Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[Doctor Steuss]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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.

I'll admit, I'd never have the faithfulness to view eternal marriage as a limited view.  Eternal kind of implies without limit.

[smac97]

On 2/25/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

Okay, let’s make sure I understand you.

This line, where you re-state my position, seldom results in you accurately stating my position.

On 2/25/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

For religious reasons, you think everybody has a spirit, and that the spirit bodies are either male or female, no exceptions. Correct?

Yes.  So far, so good!

On 2/25/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

Likewise, you think according to science, everyone’s physical body can objectively be classified

Ontologically, yes.  As a practical matter, that ontological reality may be, in a statistically tiny number of instances, obscured by epistemic uncertainty.  Such are the vicissitudes of this life.

On 2/25/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

as either male or female, no exceptions,

Yes, no exceptions.  There is no "third sex," nor is there an endless "spectrum" of sexes.  

On 2/25/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

including the people with bodies that defy classification

"Bodies that defy classification" due to the presence of epistemic uncertainty, and not to the absence of the ontological reality of their sex.

On 2/25/2025 at 4:01 PM, Analytics said:

because of uncertainty. Correct?

Almost.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

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.

Biological sex in human beings is a binary classification.  A human being fits into one or the other.  Not both.  Not neither.  Not a third sex.  Not an endless "spectrum" of sexes.

That said, a person may be "male" but be infertile, or he may have a DSD.  I don't think that makes him something other than "fully male," though.

Thanks,

-Smac  

Edited February 25, 2025 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I'll admit, I'd never have the faithfulness to view eternal marriage as a limited view.  Eternal kind of implies without limit.

I think you are again misunderstanding what I have written.

Limited- as in not knowing exactly how eternal life works. No one knows that except those who quality and arrive there.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Biological sex in human beings is a binary classification.  A human being fits into one or the other.

What is the physical attribute, the biological variable that allows them to be classed that way? For example a variable for classifying an insect would include “does it have a backbone?”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate

I can point to a creature with a backbone and say “this is not an insect”.   

Since it’s a binary classification, every “not male” will be a “female” and the reverse, so the presence or lack of this physical characteristic will determine if male or female.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

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.

I don't know enough about the Jewish tradition except that the seven distinctions were based on how the male and female primary and secondary sex characteristics develop and present themselves at birth and later in life, thus it was biologically-dependent with a binary reference point. I see this as where they and the Church seem to dovetail. We've been emphasizing the Church's binary starting point (basic, general doctrine) but the experienced, practical variations are addressed by the Church in policy. Looking back far enough, Jewish starting point was Adam and Eve also (and in some later traditions, a single. primal chimeric androgyne or that was split into Adam and Eve).

I assume the Church recognizes that parents are also getting their information and counsel from clinical and social/traditional sources, and encouraging them to include ecclesiastical sources.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is the physical attribute, the biological variable that allows them to be classed that way? For example a variable for classifying an insect would include “does it have a backbone?”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invertebrate

I can point to a creature with a backbone and say “this is not an insect”.   

Since it’s a binary classification, every “not male” will be a “female” and the reverse, so the presence or lack of this physical characteristic will determine if male or female.

Thanks,

-Smac

Tha

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

Tha

So if I understand you correctly you would assign sex by the type of gamete produced (“gamete production defines biological sex”), but if no gamete is produced it doesn’t matter anyway (“the presence of rare variations does not negate a binary classification”)?  They can still be somehow assumed to be either male or female even if we don’t know which?

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This line, where you re-state my position, seldom results in you accurately stating my position.

Yes.  So far, so good!

Ontologically, yes.  As a practical matter, that ontological reality may be obscured by epistemic uncertainty.  Such are the vicissitudes of this life.

Yes, no exceptions.  There is no "third sex," nor is there an endless "spectrum" of sexes.  

"Bodies that defy classification" due to the presence of epistemic uncertainty, and not to the absence of the ontological reality of their sex.

Almost.

