Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean here.

I meant a gay person can decide for themselves whether they want to attend BYU and comply with the honor code. If they want to attend and keep the rules that is up to them.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I got married while at BYU.  Would me holding hands romantically with a woman other than my wife be appropriate? 

False equivalency. 

I am not saying they are "equivalent," but that they are both examples of violations of the Honor Code.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

On 2/11/2025 at 5:03 PM, smac97 said:

I've commented on this before, but I'll lay it out as a marker now: I think the "sexual identity" thing is fading.  I think more and more people who are sexually attracted to people of their own sex are open to the idea of "sexual fluidity" (heck, it's effectivelyl baked into the "B" part of the LGBT acronym). 

See, e.g., here:

From the linked article:

I think there will be a lot of pushback at this, as "sexual identity" has come with enormous sociopolitical clout and consequences.

In any event, I think the more individuals are willing to set aside, or subordinate, notions of "sexual identity," and to instead embrace the moral and ethical framework offered in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the more comfortable "gay" people will be in attending BYU.

Thanks,

-Smac

You do realize that your point of view on whether sexual identity is fading within the LGBT community comes from your very heterosexual point of view and finding a study that supports that point of view when in fact, you are not in the LGBT community and really have no idea what is going on.  This is like someone outside the LDS community finding a study that shows divorce is increasing within the Mormon community and then assuming that because there are more and more single women and men in the church that just a couple of years ago that means members of the Church no longer are considering marriage and in the future, members of the Church will no longer marry.

Those within the LGBT community would laugh at the conclusions you are drawing.  The fact that you don't seem to know the difference between someone who identifies as bisexual and gay says a LOT about what you know on this issue.

[smac97]

On 2/15/2025 at 8:10 PM, california boy said:

Quote

I've commented on this before, but I'll lay it out as a marker now: I think the "sexual identity" thing is fading.  I think more and more people who are sexually attracted to people of their own sex are open to the idea of "sexual fluidity" (heck, it's effectivelyl baked into the "B" part of the LGBT acronym). 

See, e.g., here:

From the linked article:

I think there will be a lot of pushback at this, as "sexual identity" has come with enormous sociopolitical clout and consequences.

In any event, I think the more individuals are willing to set aside, or subordinate, notions of "sexual identity," and to instead embrace the moral and ethical framework offered in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the more comfortable "gay" people will be in attending BYU.

You do realize that your point of view on whether sexual identity is fading within the LGBT community comes from your very heterosexual point of view

No, it does not.  I did not originate the concept.  I have read materials about it and find it compelling.

"Sexual identity" was always a squishy concept, particularly as analogized to other protected classes.

On 2/15/2025 at 8:10 PM, california boy said:

and finding a study that supports that point of view

I cited one article.  There are plenty of them.

There's a Wikipedia entry: Sexual fluidity

Quite a few articles cited in the endnotes.

The article notes, not surprisingly, that "sexual fluidity" is "a cultural challenge to the LGBT community; this is because although researchers usually emphasize that changes in sexual orientation are unlikely, despite conversion therapy attempts, sexual identity can change over time."

WebMD: What Does Sexually Fluid Mean?

Quote

Sexual fluidity has to do with multiple aspects of sexuality:‌

• Sexual orientation. The pattern of your sexual attraction and preference
• Sexual identity. The way you define yourself with respect to your orientation.
• Sexual behavior. The sexual activity that you take part in.

‌When any of these aspects change over time, you might consider yourself sexually fluid. For some people, this change goes in one direction as they age. For example, someone who originally identifies as gay may eventually identify as straight, or vice versa.
...
Sexual fluidity is widespread, and you may experience changes in your sexuality over both the short and long term.‌

Harvard Health Publishing: Sexual fluidity and the diversity of sexual orientation

Quote

While anyone can experience changes in their sexual orientation, sexually fluidity is more common in younger people and among people who are LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and additional identities).

 

Sexual fluidity might include

• changes in attractions: Someone may be attracted to one gender at one time point and attracted to a different gender or more than one gender at another time point.
• changes in identity labels: Someone may identify as lesbian at one time point and as bisexual at another time point.
• changes in sexual behavior: Someone may have a sexual partner at one time point who is a cisgender woman and then have another sexual partner at a different time point who is nonbinary. (A cisgender woman is a person assigned as a female at birth and who identifies as a woman. Someone who is nonbinary was assigned either female or male at birth and identifies as neither a woman nor a man.)

Sexual fluidity happens for many different reasons. For some people, sexual fluidity occurs when they meet people and discover new attractions. For other people, sexual fluidity may occur when they learn a new identity label that better fits their experience.

And so on.

On 2/15/2025 at 8:10 PM, california boy said:

when in fact, you are not in the LGBT community and really have no idea what is going on.

Quoth WebMD: "Sexual fluidity is widespread."

Certainly widespread enough to merit attention in quite a few research journals, articles, etc.

I don't have to be a part of a community to pay attention to it, to listen to what people in it are saying about themselves, etc.

I have also listened to friends who are part of that community, or were part of it.  One such friend previously "identified" as a lesbian, but now "identifies" as heterosexual, and is married and has a child.

Most of this rhetorical stuff goes away when the concept of "identity" is set aside.  It's an unnecessary construct that arose more as a matter of political expediency then from organic sociocultural evolution.

