Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But you have some sort of psychological need to deny the real-world evidence on this point and will die on the hill about your metaphysical beliefs about sex being completely binary without any exceptions. I surmised it must be because of your religion.

Since I went after Smac for poor debate practices and even more because I am really wanting to see informative, intelligent debate focused on essentials and for some reason I am still hopeful we can get there (there are enough good relevant points from the different positions the possibility doesn’t seem too far off, imo), I will point out that mindreading motivations into an argument is just as useless (meaning worse than useless as it hurts an argument) imo as making assumptions about what someone really means.  My advice is feel free to surmise all you want, just don’t add it to your comments.  It can, for one thing, get people making assumptions about your motivations that can cause them to misinterpret or even ignore decent reasoning and references.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

There are no such people.  Everyone fits into the "binary classification system."  

 

What a minute....what happened to the "mostly, though not always"  group?

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  I have no competent familiarity with her personal medical information.  Her biological sex is an ontological reality that may be presently obscured by epistemic uncertainty.  The latter does not negate the former, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, you just admitted that you don’t know whether Emily Quinn is male or female. That proves your so-called 'binary' model doesn’t classify every human being, and that’s my point. It doesn’t work for everyone.

Emily doesn’t fit the male classification. Emily doesn’t fit the female classification. But she still fits fit the human classification. 

You claim sex is an ‘ontological reality’ that is only ‘obscured by epistemic uncertainty.’ That’s just fancy language for 'the binary classifies everyone even when it doesn’t classify everyone.' You are hiding the self-contradictory nature of your position behind fancy words.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

There are no such people.  Everyone fits into the "binary classification system."  

What a minute....what happened to the "mostly, though not always"  group?

Nothing happened:

Quote

While some DSDs create an environment where epistemic uncertainty is not always immediately resolvable, the biological sex of the individual is ultimately resolvable in principle.

Such epistemic uncertainty is mostly, though not always, "resolvable" through medical testing.  Certain rare conditions defy easy classification, such as Mosaicism/Chimerism.  But even in these rare cases, the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level.

Biological sex remains binary because gamete production defines biological sex, and because chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations exist but do not create a third sex, and instead only create variations within the male-female binary.  While our ability to diagnose/classify it can be imperfect/uncertain, that imperfection/uncertainty does not create a third sex category.  

And again, virtually all of the sociopolitical commentary on "trans" identity arises not from DSDs, but from Gender Dysphoria.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Doctor Steuss]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Seeing this thread is about Church policy on gender dysphoria, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title_number118-p836#title_number118 : "the parents or guardians of minors facing such circumstances, are encouraged to seek counsel from their bishop. Bishops counsel with the stake president to address individual circumstances with sensitivity and Christlike love. Stake and mission presidents seek counsel from the Area Presidency."

[...]

Thank you for sharing this.  I didn't know that this was addressed in the general CHI.  I wish it didn't solely direct people to ecclesiastical guidance, but I can hardly fault them for it.  I guess if one is going to find a religious median between the Jewish tradition of multiple genders, and the LDS tradition of only two, this is probably one of the better ways to go about it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

38 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I boogered the chromosomes.  Brain going faster than fingers.  Should be XY.

But, since you asked.  By some estimates, as many as 1 in 15,000 births are someone who has XY chromosomes, but will develop phenotypically as a female.  Because they are female by all outward appearances, they live their lives as women.  Most (for various reasons) will never have reason to have their chromosomes tested, and will never know that they have XY chromosomes.  Statistically, given the membership of the Church, some of these women with XY chromosomes are members and have been married in the temple.  Heck, statistically, a General Authority has married someone who has XY chromosomes.

If biological sex is eternal, and it is established by chromosomal pairing, then a person who is XY is a man.  These "men" have been married to other men.  Is two men having sex ok as far as the law of Chastity goes in the LDS Church?

In the scenario you described they would be completely unaware of their situation and in good faith would be living lives of faithfulness to the information that they had. Thus, in my estimation they would not be breaking the Law of Chastity, because they didn't have all the knowledge to know what was occuring. They would fall under the "without law" exception in my opinion.

38 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Is two men marrying each other a valid marriage covenant in the LDS church?