Thanks,

-Smac

For my part, I think what you call the “ontological reality” is just a Platonic ideal and isn’t a reality at all. Since you refused to define male and female in a clinically useful way, I’ll define a male as somebody who has primary and secondary male characteristics, and a female as somebody who has primary and secondary female characteristics. Every body is unique, and the vast majority of bodies have characteristics that are clearly male and clearly female. But there are tens of thousands of real-world people who have primary and secondary sex characteristics that when evaluated together, do not fit into that binary. This is the stress point for which that binary ceases to be a useful model for describing biological reality.

Categorizing things is about looking at actual traits and then grouping them in useful and insightful ways. Asserting that there is an “ontological” category that is absolutely binary, but that we can’t know whether a given entity fits into one category or the other for “epistemological” reasons is a copout. If the binary model fails to classify real people, that is a limitation of the model. Acknowledging this fundamental truth about real-world classification systems isn’t ideology.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For my part, I think what you call the “ontological reality” is just a Platonic ideal and isn’t a reality at all.

Well, no.  Biological sex is not an abstract "ideal," and is instead a flesh-and-blood reality.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Since you refused to define male and female in a clinically useful way,

I have done so many times.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I’ll define a male as somebody who has primary and secondary male characteristics, and a female as somebody who has primary and secondary female characteristics. Every body is unique, and the vast majority of bodies have characteristics that are clearly male and clearly female. But there are tens of thousands of real-world people who have primary and secondary sex characteristics that when evaluated together, do not fit into that binary.

Yes, they do.  See my various prior comments.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This is the stress point for which that binary ceases to be a useful model for describing biological reality.

See my prior comments about your erroneous notions about biological sex as merely a "model."

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Categorizing things is about looking at actual traits and then grouping them in useful and insightful ways. Asserting that there is an “ontological” category that is absolutely binary, but that we can’t know whether a given entity fits into one category or the other for “epistemological” reasons is a copout.

Well, no.  99.99% of the time the sex binary is plainly clear and ascertainable.  Epistemic uncertainty arises in a statistically tiny number of cases, and even then the individual's biological sex can, most of the time, be ascertained with further medical testing.  And for the tiny number of instances where the epistemic ambiguity cannot be overcome, the ontological reality is still there, just obscured.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And for the tiny number of instances where the epistemic ambiguity cannot be overcome, the ontological reality is still there, just obscured.

It is a pure assertion that it is still there. We do not know, and that in my estimation is the fatal flaw to this binary argument.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, Senator said:

It is a pure assertion that it is still there. We do not know, and that in my estimation is the fatal flaw to this binary argument.

One of the fatal flaws. The other being that it arbitrarily picks and prioritizes one sex characteristic to the exclusion of all others:

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

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

And for the tiny number of instances where the epistemic ambiguity cannot be overcome, the ontological reality is still there, just obscured.

It is a pure assertion that it is still there. We do not know, and that in my estimation is the fatal flaw to this binary argument.

Respectfully, I disagree.

"Epistemic uncertainty" refers to limitations in our knowledge or the difficulty in making precise classifications due to complex or atypical presentations. In a DSD context, such uncertainty arises because certain individuals may exhibit atypical combinations of chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic characteristics, making immediate and clear-cut classification challenging. However, this uncertainty pertains to our ability to diagnose or classify within the existing binary framework, not to the existence of the sexual binary framework itself.

Biological sex in humans is fundamentally organized around two roles in reproduction: male and female. This is evident in the production of two types of gametes: eggs and sperm. Individuals with DSDs may have variations that make classification less straightforward, but they do not constitute a third reproductive role or gamete type, nor does there existence create a "spectrum" of sexes. Therefore, the existence of DSDs and the associated epistemic uncertainty in classification do not invalidate the binary nature of biological sex.

The medical literature acknowledges the challenges in classifying sex in individuals with DSDs due to atypical presentations.  But the sexual binary is still a fundamental tenet of biological science.  See, e.g., here and here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One of the fatal flaws. The other being that it arbitrarily picks and prioritizes one sex characteristic to the exclusion of all others:

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

Still waiting for someone to present a coherent alternative to the sexual binary.