On 2/15/2025 at 8:10 PM, california boy said:

This is like someone outside the LDS community finding a study that shows divorce is increasing within the Mormon community

If there were data to support the claim, then whether the individual was in or out of "the LDS community" would not matter.

Same goes for observations about "sexual fluidity," etc.

On 2/15/2025 at 8:10 PM, california boy said:

Those within the LGBT community would laugh at the conclusions you are drawing.  

Okay.

On 2/15/2025 at 8:10 PM, california boy said:

The fact that you don't seem to know the difference between someone who identifies as bisexual and gay says a LOT about what you know on this issue.

I think I do not the difference.  It's not rocket science.  It's not altogether cohesive, either, as some (many?) "sexual identity" labels are often ad hoc, overlapping, etc.

Back in 2021, our @Hamba Tuhan made this observation:

Quote

Quote

It does make me wonder if the rate of being physiologically LGBTQ has increased or if the acceptance and ability to identify it has increased.

About 20 years ago, I read a scholarly analysis of how the politically motivated decision to ground the gay rights movement on a 'physiological' argument contained within it the seeds of its own inevitable deconstruction. We may be seeing the early stages of that development.

I wonder what "scholarly analysis" he is referencing here.  It may have been Michael Warner's 1999 book, The Trouble with Normal, in which Warner assessed developments in the gay rights movement, particularly its focus on achieving social acceptance through assimilation, and particularly by seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage. Warner suggested that this effort at seeking normalization/normalcy might end up subverting the movement's "radical" objectives and result in society distancing itself from "non-normative" behaviors and sexual identities and practices.

Or perhaps he was referencing Chandler Burr's 1996 book, A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation.  Burr addressed the political ramifications of framing sexual orientation as being biologically determined.

Anyway, back to my marker: The normalization and mainstreaming of same-sex attraction, orientation, "identity," etc. may, over time, materially diminish its status as being "radical" or edgy, or even noteworthy.  Increasingly, declarations of "sexual identity" seem to elicit responses along the lines of "Yeah, okay.  So what?"  Discrimination has been materially diminished and beaten back, and I am glad of that.  It seems like more and more people in the LGBT community are coming to find the flamboyant and licentious public displays of sexuality (Folsom Street Fair, for example) to be embarrassing, even gross and perverted. 

By way of example, take a look at this children's book, The Rainbow Parade:

Looks pretty innocuous.  Just a fun outing.  

At the :49 mark, the kids find this:

The text reads as follows:

Quote

The sidewalk outside is filled with people waiting for the parade to start. Everyone is wearing whatever makes them feel most like themselves. Even if that means wearing hardly anything at all.

Sure enough, a quick scan of the illustration ends up being a sexualized "Where's Waldo" sort of thing:

Is this a fully-nude woman walking down a public street, with a little girl looking on?  In a children's book?

Two men in S&M gear.  In a children's book.

I find this stuff quite troubling.  I think quite a few people in the LGBT community do as well.

Nevertheless, outside of these grotesqueries, it seems like America is pretty much indifferent to sexual behaviors of consenting adults in private.  If so, then a person constantly broadcasting an identity centering on what he does sexually in private may start to elicit reactions that trend away from particularized interest and attention and toward humdrum and blasé.  Again: "Yeah, okay.  So what?"  

So perhaps the board is being set for some change.  Perhaps "sexual identity" is becoming as mundane and ho-hum as being right-handed or a Philadelphia Eagles fan.  Perhaps more and more people will find such an identity to be inconsequential, such that indifference to it will be the predominant response (candidly, I think we are well into this phase).  That being the case, participating in same-sex behavior is as normalized as outside-of-marriage heterosexual behavior.  For Latter-day Saints, this normalization may lead to them being willing to set aside, or subordinate, notions of "sexual identity," and to instead embrace the moral and ethical framework offered in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  If and when that happens, the more comfortable "gay" people will be in attending BYU.  We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 26, 2025 by smac97

[longview]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Most of this rhetorical stuff goes away when the concept of "identity" is set aside.  It's an unnecessary construct that arose more as a matter of political expediency then from organic sociocultural evolution.

The rhetoric and the constructs can be set aside when the safety and decency can and should be maintained by officials in position of trust. See here: silence deafening on Virginia locker room scandal

Quote

Late last year, Richard Kenneth Cox, a 58-year-old Tier III sex offender — the highest risk level — was charged with repeatedly exposing himself to women and girls in the locker room of Washington-Liberty High School (WLHS), which has an indoor pool open to the public. Cox reportedly gained access to the facility by telling staff that he identified as transgender.

Quote

The incident exposes two critical vulnerabilities in the current policies of Arlington Public Schools (APS). First, the district’s gender identity policy allows facility access based solely on self-declared gender identity. Second, the school’s public pool access policy permits general public entry outside of school hours. According to local ABC affiliate WJLA, these protocols led Cox to have unfettered access to invade the girls’ locker room by simply claiming to identify as a woman.

[smac97]

On 2/21/2025 at 8:48 PM, longview said:

The rhetoric and the constructs can be set aside when the safety and decency can and should be maintained by officials in position of trust. See here: silence deafening on Virginia locker room scandal

I think the fundamental flaw in trans ideology is its logical incoherence.  Re-defining "woman" to mean "an adult biological human female and also anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," is just unworkable in every material respect.  So too is the long-term exercise in equivocation and circular reasoning and special pleading (and a few other logical fallacies) that is the supposed differentiation between "sex" and "gender."  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.

