foundations.

Dr Hilary Cass, a paediatrician, said allowing “social transitioning” for young people – when they are treated as the opposite gender – could “change their trajectory” and lead to them pursuing a potentially damaging medical pathway in later life.

I am glad that we are having more of these discussions.

Quote

The updates to the constitution will also include the introduction of a duty to help patients get back to work and embed “Martha’s Rule” into the framework of the health service.

This follows pledges by Victoria Atkins, the Health Secretary, to give families the right to access a rapid review from an outside team if a patient is deteriorating. It is named after 13-year-old Martha Mills, who died in 2021 after medics missed signs of sepsis and failed to heed warnings from her parents that their daughter’s condition was getting worse.

Women will also be given the right to request that intimate care is provided, where reasonably possible, by someone of the same biological sex.

It follows warnings that some female patients have been pressured into accepting such care from trans-identifying staff who were born male.

Oi.  I am glad to see this change.

Quote

The proposed changes will also see discrimination requirements updated, with the word gender replaced with sex.

Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic, meaning that a transgender patient could be given their own room in a hospital to protect their right to a single-sex service.

The document also places a duty on health providers to use “clear terms” to communicate and take account of biological differences. It follows pledges from ministers to stop NHS trusts using terms like “chestfeeding” and “people who give birth”.

I am glad to see this too.  The neologisms were both unnecessary and confusing.

Quote

In February, Ms Atkins highlighted her concerns, telling The Telegraph: “We need to be making this robust case to refuse to wipe women out of the conversation.”

On Tuesday, she said: “We want to make it abundantly clear that if a patient wants same-sex care they should have access to it wherever reasonably possible.

“We have always been clear that sex matters and our services should respect that.

“By putting this in the NHS constitution we’re highlighting the importance of balancing the rights and needs of all patients to make a healthcare system that is faster, simpler and fairer for all.”

Maya Forstater, chief executive of gender critical group Sex Matters, said: “It is excellent news that the NHS constitution is being revised to put ‘sex’ in its rightful place – at the heart of principle 1, which sets out that the NHS must treat everyone with equality and respect for their human rights.

“The confusion between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in official policies like the NHS constitution is what has enabled women’s rights to be trampled over in the name of transgender identities.

I think attempting to materially differentiate "sex" and "gender" has been a prolonged exercise in equivocation.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Recently, “gender-critical” physician Jeremy Shaw queried the Twitterverse for just such a definition {for "gender ideology"}. I sent one back without much thought—as one does on Twitter. It read: 

Gender ideology is the theory that the sex binary doesn’t capture the complexity of the human species, and that human individuals are properly described in terms of an “internal sense of gender” called “gender identity” that may be incongruent with their “sex assigned at birth.”

Gender ideology is certainly more than that. But it is at least that.

On reflection, I’d replace “theory” with the less highfalutin “view.” Like all definitions, this one contains terms that are not themselves defined. It also contains terms that are artifacts of the ideology, such as “gender identity” and “sex assigned at birth.”

According to Google’s dictionary function, “gender identity” is “a person’s innate sense of gender.” The term, we’re told, is “chiefly used in contexts where it is contrasted with the sex registered for them at birth.” So, we’re supposed to understand each of these terms in light of the other.

This circular definition of gender identity is the standard. The word “gender” appears in both the definition and the term being defined—in both the explanans and the explanandum.

Despite this deficiency, we can get a better sense of gender ideology by focusing on its use of “gender” and “sex.” To most outsiders, “gender” might look like a synonym for “sex”—as it has been for centuries. Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, recently tweeted ten “truths,” among them, “2. There are two genders.” It would have been better if he’d said, “There are [only] two sexes”—which is clearly what he meant.

Why does this matter? Because gender ideologues tend to use “gender” as a shorthand for “gender identity”—as in the euphemism “gender affirming care” in medicine. Such “care” affirms the presumed gender identity of the patient, even if that means destroying the patient’s primary and secondary sex organs. In such a lexicon, “There are two genders” could mean “There are two gender identities,” which I doubt anyone would bother to defend. Gender ideologues, for their part, admit no limiting principle to the number of gender identities. And their critics should just say, “There are only two sexes.”

Rather than denying the reality of sex outright, though, gender ideologues employ the now-ubiquitous substitute, “sex assigned [or registered] at birth.” They thus avoid using the word “sex”—the real biological difference between male and female human beings—and posit, instead, a mere social construct. It's no wonder normal people are confused.

As bizarre as this is to those still in command of their senses, this gender lexicon is already so advanced that if you google, “What is the sex binary?” it will redirect, or rather misdirect, you to pages trying to debunk the “gender binary.” Google is clearly doing its part to advance the cause of gender ideology—though, according to recent polls, fewer and fewer people seem to buy it.

Why do gender ideologues play such verbal shell games? Why pretend their view cannot be defined? It’s surely because they want it to be seen as a simple deliverance of science and sweet reason, rather than a dogma so outlandish that almost no one would accept it if it were explained precisely and without the threat of social opprobrium.

The plain truth: Gender ideology does not accommodate the reality of sex—the reproductive strategy of mammals including human beings. Sex, in this reckoning, is not an objective truth about men and women. We are not male or female by virtue of our body structure or the fact that our bodies are oriented around the production of sperm or eggs. Human beings, are, in essence, psychological selves with internal senses of gender—like disembodied gendered souls. These “gender identities” are independent of, and can be incongruent with, the bodies that God gave us and that medicine has come to associate with “male” and female.” These “sex” categories are mere conventions, says the gender ideologue, not facts.