A third sex?  Sex as a "spectrum"?

Bueller?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

3 hours 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...

 

This reminds me of the very emotional Elder Holland in the temple open house video's: 

"I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me,"

Could you imagine the depth of his feelings in that  video  and then getting to the other side and finding out she was actually male? I too feel like heaven wouldn't be heaven without my husband. I dearly love him. I cannot imagine God telling me I couldn't be with him because of a biological mistake of some sort. 

[Senator]

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still waiting for someone to present a coherent alternative to the sexual binary.

A third sex?  Sex as a "spectrum"?

Bueller?

Thanks,

-Smac

They have. Quite well, actually!

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Still waiting for someone to present a coherent alternative to the sexual binary.

A third sex?  Sex as a "spectrum"?

We don't need an alternative. You are trying to re-frame the argument in an inappropriate way.

Your argument comes in three parts. P1) There is a sexual binary, P2) there is an eternal gender binary, and P3) because everyone has a sexual identity, the eternal gender binary can be identified because it has a unique one-to-one correspondence with the sexual binary.

The one thing that all of the ChatGPT statements agree on is that there are exceptions to the sexual binary. This doesn't mean that there is a defined third sex. What it does mean is that not every actually fits into the sexual binary - it is not absolute. This is because a persons sex isn't determined by any single characteristic. So P1 is modified: P1) There is a sexual binary with exceptions. There is no reason to modify P2. But P3 can no longer be held to be true because of the exceptions. P3 can at best only be true when persons sexuality falls into the binary and not into an exception.

This is confirmed, as I have noted, in the LDS Church's treatment of the exceptions. In August of 2024, the LDS Church made some changes to the Handbook of Instructions. This comes from Section 38.6.23 -

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness (see Genesis 1:27). The intended meaning of gender in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is biological sex at birth. (For those whose biological sex is not clear at birth, see 38.7.7.)

What we can see right off the bat, is that while the Church believes that biological sex (as a binary) is a representation of eternal gender (as a binary), there are exceptions when biological sex is an exception to that binary, and so cannot be used to determine that eternal gender (as a binary). The LDS Church does not define biological sex as you do - and does not pretend to the idea that there is an absolute binary. Nor do they make the claim that all that is required to know what the biological sex is (and by extension what that eternal gender is) is to run a few more tests. Those are your criteria, and not theirs. And it is clear that the Handbook here contextualizes your favorite statement on gender and biological sex - but not in a way that seems to agree with you.

38.7.7 reads:

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.

And here we see a recognition of the problem without a clear way to move beyond it. For those whose biological sex is ambiguous, the Church suggests that parents (and doctors) may make a decision for the infant as to which biological sex they should be assigned. But then the Church makes an interesting suggestion, which is that perhaps parents should wait to have such a surgery performed (unless it's medically necessary) to see if we can make a better guess at the eternal gender using other clues. There is also the recognition here that such guesses are subject to mistakes - by recognizing that for those who receive such procedures may later find their biological sex (assigned by parents and doctors) does not match the gender with which they identify.

There is just so much to unpack here. But at the end of the day, we run into the simple problem that biological sex (because of the exceptions) is not a perfect indicator of eternal gender. And this could be even greater than is recognized here - because there is no revelation that argues that biological sex is determined by eternal gender. The idea that it could be causes all sorts of other problems (both theological and biological). After all, if we think that black skin is the result of a curse, then does this mean that everyone will have white skin in the resurrection? The genetic diseases that run in my family (for example, polycistic kidney disease) is a part of the family because the genetics are predetermined by something in our pre-existent state? In the end, this sort of statement - that genetics are an encoding of the pre-existent state - is a problem that will never be made universally - and so we end up merely with a special pleading here in this particular case.