We all should be treated with respect, decorum, compassion, etc., particularly in a medical context.  This does not extend to denying biological reality.  To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex.

If "woman" means "an adult biological human female and also anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," then what sort of limiting principle is there?  Can "dog" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a dog"? Can "space alien" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a space alien"?  If not, why not?  

Last year I visited Encircle House in Provo, Utah.  My daughter had asked that I go there and attend meetings wherein trans individuals share their thoughts, experiences, etc.  So I went, just to listen to what they have to say.  There were four other people in attendance, all (apparently) biological women who "identified" as trans men.  We went around the room and introduced ourselves, then each of the other participants spoke for a few minutes, then it concluded.  It was not particularly illuminating, as most of their comments seemed to be complaining about mundane stuff (school, work, friends, etc.).  Several of them added that these things are harder for trans people, but that was about it as far as "trans"-specific commentary.  I should probably go back and listen some more (though I did not really feel as though my presence was welcomed).

After the meeting I walked downstairs to the main floor, where I encountered a larger group of mostly teenagers.  They were all talking animatedly.  Two or three of them were dressed up as "furries."  One of them, who was kneeling on the ground with dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck, turned and saw me.  He smiled and said "Hi!  My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog.  Woof!"  (I can't remember the name he gave, but it was a generic male name.)  I said hello back to him, and asked him about his day.  He said it had been fine.  As I had already been there for over an hour, I then exited the building and drove home.

On the drive home, I wondered about the expectations I had just encountered.  The people I had met upstairs all stated that they were "trans men," that is, biological women who "identify" as men.  None of them was dressed in any particularly "masculine" way.  They all had their hair in unremarkable cuts/styles.  None of them had beards, low voices, or anything.  All of them appeared to look female in every normative respect ("feminine" facial features, breasts, hips, etc.).  And yet each of them stated their identity as a "trans man."  And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc.  Was I, as a bystander, supposed to accept that expectation and representation as being congruent with reality and biological fact?  Apparently so.

Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs.  He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog.  Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact?  Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog.  He was a human being.  In my  brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog.  It was a passing interaction, so there was no particular need to do so.  But if he and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., should I go along with that?  I think the broad answer is "no."

And there's the rub.  We as a society are supposed to go along with the incongruent-with-reality declaration that a man can become a woman merely by "identifying" as one, and yet we are not supposed to go along with the similarly-incongruent-with-reality declaration that a person (such as the teenage boy) can become a dog merely by "identifying" as one.  I have not yet received a coherent explanation for this discrepancy.  I have, however, received a plethora of logical fallacies in response.

The Proclamation had things right in 1995.  I think other groups and institutions will follow this same tack, and I'm glad of that.

I don't know how much, if any, of "trans" ideology has crept into BYU by way of some faculty/admin using their positions of influence to put these weird and incongruent-with-reality notions into the heads of young men and women in the Church.  If it has been happening, I hope it stops.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 28, 2025 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex.

And the Proclamation on the Family claims that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose." In other words, in the pre-existence, long before anyone had a biological anything, everyone had a gender. In this way the Proclamation that "had things right in 1995" severs gender from biological sex.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex.

And the Proclamation on the Family claims that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose."

Yes.  And per the Church, "{t}he meaning of the word gender in the family proclamation is 'biological sex at birth.'"

47 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In other words, in the pre-existence, long before anyone had a biological anything,

Well, I don't think so.

From the Church:

Quote

On May 16–17, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith stayed with Benjamin and Melissa Johnson in Ramus, Illinois. While there, the Prophet taught the Johnsons the Lord’s law of marriage and sealed them for eternity. The next morning the Prophet preached a sermon on 2 Peter 1 in Ramus and explained the meaning of the phrase “more sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1:19). Later that day, after a Protestant minister gave a sermon to the Saints in Ramus, the Prophet taught that “all spirit is matter” (D&C 131:7). Portions of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s teachings on these occasions are recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 131.
...

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7–8. “All spirit is matter”

On the evening of May 17, 1843, the Prophet Joseph Smith and others listened to a sermon given by Samuel A. Prior, a Methodist preacher. When Reverend Prior finished his sermon, the Prophet asked if he could offer a few corrections. (See Manuscript History of the Church, vol. D-1, page 1552, josephsmithpapers.org.) Reverend Prior wrote about that incident in a letter of appreciation about his visit among the Saints: “After I had closed, [Joseph] Smith, who had attended, arose and begged leave to differ from me in some few points of doctrine, and this he did mildly, politely, and affectingly; like one who was more desirous to disseminate truth and expose error, than to love the malicious triumph of debate over me. I was truly edified with his remarks, and felt less prejudiced against the Mormons than ever. He invited me to call upon him, and I promised to do so” (“A Visit to Nauvoo,” Times and Seasons, May 15, 1843, 198; note that the date of this issue does not reflect the actual date of its publication; the article before Reverend Prior’s letter is dated May 19 and the article after it is dated May 22). On that occasion, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “there is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine and pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (D&C 131:7; see also Manuscript History of the Church, vol. D-1, page 1552, josephsmithpapers.org).