I think the Telegraph article is an indicator that we are moving away from this stuff.  Back to it:

Quote

“Sex, of course, is a matter of biology, not identity, and it is welcome that the NHS is now spelling this out in relation to single-sex accommodation and intimate care.”

Ms Forstater said too many female patients seeking that intimate care be given by a woman had been pressured into accepting a trans-identifying male instead.

“Healthcare providers have become confused and frightened by the idea that a gender recognition certificate, or even just a personal identity claim, overrides other people’s rights when it comes to same-sex care from healthcare professionals.”

She said the shift was “simply a return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter.”

This is one of several practical ramifications that merit attention.

Quote

Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents healthcare leaders, said its members would review the proposals in detail.

However, he added: “What is absolutely clear at this stage is that a focus on high-quality care for all is maintained and that the NHS is not dragged into a pre-election culture wars debate. This is not where energies should be focused.”

Quite so.  Ideological propositions such as "gender identity" and "sex assigned at birth" do not, in the main, have much to do with medical treatment and science.

Quote

Mr Taylor said staff worked hard to show fairness and compassion towards all patients.

“In particular, groups of people, including trans and non-binary patients, continue to receive some of the worst health outcomes of any group in our society and NHS leaders and staff will want to do all they can to support these patients, as well as their trans and non-binary staff to reduce inequalities.

“Whatever changes are eventually introduced following the consultation need to be clear and workable for NHS staff, who should not expect to have to interpret ambiguous guidance at a local level.”

The eight-week consultation will be the first stage of a review of the constitution.

The Government will consider responses from everyone, including the public, clinicians and medical professionals, patients, carers and organisations representing patients and staff and health stakeholders, before publishing the consultation response and the new NHS constitution.

Louise Ansari, chief executive of Healthwatch England said: “The NHS constitution plays a crucial role in shaping the culture of our NHS and helping the public to know their rights.

“Since the NHS constitution launched, it has helped to shift the balance of power from services towards patients and their families. But, with only a third of people knowing their rights, there is still a long way to go.

“Given the challenges our NHS faces, a conversation to reaffirm and raise awareness of the most important rights to the public has never been more timely.

“We urge everyone to take part in the consultation and have their say. This is your opportunity to send a clear message about the rights you hold most dear.”

We all should be treated with respect, decorum, compassion, etc., particularly in a medical context.  This does not extend to denying biological reality.

The Proclamation had things right in 1995, and the NHS appears to be getting back on the right track.  I think other groups and institutions will follow this same tack, and I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 1, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Proclamation had things right in 1995, and the NHS appears to be getting back on the right track.  I think other groups and institutions will follow this same tack, and I'm glad of that.

Never mind

Edited May 1, 2024 by Teancum

[Rock_N_Roll]

I don’t know how God views LGBT+ individuals or what the plan is for them in the hereafter. I do know he commanded me to love everyone, so that is what I try (unsuccessfully) to do.

One thing that struck me from the snip of the Proclamation quoted above, at the top of the OP, is… The word "God" either refers to two distinct individuals, one male and one female, or God is a being that is both male and female. Something to ponder.

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God.”

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Rock_N_Roll said:

I don’t know how God views LGBT+ individuals or what the plan is for them in the hereafter. I do know he commanded me to love everyone, so that is what I try (unsuccessfully) to do.

One thing that struck me from the snip of the Proclamation quoted above, at the top of the OP, is… The word "God" either refers to two distinct individuals, one male and one female, or God is a being that is both male and female. Something to ponder.

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God.”

Elohim being plural, I believe this is referring to our Heavenly Parents- referenced earlier in the Proclamation.

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Proclamation's use of "gender" is clarified here:

The problem is that it is self-contradictory. You can't have gender be both "biological sex at birth" and "an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose." This incongruity is reflected in LDS Church policy in two ways. The first is that restrictions that follow gender assignment surgery are only restrictions for those who voluntarily undergo such a procedure. Infants who are assigned (or re-assigned) a biological sex as infants are not considered to have had a gender reassignment for this purpose. Then there is section 38.7.7:

Quote

 

In extremely rare circumstances, a baby is born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex). Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary.

Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity experience emotional conflict regarding the gender decisions made in infancy or childhood and the gender with which they identify.

Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency.

 

There is, of course, a distinct deceptiveness in smac97's use of the NHS statement with regard to the Proclamation on the Family. Why do I say this? Because NHS has clearly differentiated gender from biological sex. According to the NHS, they are not the same thing. The LDS proclamation on the family draws its language from a James Talmage article in 1922 (this was how it made it through correlation). The original source for this statement in the proclamation didn't use the word gender, it used the word sex:

Quote

We affirm as reasonable, scriptural, and true,the eternity of sex among the children of God. The distinction between male and female is no condition peculiar to the relatively brief period of mortal life; it was an essential characteristic of our preexistent condition, even as it shall continue after death, in both the disembodied and resurrected states.