And of course, the LDS Church isn't really keen on using the old reliable formula of suggesting that things will work themselves out in our post-mortality here. Because then they would need to recognize the seemingly very real possibility that gender dysphoria occurs when there is a mismatch between eternal gender and biological sex. And heaven forbid that we allow an eternally gendered female to be ordained to the priesthood ... because it will screw things up so badly that it cannot be fixed (mind you, it really is okay to allow that eternally gendered male with a female biological sex to not get the priesthood).

Edited February 26, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[stelf]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think you are again misunderstanding what I have written.

Limited- as in not knowing exactly how eternal life works. No one knows that except those who quality and arrive there.

So, you are claiming that @Doctor Steuss is misunderstanding you because we have a limited view (defined by you as not knowing exactly how eternal life works) of eternal life. At the same time you are confidently declaring how things would be resolved. Perhaps the limited understanding of how eternal life works goes both ways?

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, stelf said:

So, you are claiming that @Doctor Steuss is misunderstanding you because we have a limited view (defined by you as not knowing exactly how eternal life works) of eternal life. At the same time you are confidently declaring how things would be resolved. Perhaps the limited understanding of how eternal life works goes both ways?

I never said I had a complete understanding of eternity, but...

Two things I know for certain:

1) Males are sealed to females and females to males. God can't magically make one of the partners the opposite sex, because our gender is part of what we are eternally (backwards and forwards).

2) Our Heavenly Parents love us more than we can possibly imagine and want what is best for us, and sometimes that best is not something we can imagine while in our mortal state. I trust them that whatever they do will be the best possible outcome for me and those that I love and will bring us the most happiness - even if I can't see how.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We don't need an alternative. You are trying to re-frame the argument in an inappropriate way.

Your argument comes in three parts. P1) There is a sexual binary, P2) there is an eternal gender binary, and P3) because everyone has a sexual identity, the eternal gender binary can be identified because it has a unique one-to-one correspondence with the sexual binary.

The one thing that all of the ChatGPT statements agree on is that there are exceptions to the sexual binary. This doesn't mean that there is a defined third sex. What it does mean is that not every actually fits into the sexual binary - it is not absolute. This is because a persons sex isn't determined by any single characteristic. So P1 is modified: P1) There is a sexual binary with exceptions. There is no reason to modify P2. But P3 can no longer be held to be true because of the exceptions. P3 can at best only be true when persons sexuality falls into the binary and not into an exception.

This is confirmed, as I have noted, in the LDS Church's treatment of the exceptions. In August of 2024, the LDS Church made some changes to the Handbook of Instructions. This comes from Section 38.6.23 -

What we can see right off the bat, is that while the Church believes that biological sex (as a binary) is a representation of eternal gender (as a binary), there are exceptions when biological sex is an exception to that binary, and so cannot be used to determine that eternal gender (as a binary). The LDS Church does not define biological sex as you do - and does not pretend to the idea that there is an absolute binary. Nor do they make the claim that all that is required to know what the biological sex is (and by extension what that eternal gender is) is to run a few more tests. Those are your criteria, and not theirs. And it is clear that the Handbook here contextualizes your favorite statement on gender and biological sex - but not in a way that seems to agree with you.

38.7.7 reads:

And here we see a recognition of the problem without a clear way to move beyond it. For those whose biological sex is ambiguous, the Church suggests that parents (and doctors) may make a decision for the infant as to which biological sex they should be assigned. But then the Church makes an interesting suggestion, which is that perhaps parents should wait to have such a surgery performed (unless it's medically necessary) to see if we can make a better guess at the eternal gender using other clues. There is also the recognition here that such guesses are subject to mistakes - by recognizing that for those who receive such procedures may later find their biological sex (assigned by parents and doctors) does not match the gender with which they identify.

There is just so much to unpack here. But at the end of the day, we run into the simple problem that biological sex (because of the exceptions) is not a perfect indicator of eternal gender. And this could be even greater than is recognized here - because there is no revelation that argues that biological sex is determined by eternal gender. The idea that it could be causes all sorts of other problems (both theological and biological). After all, if we think that black skin is the result of a curse, then does this mean that everyone will have white skin in the resurrection? The genetic diseases that run in my family (for example, polycistic kidney disease) is a part of the family because the genetics are predetermined by something in our pre-existent state? In the end, this sort of statement - that genetics are an encoding of the pre-existent state - is a problem that will never be made universally - and so we end up merely with a special pleading here in this particular case.