The marriage arrangement may have to be adjusted- but by my estimation, in the scenario you described, they would be worthy of exaltation and all the blessings thereof.

38 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

To your final question, that might be worth some introspection.

Your god seems to be the one who condemns those without knowledge, not mine.

Edited February 25, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[smac97]

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

Smac, you just admitted that you don’t know whether Emily Quinn is male or female.

I also don't know if you are male or female.  And for the same reason: I have no competent familiarity with your personal medical information.

This lack of familiarity with a specific person does not negate the sexual binary.

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

That proves your so-called 'binary' model doesn’t classify every human being,

Well, yes, the binary mode does classify every human being.

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

and that’s my point.

Also no.

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

It doesn’t work for everyone.

Yes, it does.

Yet again, you point to a third sex, or to a spectrum of sexes, but you refuse to explain or define it in any way.

The sexual binary does, in fact, "work for everyone."

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

Emily doesn’t fit the male classification. Emily doesn’t fit the female classification. But she still fits fit the human classification. 

Emily is either male or female.  There is an ontological reality that may be obscured by epistemic uncertainty arising from her DSD.

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

You claim sex is an ‘ontological reality’ that is only ‘obscured by epistemic uncertainty.’

In an exceedingly small number of cases, yes.  99.99% of the time, there is no epistemic uncertainty, ergo the ontological reality of the individual's classification as male or female is quite clear.

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

That’s just fancy language for 'the binary classifies everyone even when it doesn’t classify everyone.'

No, it's necessarily technical language to address a unique and exceedingly rare medical condition.

Every human on the planet falls into one or the other options in the sexual binary.  In a very few cases involving DSDs, the classification may require further testing to overcome epistemic uncertainty arising from ambiguous genitalia, etc., but that does not negate the ontological reality of the sexual binary.

On 2/25/2025 at 2:56 PM, Analytics said:

You are hiding the self-contradictory nature of your position behind fancy words.

Well, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 28, 2025 by smac97

[Senator]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing happened:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Ugh, my head is spinning

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  Her biological sex is an ontological reality that may be presently obscured by epistemic uncertainty. 

So you don’t believe there is any biological condition that would prevent categorizing someone as fully male or fully female if only we knew enough of their biology? (Serious clarifying question as I don’t want to make unfounded assumptions)

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Emily is either male or female.  There is an ontological reality that may be obscured by epistemic uncertainty arising from her DSD.

At this point this sounds like a religious mantra. An article of faith. 

[Doctor Steuss]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In the scenario you described they would be completely unaware of their situation and in good faith would be living lives of faithfulness to the information that they had. Thus, in my estimation they would not be breaking the Law of Chastity, because they didn't have all the knowledge to know what was occuring. The would fall under the "without law" exception in my opinion.

I'm glad you think their covenants wouldn't be binding because of a lack of knowledge.  Fortunately, I don't even have to try to find exceptions and loopholes.

Quote

The marriage arrangement may have to be adjusted- but by my estimation, in the scenario you described, he would be worthy of exaltation and all the blessings thereof.

So you believe that two men can be married for eternity?  That's awesome!  I was obviously speaking from an orthodox LDS position.  I'm glad you think two men can be married for eternity.  Out of curiosity, since you hold heterodox positions to the LDS Church, how exactly does the exaltation, worlds without end, priest and priestess, and so on, fit into this with it being two men?

Quote

Your god seems to be the one who condemns those without knowledge, not mine.

I'm glad your deity isn't the orthodox Latter-day Saint deity that others in this thread appear to worship.  If I weren't agnostic, I'd hopefully hold a view of deity similar to yours, that allowed two men to be married forever and not judge people for lack of knowledge.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

Her biological sex is an ontological reality that may be presently obscured by epistemic uncertainty. 

So you don’t believe there is any biological condition that would prevent categorizing someone as fully male or fully female if only we knew enough of their biology?

I don't know what "fully male or fully female" means, as I (respectfully) reject the notion that biological sex is a "spectrum."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I'm glad you think their covenants wouldn't be binding because of a lack of knowledge.  Fortunately, I don't even have to try to find exceptions and loopholes.