If I had to guess, the language was changed from sex to gender because, at the time, there was a desire to avoid implicating the idea of sex as an ongoing issue in post-mortality. Whatever the cause of the shift, it is clear that the original source of this statement wasn't as nuanced as the current interpretation is today - Talmage was not writing to explain our current contexts - and that the current interpretation involves a progressive shift that is as much a matter of semantics as anything else. Given the easiness with which past policies have been erased and replaced - there was a big swing when President Nelson became the prophet - I suspect that there will likely be another shift within the Church when leaders with a different set of opinions take the reins. This is merely policy as doctrine.

[The Nehor]

Sex is a matter of biology. Not much talk about gender. The only ones declaring this to be a blow against “gender ideology” are such reputed journalistic outlets as *checks notes* the Daily Mail.

This is unlikely to work well. This ignores that transgender men exist and would be forced into the women’s wards. Some are big burly balding men. I am sure the cis women will feel much safer now. Of course the TERF crowd routinely forget that transgender men exist at all. After all the whole transgender movement is just one big plot to alter your own body so you can sneak into women’s locker rooms and bathrooms.

The comparison to the Family Proclamation is a ridiculous stretch and is mostly just an excuse to do this thread yet again.

 

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is that it is self-contradictory.

I don't think so.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You can't have gender be both "biological sex at birth" and "an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose."

I think that's eminently possible.  People can change their legal "sex," can "identify" as a sex/gender they are not, etc.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is, of course, a distinct deceptiveness in smac97's use of the NHS statement with regard to the Proclamation on the Family. Why do I say this?

Because you often feel impugn the character of people with whom you disagree, rather than simply address their arguments?

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Because NHS has clearly differentiated gender from biological sex.

"Gender" continues to be a fairly amorphous concept, hence the extensive equivocation associated with it.  It can be synonymous with "sex," but it can mean other things as well.  The Church has clarified that the two terms are synonymous.  NHS must, to some extent, continue to differentiate between the two in some contexts, but in others it is clarifying that its previous use of "gender" has, in some instances, been synonymous with "sex" (from the article: "The proposed changes will also see discrimination requirements updated, with the word gender replaced with sex").

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

According to the NHS, they are not the same thing.

So the NHS is moving away from equivocation.  That's a good thing.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The LDS proclamation on the family draws its language from a James Talmage article in 1922 (this was how it made it through correlation). The original source for this statement in the proclamation didn't use the word gender, it used the word sex:

And the Church has since clarified that "gender" and "sex" are synonymous in terms of the Proclamation.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If I had to guess, the language was changed from sex to gender because, at the time, there was a desire to avoid implicating the idea of sex as an ongoing issue in post-mortality. Whatever the cause of the shift, it is clear that the original source of this statement wasn't as nuanced as the current interpretation is today - Talmage was not writing to explain our current contexts - and that the current interpretation involves a progressive shift that is as much a matter of semantics as anything else. Given the easiness with which past policies have been erased and replaced - there was a big swing when President Nelson became the prophet - I suspect that there will likely be another shift within the Church when leaders with a different set of opinions take the reins. This is merely policy as doctrine.

Pres. Nelson was not Pres. Nelson in 1995, when the Proclamation came out.

I would not be surprised if things go quite the other way, which is that the Proclamation ends up being canonized.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that's eminently possible. 

How can something be eternal that only exists upon one’s birth (you have no biology to have a biological sex prior to birth)?

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

How can something be eternal that only exists upon one’s birth (you have no biology to have a biological sex prior to birth)?

The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.  That is a tortured interpretation of the document.

"Biological sex at birth" is, I think, intended to set aside notions that a person can change their sex through choice of clothing, choice of "identity," medical interventions, etc.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.  That is a tortured interpretation of the document.

Is that what she was doing? Maybe I didn't read it right?

 

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reconciling ourselves with basic biological facts such as these has been a long time coming.

Just to be sure I understand where you are coming from, I’d be interested in your thoughts about this paper that was published in the journal Nature. Would you say the authors of this paper are among the group who are oblivious to basic biological facts? The paper begins:

Sex is just as complicated as humans are. What seems a rather straightforward concept—with an unequivocal answer to the proverbial delivery room question, “Is it a boy or a girl?”—is in reality full of nuances and complexities, just like any human trait. From a biological standpoint, the appearance of the external genitalia is only one parameter among many, including chromosomal constitution, the sequence of sex-determining genes, gonadal structure, the profile of gonadal hormones, and the internal reproductive structures.

You can read the paper in full here: https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200711

For my part, I’m inclined to shrug my shoulders and go along with the scientists when they offer the following advice on how to talk about the real phenomenon of intersexuality (from the above article):

First, although a modern categorization should integrate the important progress in molecular genetic aspects of sex determination and differentiation, it should not overemphasize one particular aspect of the biology of sex (for instance, gonadal sex) and should accommodate the spectrum of phenotypic variations. Second, terms should be as precise as possible and should reflect the genetic etiology when available. Finally, the new nomenclature should be understandable by patients and families and should be psychologically sensitive. In particular, gender labeling in the diagnosis should be avoided, and use of the words “hermaphrodite,” “pseudohermaphrodite,” and “intersex” should be abandoned, as they either are confusing or have a negative social connotation that may be perceived as harmful by some patients and parents.

In contrast, you want to ignore people who don’t fit into the male and female boxes and pretend they don’t exist.