And of course, the LDS Church isn't really keen on using the old reliable formula of suggesting that things will work themselves out in our post-mortality here. Because then they would need to recognize the seemingly very real possibility that gender dysphoria occurs when there is a mismatch between eternal gender and biological sex. And heaven forbid that we allow an eternally gendered female to be ordained to the priesthood ... because it will screw things up so badly that it cannot be fixed (mind you, it really is okay to allow that eternally gendered male with a female biological sex to not get the priesthood).

I think the motivation for the policy is to offer a no harm/no foul judgement for people acting in good faith concerning ordination and temple covenants. For example, D&C 84:33-42 covers the biological male who either accepts or refuses ordination according to the light they possess in this circumstance and exempts the biological female from the obligation. The compassionate part of the policy, which hopefully is first in peoples' minds, applies in both cases.

Why wouldn’t a post-mortal realignment to plan apply, allowing the basic policy structure to address gender dysphoria in the meantime?

[Doctor Steuss]

From an LDS perspective, I just don’t understand why the SRY gene is given an immutable importance -- at least within Smac’s framework.  I sit and think of all of the genetic and chromosomal abnormalities that will be “healed” (or maybe “perfected” would be the better word?), but somehow this one single gene that can hop chromosomes and be inactivated or activated through a myriad of genetic and environmental factors, is the only one that God simply won’t allow to be changed at all in the hereafter.

Trisomy 18, Trisomy 13, Trisomy 21, Fragile X syndrome, Klinefelter, Triple-X, Turner, Ehlers-Danlos, Usher syndrome, etc., etc., etc.  All of these will be healed and perfected, but wherever your SRY gene happens to land, or whatever rascally things it does, tough beans.  That’s the one place where the frailties of humanity and earthly existence just doesn’t venture.  It’s divinely protected, or something.  It's inactive, and you develop as a phenotypical woman, and live your life as a women, get married in the temple to a man, adopt children and get sealed to them, have grandchildren, etc., etc.... whoopsie doodle, your entire family is now null and void because of the placement of an inactivated gene.  Could just be the heathen in me, but it makes no sense.

[Benjamin McGuire]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Why wouldn’t a post-mortal realignment to plan apply, allowing the basic policy structure to address gender dysphoria in the meantime?

I think it could be used - as a way of correcting any issues here in mortality. I also think that the LDS Church currently has no interest in exploring this option.

I think that the bigger issues are likely the question of whether dysphoria really is the result of a gender/biological sex mismatch. I think that there are some barriers here - not the least of which is the fact that those of us who are older (myself included) and who have not experienced gender dysphoria have a difficult time understanding it, and have a predilection towards skepticism of the diagnosis. If we were to recognize the reality of the diagnosis, and even if we came to believe that transitioning is in some cases a corrective action, we would still need to make some sort of decision about whether or not this would constitute choice in the same way that someone without such a diagnosis deciding to transition would be. Does a genuine case of dysphoria suggest that transitioning isn't entirely voluntary? This is a key question because the position is that a voluntary transition is morally wrong (and involuntary would only be morally neutral). At each point here, the stakes become a little higher - and I think that the Church's current position is to try to avoid wading in to these speculative circumstances, and to try to maintain a policy that allows for as few exceptions as possible. I think that this may be an area where we continue to see shifts and changes over the rest of my lifetime.

[manol]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What we can see right off the bat, is that while the Church believes that biological sex (as a binary) is a representation of eternal gender (as a binary), there are exceptions when biological sex is an exception to that binary, and so cannot be used to determine that eternal gender (as a binary). The LDS Church does not define biological sex as you do - and does not pretend to the idea that there is an absolute binary. Nor do they make the claim that all that is required to know what the biological sex is (and by extension what that eternal gender is) is to run a few more tests. Those are your criteria, and not theirs. And it is clear that the Handbook here contextualizes your favorite statement on gender and biological sex - but not in a way that seems to agree with you.