A little over a year earlier, on April 1, 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught the following about the nature of the spirit: “We shall find a very material difference between the body and the Spirit:—the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the Spirit by many is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ—and state that Spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic, and refined matter than the body;—that it existed before the body, can exist in the body, and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection be again united with it” (in Manuscript History of the Church, vol. C-1, page 1307, josephsmithpapers.org).

In my view, our spirits are, in their sphere, "biological."  They are living, material organisms.

Per the Church, we were all male or female before we came to this earth, and will continue to be male or female when we leave it.  If a man chooses to dress as a woman, or undergo medical treatments to superficially approximate the physical likeness of a woman, I think none of that changes the "essential characteristic" that is biological sex.

47 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

everyone had a gender.

Yes.  "Gender" being, again according to the Church, synonymous with "'biological sex at birth.'"

47 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In this way the Proclamation that "had things right in 1995" severs gender from biological sex.

Well, no: How does the Church define gender?

Quote

Gender is an essential characteristic of 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.

Per the Church, "gender" in the Proclamation = "biological sex at birth."

Per you, "the Proclamation that 'had things right in 1995' severs gender from biological sex."

These are two conflicting and contradictory statements about the Church's teachings on this issue.  I think the first one is correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2025 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And the Proclamation on the Family claims that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal ... identity and purpose." In other words, in the pre-existence, long before anyone had a biological anything, everyone had a gender. In this way the Proclamation that "had things right in 1995" severs gender from biological sex.

It stands to reason that the physiology and characteristics of premortal organisms operates differently than their mortal and immortal counterparts.

We refer to what we have discovered of the physiology, behavior and other qualities of living organisms as “biology/biological.” While we don’t have the scientific tools to verify that what we call biology here operates in other estates according to their applicable laws, we do believe that a spiritual creation took place prior to Eden and mortality, in which male and female designations were made. So, what we call biological sex according to our mortal reckoning was prefigured in the premortal setting and yet to be perfected in the resurrected setting, rendering gender an eternal characteristic.

This might bring up a question concerning indeterminate biological sex at birth: whether this circumstance reflects the varieties of gender spectra that exist in the eternities or is a temporary mistranslation of the spiritual creation into mortal biology. The Proclamation and commentary by Church leaders suggests the latter; I don't know of any qualified competing revelation.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

es.  And per the Church, "{t}he meaning of the word gender in the family proclamation is 'biological sex at birth.'"

Except, of course, that this is logically inconsistent. It can't be both the "biological sex at birth" and the "essential characteristic" of a premortal being. So, as long as you are okay with this sort of incongruity, I suppose it works for you. The Church though also has this statement in the Church Handbook about babies "born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex)." So how do we have both gender as an essential characteristic when some are born without a clear gender, and for which (back to the Church Handbook): "Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals."

So, which set of statements should take precedence? I don't think that your response manages to fix the way that the Proclamation on the Family points to the gap between gender and biological sex.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I don't think so.

And I disagree with you ... see where that gets us? The funny thing about doctrine is that it has to be universal. Policy can have exceptions. Doctrine cannot. So which is it? Is the baby born into a biologically sexually ambiguous body at birth really a reflection of an essential but ambiguous eternal gender? It's a can of worms.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This might bring up a question concerning indeterminate biological sex at birth: whether this circumstance reflects the varieties of gender spectra that exist in the eternities or is a temporary mistranslation of the spiritual creation into mortal biology. The Proclamation and commentary by Church leaders suggests the latter; I don't know of any qualified competing revelation.

I think the Proclamation and commentary by Church leaders tracks with the sexual binary.

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.”

DSDs are not a matter of choice, nor are they manifestations of "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.

DSDs are 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.  The biological classification of sex is based on gamete production: Males produce small gametes (sperm), and females produce large gametes (eggs).  No third gamete type exists, reinforcing the binary nature of biological sex.

DSDs, then, are a medical condition, not an "identity."  They are developmental variations affecting sexual differentiation, but they do not constitute a separate sex outside male or female.  People with DSDs still develop from either a male or female blueprint based on their underlying genetics.

A person with a DSD is either male or female (because human biology is a sexual binary, not a "spectrum" with third, fourth, etc., additional sexes), and while DSD may cause epistemic uncertainty, it does not cause or create a "sex" apart from either male or female.  That said, epistemic uncertainty does not contravene ontological reality, since the person still belongs to one of the two sexes at a biological level.

I think this is true from both a biological/scientific, and spiritual/religious/doctrinal, perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[manol]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 So which is it? Is the baby born into a biologically sexually ambiguous body at birth really a reflection of an essential but ambiguous eternal gender? It's a can of worms.

Agreed, it's not as simple as the Proclamation on the Family implies.

On April 4th 2024 I asked @smac97 essentially that same question, in three different posts, the revisions being my attempts to make my inquiry sufficiently unambiguous after he pointed out issues with the questions themselves.  He never responded to my third and final version, so I don't know whether it was insufficiently unambiguous, or whether he decided not to respond for other reasons, or if his attention just moved on to other topics.  Anyway here is that third and final version again; it had been revised into four questions covering four specific cases for the sake of clarity, and again I'm hoping for a response:

1. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is male and whose endocrine system is female?

2. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is female and whose endocrine system is male?

3. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is both male and female, and whose endocrine system is both male and female?

4. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is neither male nor female, and whose endocrine system is neither male nor female?

(Link to my first post in that April 4, 2024 exchange:  https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75831-david-archuletas-new-single-about-he-and-some-in-his-family-leaving-the-faith/page/16/#findComment-1210182101)

 

Edited February 24, 2025 by manol

[Senator]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That said, epistemic uncertainty does not contravene ontological reality, since the person still belongs to one of the two sexes at a biological level.

 

This confuses me.

How can a person with DSD have both "epistemic uncertainty" and epistemic certainty (the person still belongs to one of the two sexes)? Which is it?

[Benjamin McGuire]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This might bring up a question concerning indeterminate biological sex at birth: whether this circumstance reflects the varieties of gender spectra that exist in the eternities or is a temporary mistranslation of the spiritual creation into mortal biology. The Proclamation and commentary by Church leaders suggests the latter; I don't know of any qualified competing revelation.

This language, from the Proclamation, is taken from an article written by James Talmage and published in the Millennial Star on August 24, 1922, where he wrote this:

Quote

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 pre-existent condition, even as it shall continue after death, in both the disembodied and resurrected states.

This is your 'revelation'. I personally think that the notion of eternal gender is necessary for LDS theology. But I don't think that the idea that our biological sex matches that eternal gender in every situation can be true. Since we are beginning to understand that there are biological and genetic components to some of these issues, I think that the blanket statement of Talmage in 1922 - that "There is no accident or chance, due to purely physical conditions" that impacts gender is inaccurate (and I think that Talmage would recognize this if he were living in our current circumstances). The problem for the LDS Church is that there is a desire (a necessity perhaps) to avoid dealing with the problem of having indeterminate genders in a Church with fixed and significant gender based roles (i.e. women and the priesthood issues). The current statements are simply that. If we go back into earlier policy decisions (anything older than a decade or so) we see an entirely different approach to issues like gender reassignment surgery. Up until at least 2010, gender reassignment surgery only created problems when it was elective. Currently, the LDS Church has indicated two things relative to this in the Handbook - first, that there is a recognition that gender reassignment for infants can simply be wrong (with the implied suggestion that perhaps parents can wait, when possible, to have a better understanding of which gender is right):

Quote

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.

And, unlike earlier periods,

Quote

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.

The fact that we have these kinds of policies shows that there is a recognition that the issue isn't nearly as black and white as Spencer wants to make it out to be. It also suggests that the LDS Church recognizes that decisions made in gender reassignment surgery may not be in line with the essential, eternal, gender - a further recognition that gender and biological sex aren't nearly as connected as some would like. If the LDS Church ever changes some of its stances on these issues, it will be the Proclamation on the Family that becomes a key part of that shift.

Edited February 24, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

And per the Church, "{t}he meaning of the word gender in the family proclamation is 'biological sex at birth.'"

Except, of course, that this is logically inconsistent.

Ah, well.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I find the Church's position to be quite logically consistent, and modern trends which bend the knee to trans ideology, and all of its inherent and incongruent-with-reality declarations, to be logically inconsistent.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It can't be both the "biological sex at birth" and the "essential characteristic" of a premortal being.

That is an interesting, and entirely unexplained and undemonstrated, assertion.

1 Nephi 11:11 describes the Holy Spirit as having the "form of a man." 

JS-History 1:31 describes the resurrected Moroni in the same way.  

Genesis 1:27 (JST & Book of Moses 2:27) – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”  As I see it, male and female distinctions are part of God's design, essential to His plan for families, procreation, and complementary roles.

D&C 76:24 – “That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.”  As I see it, our eternal relationship with God is defined in sex-specific terms, that is, as sons and daughters, not as interchangeable beings.

Alma 11:44 – “Now, this restoration shall come to all … and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame.”  As I see it, resurrection restores our physical bodies, including their male or female characteristics, which I think reaffirms the eternal nature of biological sex.

And so on.

I understand and appreciate that some folks have a view which contravenes the teachings on this subject.  Having examined the matter in some detail over a prolonged period of time, I think the Brethren have it substantively right re: sex/gender, and countervailing modern sociopolitical trends and notions have it wrong.  

I also do not think this will change in the future.  While we believe that God "will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" (AoF 1:9), I don't see any indication that altering the Church's teachings on sex/gender is going to be a part of that.  Indeed, the rest of the Ninth Article of Faith posits that "[w]e believe all that God has revealed, {and} all that He does now reveal."  In other words, I think we, as Latter-day Saints, are better off following the scriptures and the living prophets and apostles on this issue.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, as long as you are okay with this sort of incongruity, I suppose it works for you.

You have yet to articulate an incongruity.  You just say it exists.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Church though also has this statement in the Church Handbook about babies "born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex)."

Yes.  Section 38.7.7:

Quote

38.7.7

Individuals Whose Sex at Birth Is Not Clear

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.

None of this contravenes the Proclamation, or the sexual binary. 

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So how do we have both gender as an essential characteristic when some are born without a clear gender, and for which (back to the Church Handbook): "Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals."

See my previous comments here.  An excerpt:

Quote

A person with a DSD is either male or female (because human biology is a sexual binary, not a "spectrum" with third, fourth, etc., additional sexes), and while DSD may cause epistemic uncertainty, it does not cause or create a "sex" apart from either male or female.  That said, epistemic uncertainty does not contravene ontological reality, since the person still belongs to one of the two sexes at a biological level.