So you believe that two men can be married for eternity?  That's awesome!  I was obviously speaking from an orthodox LDS position.  I'm glad you think two men can be married for eternity.  Out of curiosity, since you hold heterodox positions to the LDS Church, how exactly does the exaltation, worlds without end, priest and priestess, and so on, fit into this with it being two men?

I think you need to carefully reread what I wrote.

2 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I'm glad your deity isn't the orthodox Latter-day Saint deity that others in this thread appear to worship.  If I weren't agnostic, I'd hopefully hold a view similar to yours that a deity condemning people for not knowing things wouldn't be worthy of my fealty.

The position of no condemnation of those without knowledge is abundantly clear in LDS teachings.

Edited February 25, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The marriage arrangement may have to be adjusted

Do you mean “may have to” as in a possibility that it won’t be necessary or are you using “may have to” as a substitute for “will have to” (English can be ambiguous at times, pretty sure you mean “will have to” but want to be sure)?

[Analytics]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also don't know if you are male or female.  And for the same reason: I have no competent familiarity with your personal medical information.

You don’t need ‘competent familiarity’ with Emily Quinn’s medical history—it’s all publicly available in her own speeches and interviews. Here are the facts:

• Her birth certificate says female.
• She has a totally normal-looking vagina.
• Her body development is entirely female—breasts, no body hair, etc.
• She has XY chromosomes.
• She has internal testes where ovaries would be.
• She doesn’t have a uterus.
• Her body doesn’t produce any gametes.

So tell me, based on your strict sex binary—is Emily male or female? If your model works, this should be easy to answer. But if you can’t classify her within your framework, then your framework doesn’t classify everyone—which is exactly my point.

And here’s the real issue: You claim ‘gamete production defines biological sex’—but Emily produces neither sperm nor eggs. So either Emily is neither a man nor a woman, or your definition of sex is wrong. Which is it?

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's necessarily technical language to address a unique and exceedingly rare medical condition.

Emily’s condition isn’t unique, and I’m not asking you to ‘address’ it. I’m asking you to define ‘woman’ in a way that actually classifies Emily as either a man or a woman—since you insist she must be one or the other. If your definition works, this should be simple. So—what is she?

 

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Every human on the planet falls into one or the other options in the sexual binary.  In a very few cases involving DSDs, the classification may require further testing to overcome epistemic uncertainty arising from ambiguous genitalia, etc., but that does not negate the ontological reality of the sexual binary.

Smac, repeating your claim doesn’t make it true. You keep saying ‘every human falls into the sexual binary,’ but when faced with an actual person who doesn’t fit, you dodge, deflect, and hide behind ‘epistemic uncertainty.’ That’s not science—that’s refusal to engage with reality.

You claim this strict sex binary is an ‘ontological reality’—but if that were true you’d be able to present a definition of “man” and “woman” that would allow everyone to be classified in one of the two buckets.

So I’ll ask you again: what is a woman?

Edited February 25, 2025 by Analytics

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Emily is either male or female.  There is an ontological reality that may be obscured by epistemic uncertainty arising from her DSD.

At this point this sounds like a religious mantra. An article of faith. 

Or a simple statement of biological reality, repeatedly quoted to people who are mightily resisting it because it is ideologically inconvenient (conflicting, I surmise, with some aspects of trans ideology).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think you need to carefully reread what I wrote.

I had stated they'd be divorced, because gay eternal marriage isn't part of LDS beliefs.  You seemed to disagree by saying:
 

Quote

Why would he need to repent and why would he remain unmarried?

This implies that you believe they would be able to remain married.  The eternal marriage of two men in a romantic relationship would be valid.
 

Quote

The marriage arrangement may have to be adjusted- but by my estimation, in the scenario you described, he would be worthy of exaltation and all the blessings thereof

Having gone back and attempted to "read carefully," my cognitive shortcomings are reigning supreme.  How is it adjusted in a way that they are still two men romantically married for eternity?  What adjustment would need to be made in their marriage if they are already worthy of exaltation and all of the blessings?

Naturally, I'd think the easiest way to go about this is to hold the position that with all of the things about our biology that will be "perfected" in the resurrection, that perhaps chromosomal pairing isn't the final arbiter of someone's eternal gender, and that these two people would remain husband and wife in the eternities.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean “may have to” as in a possibility that it won’t be necessary or are you using “may have to” as a substitute for “will have to” (English can be ambiguous at times, pretty sure you mean “will have to” but want to be sure)?