Here is the irony that I see. Most likely, the scientists who wrote the above are all atheists. They believe in atoms, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience, and most likely they believe that everything we are consists of those things. If somebody says they feel like a man or a woman inside and would prefer to dress like a man or woman and be referred to using male or female pronouns, they are likely to shrug their shoulders and humor them. And whether or not medical intervention is advised is a question that should be left up to the patients, their families, their doctors, and the medical researchers who specialize in such things, and really aren’t any business of people who want to weaponize such discussions for their culture wars.

In contrast, you believe that there is this scientifically unknown but superlatively important part of us called a “spirit” which has an actual, absolutely real property of being either “male” or “female”. Furthermore, you believe that truth about spiritual things can be obtained through processes such as spiritual intuition and revelation. Given that you have those beliefs, I would think that if somebody said, “I feel deep in my soul that on the inside, I’m actually a woman”, you’d be quite open to the possibility that their actual spirit really is a female spirit. But you’re not. You are adamant that the sex of one’s spirit absolutely must align with their biological sex, despite the fact that biologically, sex is complex and people can be intersex. If God can somehow squeeze a male or female spirit into an Intersex body, why wouldn’t it be possible that a male spirit could be found in a female body or vice versa?

Why is it that you think you can use revelation to figure out if you are a descendent of Ephraim, but you can’t use revelation to figure out the sex of your own spirit? 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just to be sure I understand where you are coming from, I’d be interested in your thoughts about this paper that was published in the journal Nature. Would you say the authors of this paper are among the group who are oblivious to basic biological facts? The paper begins:

Sex is just as complicated as humans are. What seems a rather straightforward concept—with an unequivocal answer to the proverbial delivery room question, “Is it a boy or a girl?”—is in reality full of nuances and complexities, just like any human trait.

I respectfully disagree with this.  Biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, a "straightforward concept."  See, e.g., here.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

From a biological standpoint, the appearance of the external genitalia is only one parameter among many, including chromosomal constitution, the sequence of sex-determining genes, gonadal structure, the profile of gonadal hormones, and the internal reproductive structures.

You can read the paper in full here: https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200711

From the above link (mine) :

Quote

Last year I came across an interesting article published in the British Medical Journal (one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world): Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions.  In this article the authors were critical of people in medical fields making inquiries about a person's biological sex (“What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate?”) and differentiating that from their "gender identity" (“What is your gender identity?”).  The authors seemed to hint that these questions were transphobic:

These questions have the potential to harm patients when they are used as a proxy for the more specific questions about anatomy and hormonal levels required to determine someone’s health needs. Furthermore, they do not inform clinicians about patients’ identities, names, or pronouns, all of which are important for truly inclusive clinical encounters. Instead, they may worsen rapport since sex assigned at birth is a construct that often clashes with the identity of transgender, intersex, and other people.
...
In both clinical and research settings, questions that allow patients to self-identify as transgender are critically important to identify and quantify health disparities and to develop effective interventions to reduce them. Questions about transgender identity should be developed by transgender people and vary according to setting, such as research, clinical practice, and census records. Questions regarding gender, transgender, and other relevant identities should be asked in research settings; in clinical settings, questions about pronouns and anatomy may be more relevant. These questions should be rigorously evaluated in the setting for which they were developed.

Recognising and respecting the gender of another person provides an opportunity to connect in a non-hierarchical manner. More broadly, recognising gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and is key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond.

The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank.  Here's an example (emphases added):

Dear editor,

 

We are writing on behalf of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance leadership board and membership. We are an education and advocacy organization for those with gender dysphoria – those who have medically transitioned and those who haven’t.

 

We acknowledge that there is disagreement among transpeople about political and clinical matters. We disagree with the erasure of accurate biological language and realities, for several reasons.

...

We believe it’s highly important for people with GD such as ourselves, whether we medicalize or not, to retain awareness of our biological sex. Because it’s not truly possible to change sex, accepting our full reality as trans people is important for both our psychological and physical well-being.

...

There are healthcare implications and safety concerns if our biological sex isn’t clearly recorded on our medical records to orient care providers to our medical needs.

 

Finally, we believe that the alteration of language and the falsified understanding of biological sex, applied to all people, is the result of extreme activism which is increasing societal hostility towards trans people. We do not wish to participate in that, and we don’t think it’s necessary in order for us to have rights and be integrated into society.

Another (emphasis added):

Dear Editor

 

Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’. Would the authors please explain the reasoning which lead them to this conclusion.

 

Dr Peter Phillips FRCP

Consultant Geriatrician

East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

Sex assigned at birth: the difference between the biological fact and its social interpretation

 

It is good news to find articles like the one by Alpert et al.1 in which, from a multidisciplinary perspective, he studies scientific aspects with a humanistic approach. Thus, the aforementioned work shows great sensitivity to issues, beyond scientific ones, that affect a particularly vulnerable sector of the population.

 

However, there is one aspect of the article that I would like to draw attention to, and on which I would like to contribute another view. I am referring to the risk of confusing biological or physiological data with its meaning or social interpretation. Specifically, I find it worrying that, from a scientific point of view, the fact of sex assigned to a human being at birth is relativized, considering it an irrelevant fact and without any consequence.

 

It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender postfeminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized. This means being left at the expense of the meaning attributed to sex based on certain interests or feelings.

 

It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.

 

This same type of verification is the one carried out with the rest of the animals and is the one that, for example, allows detecting a sex-linked hereditary disease, or indicating to a mother in the delivery room if she has had a son or a daughter. Are we really in reality when we think that a mother can be told that the sex of her newborn is not known and that we will have to wait for the newborn to state it?