38.7.7 [the handbook section addressing those whose biological sex is not clear at birth] reads:  "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."

And here we see a recognition of the problem without a clear way to move beyond it. For those whose biological sex is ambiguous, the Church suggests that parents (and doctors) may make a decision for the infant as to which biological sex they should be assigned. But then the Church makes an interesting suggestion, which is that perhaps parents should wait to have such a surgery performed (unless it's medically necessary) to see if we can make a better guess at the eternal gender using other clues. There is also the recognition here that such guesses are subject to mistakes - by recognizing that for those who receive such procedures may later find their biological sex (assigned by parents and doctors) does not match the gender with which they identify.

There is just so much to unpack here. But at the end of the day, we run into the simple problem that biological sex (because of the exceptions) is not a perfect indicator of eternal gender. And this could be even greater than is recognized here - because there is no revelation that argues that biological sex is determined by eternal gender. The idea that it could be causes all sorts of other problems (both theological and biological). After all, if we think that black skin is the result of a curse, then does this mean that everyone will have white skin in the resurrection? The genetic diseases that run in my family (for example, polycistic kidney disease) is a part of the family because the genetics are predetermined by something in our pre-existent state? In the end, this sort of statement - that genetics are an encoding of the pre-existent state - is a problem that will never be made universally - and so we end up merely with a special pleading here in this particular case.

And of course, the LDS Church isn't really keen on using the old reliable formula of suggesting that things will work themselves out in our post-mortality here. Because then they would need to recognize the seemingly very real possibility that gender dysphoria occurs when there is a mismatch between eternal gender and biological sex. And heaven forbid that we allow an eternally gendered female to be ordained to the priesthood ... because it will screw things up so badly that it cannot be fixed (mind you, it really is okay to allow that eternally gendered male with a female biological sex to not get the priesthood).

Thank you for this post.  You have addressed my concern with the wording of the Proclamation. 

My core beliefs/assumption goes something like this:  God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  My reading of the Proclamation left me unsettled because it appears (to me) to be unfair towards individuals who do not neatly fit into the "biological sex = strictly binary = spirit gender = biological sex" worldview.  While the Church's current official position is not as inclusive as your last paragraph, it is quite encouraging to me to see the argument for an inclusive paradigm being made by one of its deep thinkers.  Obviously there is still a lot of inertia to be overcome but I think it is happening, one heart at a time.

[teddyaware]

27 minutes ago, manol said:

Thank you for this post.  You have addressed my concern with the wording of the Proclamation. 

My core beliefs/assumption goes something like this:  God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  My reading of the Proclamation left me unsettled because it appears (to me) to be unfair towards individuals who do not neatly fit into the "biological sex = strictly binary = spirit gender = biological sex" worldview.  While the Church's current official position is not as inclusive as your last paragraph, it is quite encouraging to me to see the argument for an inclusive paradigm being made by one of its deep thinkers.  Obviously there is still a lot of inertia to be overcome but I think it is happening, one heart at a time.

Did you ever consider the possibly that the Family Proclamation is absolutely correct, but that the problematic things that trouble you concerning gender (such as biologically androgynous individuals) are all consequences of the fallen nature, and when the fallen nature is overcome in the holy resurrection these difficulties that presently seem so impossibly intractable will no longer have to be dealt with because Lord is going to heal his creation and puts all things into their proper order? 

Edited February 26, 2025 by teddyaware

[MrShorty]

@teddyaware I don't know about others, but I have considered the possibility. Have you considered the possibility that some trans people might awake in the resurrection to find that their body has been fixed to match their sense of eternal gender? AMABs (Assigned Male At Birth) being resurrected as fully functioning females? AFABs realizing their masculine aspirations were correct all along? Asking people to consider that things will be fixed in the resurrection only works if you, too, are willing to consider that maybe things will be fixed in the resurrection.