I think this is true from both a biological/scientific, and spiritual/religious/doctrinal, perspective.

Hope this helps.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So, which set of statements should take precedence?

There is no statement from the Church which departs from the sexual binary. 

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I don't think that your response manages to fix the way that the Proclamation on the Family points to the gap between gender and biological sex.

Respectfully, there is no such "gap."  Per the Church, "{t}he meaning of the word gender in the family proclamation is 'biological sex at birth.'"  The two terms are synonymous.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I disagree with you ... see where that gets us?

Well, I have laid out my reasoning, and provided citations, etc.  I accept and endorse the Church's position and teachings regarding this issue.  

Some folks, apparently including you, have contrary views.  I'm okay with that.  

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The funny thing about doctrine is that it has to be universal.

Not quite sure what this means.

32 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Policy can have exceptions. Doctrine cannot. So which is it? Is the baby born into a biologically sexually ambiguous body at birth really a reflection of an essential but ambiguous eternal gender? It's a can of worms.

I don't think so.  DSDs are just one set of a large variety of conditions which can manifest in the human body.  A child born without legs is not, I think, going to be legless in the eternities.  A child born deaf will not, I think, be deaf in the eternities.  And a child born with a DSD, such that his or her sex is epistemically uncertain, will not have "a biologically sexually ambiguous body" in the eternities.

Moreover, modern arguments about "trans" ideology have essentially nothing to do with DSDs (see my comments above differentiating DSDs from Gender Dysphoria).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 2/24/2025 at 1:40 PM, manol said:

Agreed, it's not as simple as the Proclamation on the Family implies.

On April 4th 2024 I asked @smac97 essentially that same question, in three different posts, the revisions being my attempts to make my inquiry sufficiently unambiguous after he pointed out issues with the questions themselves.  He never responded to my third and final version, so I don't know whether it was insufficiently unambiguous, or whether he decided not to respond for other reasons, or if his attention just moved on to other topics. 

I don't recall.

On 2/24/2025 at 1:40 PM, manol said:

Anyway here is that third and final version again; it had been revised into four questions covering four specific cases for the sake of clarity, and again I'm hoping for a response:

1. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is male and whose endocrine system is female?

My understanding would be that the a person's biological sex at birth, where the person's physiology is male and endocrine system is female, would still be classified as male at birth. This classification is based on primary sex characteristics rather than just the endocrine function. 

If a person has XY chromosomes, his is biologically male, and biologically female if she has XX chromosomes.  Some rare chromosomal variations (such as XXY – Klinefelter syndrome) may create atypical development, but these conditions do not constitute or create a third sex.  Other key factors are gonadal sex, genital anatomy at birth, and the endocrine system.  So a person with male physiology (XY chromosomes, testes, male genitalia) but a female-patterned endocrine system would still be biologically male at birth, though such endocrine abnormalities might result in atypical secondary sex characteristics later on in the person's life.

I would leave such matters to the parents, their doctors (hopefully the non-ideological kind), and the Lord to sort out.

On 2/24/2025 at 1:40 PM, manol said:

2. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is female and whose endocrine system is male?

See above.

As I understand it, a person with female physiology, but whose endocrine system is male, would still be classified as female at birth.  Again, biological sex at birth is determined primarily by external genitalia and reproductive anatomy, not hormone levels (endocrine system).

On 2/24/2025 at 1:40 PM, manol said:

3. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is both male and female, and whose endocrine system is both male and female?

This sounds like a DSD. See my previous comments re: epistemic uncertainty.

As I understand it, biological sex at birth is determined based on primary sex characteristics, so the baby would still be classified as either male or female—even in cases of ambiguous or intersex traits.  Again, see above re: chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, anatomy at birth, endocrine system.

On 2/24/2025 at 1:40 PM, manol said:

4. What is the biological sex at birth of a person whose physiology is neither male nor female, and whose endocrine system is neither male nor female?

Again, this sounds like a DSD, so from a biological perspective, the child would still fall within the male-female sex binary, but the epistemic uncertainty is there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 28, 2025 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, smac97 said:

That is an interesting, and entirely unexplained and undemonstrated, assertion.

No, it's a completed demonstrable assertion - through experience in the real world - and through the recognition that the Church provides in its policies.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

None of this contravenes the Proclamation, or the sexual binary. 

Why would I want to contravene the Proclamation. I am just pointing to the obvious - that we cannot say that gender is equivalent to biological sex at birth and at the same time say that we have the occasional circumstance when the biological sex at birth is indeterminate. That's pretty straight forward. I think that the proclamation makes the obvious and important distinction that gender and biological sex are not always equivalent. I think that is a good place to understand the reality that some people experience in this lifetime. We can always create sexual binaries just like we can create any other binaries. After all, there are only three kinds of people who are alive today - those who can count, and those who can't. But wanting to create a binary by using the sorts of criteria which can only create binaries doesn't actually mean that people really do fall only into two categories in such a clean and discrete way. And this is indicated by the Church policies which point to the problems that come with asserting that such a functional binary covers everyone.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, there is no such "gap."  Per the Church, "{t}he meaning of the word gender in the family proclamation is 'biological sex at birth.'"  The two terms are synonymous.