 

The sex assigned at birth (derived from the consideration of the genitalia, the proportion of circulating hormones, etc.) is a fact that may have different meanings for different people or for different currents of thought. And that is where, in my opinion, the research and debate on the interpretation of what sex and gender means in society should be based.

 

The work referred to, by Alpert et al., ends up stating that “recognizing gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond”. I believe that the previous statement, in accordance with what is indicated in the previous paragraphs, can be disputed, since, among other things, it can have effects contrary to those that the author seeks. Precisely, considering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations.

 

José López-Guzmán

Professor of Pharmaceutical Humanities

Pharmacy Faculty, University of Navarra

Research Building. University of Navarra. 31000 Pamplona (Spain)

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor,

 

Like some of your other correspondents, I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Its foundation is the individual's chromosome content which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to predictable processes of development in the genitalia and in other bodily areas. The authors seem to be arguing that because biological sex does not tell a doctor everything about a person's health or disease risk, it is of no value - an obvious non sequitur.

 

To take the example given by the authors in reply to an earlier rapid response: the possibility of pregnancy exists for most biological females (including some of those who have transitioned to a male gender role) but is impossible for all biological males, whatever gender role they adopt. Other respondents have already commented on the need to be aware of disease risk relating to cervical or prostate screening and one must also include cardiovascular risk which, though complicated, shows certain clear differences between men and women.

 

Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.

 

Roger Fisken

Retired consultant physician and endocrinologist

Another:

Dear Editor

 

I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth. Since forever sex has been observed at birth if not already known. The only time it may be considered to be assigned is in the very small percentage of cases of those with a DSD where there is ambiguity.

 

The notion of someone being assigned a sex implies that it may not be correct, but we know no one changes sex, that there are only 2 sexes. Why are you peddling this nonsense? It is making a mockery of the medical profession.

 

Helen Bailey

Client services coordinator

Hampshire

Another:

Dear Editor

 

There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.

 

Prof David Curtis MD PhD FRCPsych

Honorary Professor

UCL Genetics Institute

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles.

 

Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar.

 

...

 

No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types.

 

Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.

 

Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

 

Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.

 

It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ.

 

Sara Dahlen

MSc Student, Bioethics and Society

King's College London

London

• Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’
• It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.
• I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned".
• Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.
• There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.
• The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male.
• The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd.
• No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. 
• Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex, has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

The sexual binary is not unique to humans.  All mammals have the same trait, yet nobody goes around suggesting a "spectrum" of "genders" for dogs, cats, cows, horses, and so on.  

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

For my part, I’m inclined to shrug my shoulders and go along with the scientists when they offer the following advice on how to talk about the real phenomenon of intersexuality (from the above article):

First, although a modern categorization should integrate the important progress in molecular genetic aspects of sex determination and differentiation, it should not overemphasize one particular aspect of the biology of sex (for instance, gonadal sex) and should accommodate the spectrum of phenotypic variations. Second, terms should be as precise as possible and should reflect the genetic etiology when available. Finally, the new nomenclature should be understandable by patients and families and should be psychologically sensitive. In particular, gender labeling in the diagnosis should be avoided, and use of the words “hermaphrodite,” “pseudohermaphrodite,” and “intersex” should be abandoned, as they either are confusing or have a negative social connotation that may be perceived as harmful by some patients and parents.

In contrast, you want to ignore people who don’t fit into the male and female boxes and pretend they don’t exist.

Not so.  I have repeatedly addressed issues regarding, and acknowledged the existence of, the very small number people with a disorder of sexual development (DSD), sometimes also referred to as "intersex."  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is the irony that I see. Most likely, the scientists who wrote the above are all atheists. They believe in atoms, chemistry, biology, and neuroscience, and most likely they believe that everything we are consists of those things.

I'm rather indifferent to the religious beliefs of this or that scientist.  That said, I quoted the above well-credentialled folks (Peter Phillips, José López-Guzmán, Roger Fisken, David Curtis, and so on) because I think they are not in the thrall of sociopolitically trendy and popular notions disputing the most basic components of science relating to the sexual binary.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody says they feel like a man or a woman inside and would prefer to dress like a man or woman and be referred to using male or female pronouns, they are likely to shrug their shoulders and humor them.

Most of us would likewise "humor them."  The phrase is, after all, "a common English expression that means to indulge or allow someone to do something that may be silly or foolish, but is not harmful or dangerous."

Things change a bit, though, when the context involves a necessary differentiation between the two sexes.  Medicine, for example.  And women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.).

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, you believe

I tend to get a bit leery when Roger presumes to tell me what I believe.  

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

that there is this scientifically unknown

I don't know what "scientifically unknown" means in this context.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

but superlatively important part of us called a “spirit” which has an actual, absolutely real property of being either “male” or “female”.

As a matter of religious faith, yes.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, you believe that truth about spiritual things can be obtained through processes such as spiritual intuition and revelation.

Yes, I believe that.  Wow!  So far, so good.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Given that you have those beliefs, I would think that if somebody said, “I feel deep in my soul that on the inside, I’m actually a woman”, you’d be quite open to the possibility that their actual spirit really is a female spirit. But you’re not.

Are you acknowledging the existence of spirits?