Got me.

Will need to be adjusted.

[smac97]

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

You don’t need ‘competent familiarity’ with Emily Quinn’s medical history—it’s all publicly available in her own speeches and interviews. Here are the facts:

• Her birth certificate says female.
• She has a totally normal-looking vagina.
• Her body development is entirely female—breasts, no body hair, etc.
• She has XY chromosomes.
• She has internal testes where ovaries would be.
• She doesn’t have a uterus.
• Her body doesn’t produce any gametes.

So tell me, based on your strict sex binary—is Emily male or female? If your model works, this should be easy to answer.

DSDs create ambiguity and epistemic uncertainty.  Sometimes (most of the time, I believe),i that uncertainty can be overcome, sometimes it cannot.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

But if you can’t classify her within your framework, then your framework doesn’t classify everyone—which is exactly my point.

I personally lack the means to classify her.  And the sexual binary is not "my" framework.  And my inability to classify her is due to the seeming presence of epistemic uncertainty, not the absence of ontological reality.

In other words, just because I, Spencer Macdonald, cannot presently classify a particular person as male or female does not negate the sexual binary.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

And here’s the real issue: You claim ‘gamete production defines biological sex’—but Emily produces neither sperm nor eggs. So either Emily is neither a man nor a woman, or your definition of sex is wrong. Which is it?

Oi.

Sex is based on reproductive function, not an individual's fertility.  It is defined by the role an organism is structured to perform in reproduction, not whether they are personally fertile.  So Ms. Quinn's purported inability to produce gametes does not remove her (I'm using female pronouns since she goes by "Emily") from the male-female binary.

Infertility is a disorder within the binary, not proof of a spectrum or a third sex.  You persist in hinting/teasing at this, but you refuse to define or present it.

Put another way, sex is defined by the reproductive role an organism is structured for, not just whether they personally produce gametes.  Primary sex determination happens at fertilization, when an embryo is XX (female) or XY (male).  Thereafter, gonadal development follows this chromosomal pattern, directing male (testes) or female (ovarian) differentiation.  Consequently, gamete production is the ultimate function of sex, but a specific individual's inability to produce gametes does not mean a person is sexless—it means she has a disorder affecting normal development.  A DSD, which does not create a new sex, and is instead a developmental anomaly within the binary framework.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

Emily’s condition isn’t unique,

As I understand it, her condition is extraordinarily rare.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

and I’m not asking you to ‘address’ it.

Yes, you are.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

I’m asking you to define ‘woman’ in a way that actually classifies Emily as either a man or a woman—since you insist she must be one or the other. If your definition works, this should be simple. So—what is she?

DSD sometimes introduce epistemic uncertainty which obscures the underlying ontological reality.

I suspect someone somewhere has the scientific bona fides to parse through the particulars of Emily's condition and either A) resolve the above-referenced epistemic uncertainty and competently designate the ontological reality of her biological sex as being either "male" or "female" (as I understand it, this is what happens most of the time with DSDs) or B) not able to resolve the epistemic uncertainty, leaving the ontological reality obscured.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

Smac, repeating your claim doesn’t make it true. You keep saying ‘every human falls into the sexual binary,’ but when faced with an actual person who doesn’t fit, you dodge, deflect, and hide behind ‘epistemic uncertainty.’ That’s not science—that’s refusal to engage with reality.

Says the guy who believes that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, and who denies the sexual binary that exists in pretty much every textbook about human biology (I say "pretty much" since these days ideological extremists may have managed to persuade this or that publisher to depart from biological science and conform to sociopolitical trends regarding sex/gender).

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

You claim this strict sex is an ‘ontological reality’

Yes.  That is a basic scientific principle.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

—but if that were true you’d be able to present a definition of “man” and “woman” that would allow everyone to be classified in one of the two buckets.

Yes, that is precisely what we have.  It's called the "sexual binary."  There are only two buckets, and each and every member of the human species falls into one or the other.  Not both.  Not neither.