Now, instead of just repeating this like a mantra, you should try to address the substance of what I provided. Clearly, the Church recognizes situations in which the "biological sex at birth" does not reflect the eternal gender of an individual.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I have laid out my reasoning, and provided citations, etc.  I accept and endorse the Church's position and teachings regarding this issue.  

No, you don't. You accept a very specific interpretation of the Church's position that ignores the complications that come with real world experience. Good for you.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  DSDs are just one set of a large variety of conditions which can manifest in the human body.  A child born without legs is not, I think, going to be legless in the eternities.  A child born deaf will not, I think, be deaf in the eternities.  And a child born with a DSD, such that his or her sex is epistemically uncertain, will not have "a biologically sexually ambiguous body" in the eternities.

Exactly. And I think that if we were to look at this, the issue should be clear. We won't have biological sexual ambiguity in the eternities. We won't have gender ambiguous states in the eternities. But both of those problems do seem to occur here in mortality - just as some children are born blind, and other children are born with other mental and physical limitations. You seem to be suggesting that somehow biological sex is significantly different from these other conditions - that it cannot have an ambiguous presentation in the here and now.

[manol]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't recall.

My understanding would be that the a person biological sex at birth, where the person's physiology is male and endocrine system is female, would still be classified as male at birth. This classification is based on primary sex characteristics rather than just the endocrine function. 

If a person has XY chromosomes, his is biologically male, and biologically female if she has XX chromosomes.  Some rare chromosomal variations (such as XXY – Klinefelter syndrome) may create atypical development, but these conditions do not constitute or create a third sex.  Other key factors are gonadal sex, genital anatomy at birth, and the endocrine system.  So a person with male physiology (XY chromosomes, testes, male genitalia) but a female-patterned endocrine system would still be biologically male at birth, though such endocrine abnormalities might result in atypical secondary sex characteristics later on in the person's life.

I would leave such matters to the parents, their doctors (hopefully the non-ideological kind), and the Lord to sort out.

See above.

As I understand it, a person with female physiology, but whose endocrine system is male, would still be classified as female at birth.  Again, biological sex at birth is determined primarily by external genitalia and reproductive anatomy, not hormone levels (endocrine system).

This sounds like a DSD. See my previous comments re: epistemic uncertainty.

As I understand it, biological sex at birth is determined based on primary sex characteristics, so the baby would still be classified as either male or female—even in cases of ambiguous or intersex traits.  Again, see above re: chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, anatomy at birth, endocrine system.

Again, this sounds like a DSD, so from a biological perspective, the child would still fall within the male-female sex binary, but the epistemic uncertainty is there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

That said, epistemic uncertainty does not contravene ontological reality, since the person still belongs to one of the two sexes at a biological level.

This confuses me.

How can a person with DSD have both "epistemic uncertainty" and epistemic certainty (the person still belongs to one of the two sexes)? Which is it?

I think you are misunderstanding what "epistemic" means, or at least my usage of it.  I have not spoken of "epistemic certainty" (using that phrase), but that is the case for something like 99.99%+ of human births.  Their biological sex is "epistemically certain," meaning that there not really a dispute about biological sex.  Epistemic uncertainty, then, arises when there is a lack of exact knowledge, or difficulty in making a determination due to incomplete or ambiguous information.  In some very rare instances, a newborn baby may have a disorder resulting in things like ambiguous genitalia, atypical gonads, or mixed secondary sex characteristics.  Doctors will sometimes delay assigning a sex until there is further testing (chromosomal, hormonal, and anatomical assessments) which clarifies the biological classification.  However, the doctor's uncertainty is a limitation of observation and diagnosis, and is not a limitation of the underlying biological reality (the sexual binary).  

Alternatively, "ontological certainty," which I have also referenced, is the objective reality of biological sex, which remains within the male/female sexual binary, regardless of diagnostic challenges.

So even in those rare instances when sex is difficult to determine at birth (epistemic uncertainty), the baby still has a genetic, gonadal, and reproductive classification that aligns with male or female.  Again, there is no third gamete apart from sperm and egg, therefore there is no third biological sex.

"Epistemic uncertainty" is what the doctor experiences when classifying the biological sex of the baby.  In rare instances, observation and testing may be required to resolve ambiguities such as those discussed above.  

In contrast, "ontological certainty" is the thing that exists at the biological level, such that even the most complex DSD cases do not create a sex outside of male or female.

By way of analogy, let's say that I have a metal detector and find a coin buried in the dirt.  Due to accumulation of soil and whatnot, I cannot - in the moment - definitively state whether the coin was facing up "heads" or "tails."  I have, at that point, epistemic uncertainty about "heads" or "tails," and that will continue until I scrub off the dirt and figure it out for sure.  However, at this point in time there is ontological certainty that the coin is either "heads" or "tails" because those are the only two options.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would leave such matters to the parents, their doctors (hopefully the non-ideological kind), and the Lord to sort out.

I'm not sure you would truly leave it to doctors to sort out, because a doctor committed to biological reality would recognize that biological sex isn’t a fundamental, immutable essence of human beings, but rather the result of various biological processes that typically lead to a clear male or female presentation. However, when those processes don’t occur as expected, sex characteristics may develop in ways that don’t fit neatly into the male-female dichotomy. This doesn’t mean the person belongs to a “third sex,” but rather that the binary model fails to fully account for these variations in human biology.