In any event, this is quite a non sequitur.  I see no need to "be quite open" about what you describe here.  If someone said “I feel deep in my soul that on the inside, I’m actually a {wolf}” or a reptile, or a perpetually six-year-old girl, or a space alien, nothing in my beliefs requires me to "be quite open" to the possibility "that their actual spirit really is" a "wolf" spirit, or a space alien spirit, etc.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are adamant

On matters of empirically untestable religious faith, I am more inclined to adhere to scripture, living prophets and apostles, and personal revelation than to follow socially popular trends that have all the logical consistency and surety of a windsock.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

that the sex of one’s spirit absolutely must align with their biological sex, despite the fact that biologically, sex is complex and people can be intersex.

A very, very few people are born with a DSD.  I acknowledge that.  Per this article, "intersex individuals are not asexual, but have clear sex biomarkers that makes their sex epistemically uncertain."

See also here:

Quote

The nomenclature “intersex” acknowledges something between two sexes and not a third sex. The term is intersex and not “extrasex,” therefore acknowledging the binary nature of human sex. Biological sex rarely may be phenotypically unclear in a given individual, but this does not represent a third one.

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright rejects the “sex is a spectrum” mantra with clear reasoning: “a spectrum implies a continuous distribution, and maybe even an amodal one (one in which no specific outcome is more likely than others). Biological sex in humans, however, is clear-cut over 99.98 percent of the time.” Dr. Wright continues, “any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences. We revise medical care practices and change world economic plans on far lower confidence than that.”

DSD are not a matter of choice (though I'm not sure that's what you meant by "people can be intersex"), nor are they "gender dysphoria."  From the above article:

Quote

Intersex is not a subjective ideation. There is always an objective underlying medical origin. The DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria criteria states: “Specify if: With a disorder of sex development (e.g., a congenital adrenogenital disorder such as 255.2 [E25.0] congenital adrenal hyperplasia or 259.50 [E34.50] androgen insensitivity syndrome).” Intersex is what they mean, and it is different than gender dysphoria.

DSD is also pretty darn rare.  From the above article:

Quote

Wildly inflated claims of the prevalence of DSD are common, but untrue. Dr. Leonard Sax exposed the source of some of this in his article, “How common is intersex.” Dr. Sax writes that Anne Fausto-Sterling asserted in her 2000 book Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality that intersex totaled 1.7 percent of human births. However, Sax shows that she included in her calculations common conditions having nothing to do with DSD. Dr. Sax notes that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are the most common DSDs, which is in keeping with the previously stated DSM-5 Gender Dysphoria specification. Dr. Sax concludes that DSD/Intersex, “far from being ‘a fairly common phenomenon,’ is actually a rare event, occurring in fewer than two out of every 10,000 births.”

Similarly, a 1992 Danish study found their rate of “testicular feminization syndrome” to be 1:20,400. A 2001 Dutch study stated their rate of androgen insensitivity syndrome “with molecular proof of the diagnosis is 1:99,000.”

And a 2016 Danish study examining all their known 46XY karyotype females (androgen insensitivity syndrome) born since 1960 found the prevalence at 6.4 per 100,000 live born females. Intersex/DSD is rare.

"Intersex" is not a third sex.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

If God can somehow squeeze a male or female spirit into an Intersex body, why wouldn’t it be possible that a male spirit could be found in a female body or vice versa?

Your question presupposes that a person with DSD is neither male nor female.  I think that is a pretty substantial error.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Why is it that you think you can use revelation to figure out if you are a descendent of Ephraim, but you can’t use revelation to figure out the sex of your own spirit? 

I have previously shared my position here.  An excerpt:

Quote

Ash's Four-Legged Stool / "Personal Revelation" as the Ultimate Guide / Vetting "Personal Revelation"

If I feel there is a conflict between what I perceive as "personal revelation" and prophetic counsel, I review the "four-legged stool" analogy from Michal Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

Ultimately, each individual must do what he thinks is right.  How he reaches the conclusion of what is "right" should ideally use all four legs of the stool, but in the end, personal revelation from the Holy Spirit is the final and decisive factor.  The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four legs is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

Another mechanism I use to "vet" information and ideas is to assess how it is treated in everyday society.  If an idea cannot be rationally explained and defended, and is instead asserted by its advocates via shouting down anyone who, even in respectful words and postures, questions or disagrees with it, labeling them as bigots and idiots and seeking to shame them into silence, well, then there's a pretty good chance that the idea is suspect.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 2, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Quote

 

Quote

How can something be eternal that only exists upon one’s birth (you have no biology to have a biological sex prior to birth)?

The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.  That is a tortured interpretation of the document.

"Biological sex at birth" is, I think, intended to set aside notions that a person can change their sex through choice of clothing, choice of "identity," medical interventions, etc.  

 

Is that what she was doing? Maybe I didn't read it right?

Her question: "How can something be eternal that only exists upon one’s birth (you have no biology to have a biological sex prior to birth)?"

My characterization: "The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born."

If I am misreading Calm, I am sure she will correct me.  She is pretty good about saying what she thinks.

Thanks,

_Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Her question: "How can something be eternal that only exists upon one’s birth (you have no biology to have a biological sex prior to birth)?"

My characterization: "The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born."

If I am misreading Calm, I am sure she will correct me.  She is pretty good about saying what she thinks.

Thanks,

_Smac

I thought she was being rhetorical. 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

he Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.