There are, I acknowledge, extraordinarily rare medical conditions which condition introduce ambiguity arising from ambiguous genitalia, etc., and which epistemic ambiguity is usually, but not necessarily always, resolvable through medical testing, thus allowing the ontological reality of the individual's categorization as "male" or "female" manifest.  Those are the only two options.  There is no third sex, nor is there an endless "spectrum" of sexes. For those extraordinarily number of instances where the epistemic ambiguity cannot be resolved, such ambiguity does not negate the sexual binary.  It just makes its utility difficult in that particular - and exceedingly rare - instance.

On 2/25/2025 at 3:28 PM, Analytics said:

So I’ll ask you again: what is a woman?

An adult biological female.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I had stated they'd be divorced, because gay eternal marriage isn't part of LDS beliefs.  You seemed to disagree by saying:
 

This implies that you believe they would be able to remain married.  The eternal marriage of two men in a romantic relationship would be valid.
 

Having gone back and attempted to "read carefully," my cognitive shortcomings are reigning supreme.  How is it adjusted in a way that they are still two men romantically married for eternity?  What adjustment would need to be made in their marriage if they are already worthy of exaltation and all of the blessings?

Naturally, I'd think the easiest way to go about this is to hold the position that with all of the things about our biology that will be "perfected" in the resurrection, that perhaps chromosomal pairing isn't the final arbiter of someone's eternal gender, and that these two people would remain husband and wife in the eternities.

Adjusted in that they we be married eternally to someone who is an appropriate gender pairing.

[Doctor Steuss]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Adjusted in that they we be married eternally to someone who is an appropriate gender pairing.

Great googely-moogely.  This is horrific.  I can't imagine what it'd be like getting to heaven with the person I love more than anything, and being told "nope, sorry, you both have to marry someone else now."

About all I can say to this is...

Quote

What kind of god do you worship?? 😳

 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what "fully male or fully female" means, as I (respectfully) reject the notion that biological sex is a "spectrum."  

Thanks,

-Smac

I as using “fully male” and “fully female” to represent your type of binary sex classification as in people are one or the other as opposed to how I would likely see (I say “likely” because I need to catch up on the science to solidify my position) biological sex as possessing a variety of sexual attributes that typically present clustered around two modes, but with many variables/dimensions involved.

I am not trained in graphing, so there are likely other ways of representation, but I am thinking along the lines of how two variables might map like a bimodal distribution, three variables might look more like a dumbbell (see below), four variables would be a dumbbell with an additional dimension similar to a four dimensional cube/tesseract*** and on up.  While I think there individuals (points) would be spread out in all sorts of directions due to multiple variables contributing to biological sex, I do believe it’s likely most points cluster around two focuses, one of which can be labeled male and the other female.  How tight each cluster is I have no clue.

Visually I am thinking your description of biological sex could be roughly depicted like this with some sexual variable being the primary/only? determinate of biological sex (your current focus on reproductive pathways suggest “produces sperm” and “produces eggs” could be used)

 

While mine greatly simplified is more like a dumbbell, guessing it’s probably more like the top with the tighter clustering.

 

***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract#:~:text=In geometry%2C a tesseract or,and a three-dimensional cube.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Great googely-moogely.  This is horrific.  I can't imagine what it'd be like getting to heaven with the person I love more than anything, and being told "nope, sorry, you both have to marry someone else now."

About all I can say to this is...

 

People that live lives of faithfulness so that they qualify for exaltation understand that whatever adjustments may need to be made will be more glorious than what they had in their own limited views.

Edited February 25, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or a simple statement of biological reality…

Thanks,

-Smac

How about if you agree with the Venn diagram of two circles accurately representing your perception of the binary sexual classification of male/female, could you please provide me with what variable(s) you would use to assign an individual into either group/category?

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

DSDs create ambiguity and epistemic uncertainty.  Sometimes (most of the time, I believe),i that uncertainty can be overcome, sometimes it cannot...

Okay, let’s make sure I understand you. For religious reasons, you think everybody has a spirit, and that the spirit bodies are either male or female, no exceptions. Correct?

Likewise, you think according to science, everyone’s physical body can objectively be classified as either male or female, no exceptions, including the people with bodies that defy classification because of uncertainty. Correct?