I am not claiming it does.  Why would it need to state something so obvious?  I am claiming it is simple logic. Biology requires a physical body. We did not have physical bodies before we were born.  Our spirits did not eat apples, cheese, or bread along with water or juice, digest, and excrete the leftovers. We did not have sex and produce children through the expression/actions of attributes belonging to our biological sex…because said biological sex was nonexistent with no body.  We became mortal, got a physical body to do these and other physical things.

We could have an eternal attribute that gets expressed as biological sex in our physical nature just as we assume there could be something uniquely “male” or “female” about our spirits or intelligences that led to us being given physical bodies with a particular type of biological sex (though this theory does not provide for nonXX and nonXY variations).  How that attribute was expressed in our spiritual natures is unknown.  Art work that shows a bunch of men and women standing around in white robes is not revelation or even doctrine.  It is simply an attempt to describe the unknown.

Ben may have meant something different in his conversation, but this is what jumped out at me in this conversation.  Biology operates in the realm of living physical organisms, not with spirits.  Biological sex therefore only applies to the biology of our bodies.  “Biology of spirits” is a meaningless phrase, like “the sounds of colors”.

Whatever process a spirit body operates by, it is not biology as science and our language defines biology***.  Nor is it something we have any revelation on (the material nature of our spirits) except somehow the spirit (which has existed eternally or was linked to the eternal intelligence, whichever theory one wants to subscribe to) gets linked to the developing fetus at some point, whether at birth or before and it is possible our spirits have a similar appearance to our bodies…but it seems unlikely to be more than a vague resemblance given what goes on with genes and the effects variations in environment can have on how genetics gets expressed, such as mutations. 

I suppose we could assume our spirits that were created thousands and thousands, if not millions and billions, of years before were somehow created by God in the image of the physical bodies he knew we would receive in the far off future. If so, how did he choose the appearances of the spirit bodies of the third that rebelled, who will never receive physical bodies?  If he chose their appearance based on the material aspects of their intelligence or something else, why would he not do the same for all the spirits?  

That is getting way off topic though. 

***biology meaning https://g.co/kgs/M8uMCF8

Quote

the physiology, behavior, and other qualities of a particular organism or class of organisms.

The “physiology” requires a physical body. 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The Proclamation does not deny that we have biological sex prior to being born.

I am not claiming it does.  Why would it need to state something so obvious?  

Because even "obvious" things can be disputed.  Just look at Roger's post.  He is positing that a biological male can have a "female" spirit.  The Proclamation anticipated such things.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am claiming it is simple logic. Biology requires a physical body.

Okay.  

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

We did not have physical bodies before we were born.  

We had material bodies before we were born.  See D&C 131:

Quote

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

See also this excerpt from chapter 2 of the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).

And this entry in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Latter-day Saints believe that each person was born in premortal life as a spirit son or daughter of God. The spirit joins with a physical body in the process of birth on the earth. At death the spirit and the body separate until they reunite in the resurrection. Spirits are capable of intellectual advancement, love, hate, happiness, sorrow, obedience, disobedience, memory, and other personal characteristics. Latter-day Saints believe that "all spirit is matter," but this matter is so fine that it cannot be discerned by mortal eyes (D&C 131: 7-8).

The Doctrine and Covenants explains that "the spirit of man [is] in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast; and every other creature which God has created" (D&C 77:2). That spirit bodies resemble physical bodies is demonstrated in the account of the premortal Jesus visiting the brother of jared many centuries before Jesus' birth (Ether 3:9-16). On this occasion, the Lord revealed his spirit body and said, "this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh" (3:16).

I can't claim to fully understand our doctrines about our tangible physical bodies (which are made of matter) and our spirit bodies (which are also made of matter, albeit "more fine or pure").  I expect to figure it out when I'm on the other side.

In any event, per the Proclamation, "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  This is true for "{a}ll human beings—male and female," each of which is "a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents."

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Therefore we could not have a biological sex before birth.

You will need to elaborate, as I do not understand your reasoning here.

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

We could have an eternal attribute that gets expressed as biological sex in our physical nature just as we assume there could be something uniquely “male” or “female” about our spirits.

Ben may have meant something different in his conversation, but this is what jumped out at me in this conversation.  Biology operates in the realm of living physical organisms, not with spirits.

Spirits are not "living physical organisms"?  Are you sure?

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Whatever process a spirit body operates by, it is not biology as science and our language defines biology***.  

Our grasp of biology is limited to the temporal sphere.  Yet we are told that "the spirit of man [is] in the likeness of his person" (D&C 77:2).  Do you therefore suppose to remove sex from that "likeness"? 

How do you account for Ether 3:9-16, which describes the premortal Jesus as having a body of spirit that looked like the body He later acquired in mortality?  The notably male body?  Are you suggesting the premortal Jesus was not male?  That He lacked a sex until he was born of Mary?

How do you account for Job 38:7, which describes the premortal "sons of God" who "shouted for joy"?  Were these "sons" asexual?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

Apparently, I DID misread calm's post. 🫡

[ZealouslyStriving]

Male spirits were created in the image and likeness of Heavenly Father, female spirits in the image and likeness of Heavenly Mother(s) with all that that entails.

Edited May 2, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You will need to elaborate, as I do not understand your reasoning here

Let’s see if we can have a starting place we can agree on.
 

Did we have a stomach when we were spirits (the organ)?  Did we have intestines?  Uteruses and other reproductive organs?

Quote

Spirits are not "living physical organisms"?

Not as our society currently defines life…

Or is the argument about when life begins for a human embryo meaningless and it is alive before it exists?

Textbooks on human biology do not include chapters of the biology of the preconceived spirits or spirits at all. 

Quote

Do you therefore suppose to remove sex from that "likeness"?

I remove “biological sex” since we lacked biological bodies.  I did not remove “sex”.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree with this.  Biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, a "straightforward concept."  See, e.g., here.

Except for when it is not. In those cases you argue that they are rare so it is fine. You can’t establish hard rules and admit there are exceptions. That is not how anything works.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The sexual binary is not unique to humans.  All mammals have the same trait, yet nobody goes around suggesting a "spectrum" of "genders" for dogs, cats, cows, horses, and so on.

You are confusing sex and gender again.

The lack of sentience can presumably limit the ability of animals to discern their own gender but what gender is this goose presenting?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  I have repeatedly addressed issues regarding, and acknowledged the existence of, the very small number people with a disorder of sexual development (DSD), sometimes also referred to as "intersex."  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and here.

You addressed them by saying they are rare or they don’t matter. That is not addressing them. That is trying to explain them away. It is ignoring the data you don’t like.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

In any event, this is quite a non sequitur.  I see no need to "be quite open" about what you describe here.  If someone said “I feel deep in my soul that on the inside, I’m actually a {wolf}” or a reptile, or a perpetually six-year-old girl, or a space alien, nothing in my beliefs requires me to "be quite open" to the possibility "that their actual spirit really is" a "wolf" spirit, or a space alien spirit, etc.

Yet you believe you have a spirit because you feel it ‘deep in your soul’ to be true. You are trying to make others sound ridiculous while sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

A very, very few people are born with a DSD.  I acknowledge that.  Per this article, "intersex individuals are not asexual, but have clear sex biomarkers that makes their sex epistemically uncertain."

See also here:

DSD are not a matter of choice (though I'm not sure that's what you meant by "people can be intersex"), nor are they "gender dysphoria."  From the above article:

DSD is also pretty darn rare.  From the above article:

So what “biological sex” was their spirit?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Intersex" is not a third sex.

Quite right. It is an umbrella term for multiple sexes.

Edited May 2, 2024 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Male spirits were created in the image and likeness of Heavenly Father, female spirits in the image and likeness of Heavenly Mother(s) with all that that entails.

This is so vague it is essentially meaningless. You are a descendant of a God and birthed into a spirit form in the likeness of your embodied parent with all that entails. We literally have no idea what that would entail!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Another mechanism I use to "vet" information and ideas is to assess how it is treated in everyday society.  If an idea cannot be rationally explained and defended, and is instead asserted by its advocates via shouting down anyone who, even in respectful words and postures, questions or disagrees with it, labeling them as bigots and idiots and seeking to shame them into silence, well, then there's a pretty good chance that the idea is suspect.

No you don’t.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree with this.  Biological sex is, in virtually all circumstances, a "straightforward concept."

Being a “straightforward concept” doesn’t preclude it from being full of “nuances and complexities” if you look at it more deeply. Did you even read the article before you decided you disagreed with it? 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

See, e.g., here.

From the above link (mine) :

• Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’...

 

None of this addresses the article I linked to, and regurgitating old posts doesn’t help me understand your position any better. The question is whether the scientists who wrote the article “We used to call them hermaphrodites” in Nature are "oblivious to basic biological facts."

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The sexual binary is not unique to humans.  All mammals have the same trait, yet nobody goes around suggesting a "spectrum" of "genders" for dogs, cats, cows, horses, and so on.  

But they do write articles like "Genetic Mechanisms of Sex Determination” in Nature that look into the issue more detail with animals, just as the one I first stated does with humans. Did you know that clown fish can change sex?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "scientifically unknown" means in this context.

It means that science doesn’t recognize the validity of anything you believe about spirits. (That’s being generous, of course. The truth is that science has proven that that spirits and spiritual forces don’t and can’t exist.)

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As a matter of religious faith, yes.

Yes, I believe that.  Wow!  So far, so good.

Are you acknowledging the existence of spirits?

Of course not. I’m simply explaining why it is ironic that somebody who believes both in spirits with sex as an eternal characteristic and who believes that you can figure out the truth through revelation would be so adamantly opposed to the plausibility of somebody correctly recognizing that they are male on the inside and female on the outside, or vice versa.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In any event, this is quite a non sequitur.  I see no need to "be quite open" about what you describe here.  If someone said “I feel deep in my soul that on the inside, I’m actually a {wolf}” or a reptile, or a perpetually six-year-old girl, or a space alien, nothing in my beliefs requires me to "be quite open" to the possibility "that their actual spirit really is" a "wolf" spirit, or a space alien spirit, etc.

You are just illustrating my point. If a human says, “I believe I have a spirit, and my spirit is human,” you’ll believe them. But if they also say “and I believe that my spirit is a male” you’ll say, “the chances are 50/50 you are right about that, but it is impossible know the spirit of your soul without looking at your gonads. There are some plausible truths that just can’t be figured out through revelation alone!"

Edited May 2, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Spirits are not "living physical organisms"?  Are you sure?

Does the phrase “biological spirit” make sense to you? (Serious question)

Does the phrase “physical spirit”?

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[Ragerunner]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Ragerunner
Wrong quote