If you reject this, you’re not standing up for biological truth—you’re clinging to an ideological construct that ignores the full scope of the evidence.

[Senator]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Epistemic uncertainty" is what the doctor experiences when classifying the biological sex of the baby.  In rare instances, observation and testing may be required to resolve ambiguities such as those discussed above.  

 

The biological sex is always resolvable?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This language, from the Proclamation, is taken from an article written by James Talmage and published in the Millennial Star on August 24, 1922, where he wrote this:

This is your 'revelation'. I personally think that the notion of eternal gender is necessary for LDS theology. But I don't think that the idea that our biological sex matches that eternal gender in every situation can be true. Since we are beginning to understand that there are biological and genetic components to some of these issues, I think that the blanket statement of Talmage in 1922 - that "There is no accident or chance, due to purely physical conditions" that impacts gender is inaccurate (and I think that Talmage would recognize this if he were living in our current circumstances). The problem for the LDS Church is that there is a desire (a necessity perhaps) to avoid dealing with the problem of having indeterminate genders in a Church with fixed and significant gender based roles (i.e. women and the priesthood issues). The current statements are simply that. If we go back into earlier policy decisions (anything older than a decade or so) we see an entirely different approach to issues like gender reassignment surgery. Up until at least 2010, gender reassignment surgery only created problems when it was elective. Currently, the LDS Church has indicated two things relative to this in the Handbook - first, that there is a recognition that gender reassignment for infants can simply be wrong (with the implied suggestion that perhaps parents can wait, when possible, to have a better understanding of which gender is right):

And, unlike earlier periods,

The fact that we have these kinds of policies shows that there is a recognition that the issue isn't nearly as black and white as Spencer wants to make it out to be. It also suggests that the LDS Church recognizes that decisions made in gender reassignment surgery may not be in line with the essential, eternal, gender - a further recognition that gender and biological sex aren't nearly as connected as some would like. If the LDS Church ever changes some of its stances on these issues, it will be the Proclamation on the Family that becomes a key part of that shift.

James E. Talmage’s article is not a competing revelation, but rather supports the Church’s statements that gender (generally, male or female biological sex at birth) is an essential characteristic of each estate. Let’s say the Proclamation is inspired, revelatory in origin and spirit, and the basis for Church policy and that Talmage’s comments were expressions of inspired general principle (which is not the same as being “blanket”). That the First Presidency is referenced in policy puts the onus on them for revelation concerning difficult, non-general situations.

I see the changes in policy you pointed out to better address the needs of children considering evolving scientific understanding and socio-political and cultural pressures. Parents in the Church surely went ahead and made surgical and other decisions to address a child’s ambiguous gender without a handbook.

I think what is black and white is the general doctrine (gender is an eternal, essential characteristic), and the doctrine that ambiguity, whatever its source, is often part of mortality. Her policy shows that the Church recognizes that good-faith decisions on the exceptional gender reassignment surgery may not be in line with the infant’s essential, eternal, gender and that very exceptional cases require more revelation than someone without the keys of the kingdom can be expected to seek or obtain. To me this is consistent with the ongoing premise that perfect premortal characteristics are often not perfectly expressed in mortality.

What do you consider might be the next shift in policy, and how might the Proclamation be reinterpreted or revised? – which would have to come first since the proper order is that doctrine drives policy and not the other way around.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No, it's a completed demonstrable assertion - through experience in the real world - and through the recognition that the Church provides in its policies.

And yet, you haven't demonstrated it.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Why would I want to contravene the Proclamation.

I don't know.  You did, though.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am just pointing to the obvious - that we cannot say that gender is equivalent to biological sex at birth

Yes, we can say that.  The Church can explain, and has explained, that "gender" as used in the Proclamation "is equivalent to biological sex at birth."

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

and at the same time say that we have the occasional circumstance when the biological sex at birth is indeterminate.

Yes, we can say that, too.  See my prior post re: the coin analogy, epistemic uncertainty and ontological reality.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's pretty straight forward.

I'll leave you to it, then.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that the proclamation makes the obvious and important distinction that gender and biological sex are not always equivalent.

And yet the Church has repeatedly said that the Proclamation's use of "gender" is a reference to biological sex at birth.

You are fabricating a distinction that does not exist in the Church's literature.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that is a good place to understand the reality that some people experience in this lifetime. We can always create sexual binaries just like we can create any other binaries.

The sexual binary was not "created" by us, but rather discovered by us.  

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But wanting to create a binary by using the sorts of criteria which can only create binaries doesn't actually mean that people really do fall only into two categories in such a clean and discrete way.

DSDs reflect some exceedingly rare instances where the the application of the sexual binary is epistemically uncertain.  But that does not mean there is a third, or fourth, or whatever sex other than the two (male and female).

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And this is indicated by the Church policies which point to the problems that come with asserting that such a functional binary covers everyone.

Again, you are asserting, not demonstrating or explaining.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Respectfully, there is no such "gap."  Per the Church, "{t}he meaning of the word gender in the family proclamation is 'biological sex at birth.'"  The two terms are synonymous.

Now, instead of just repeating this like a mantra,

I tend to repeat basic facts where others try to obscure them.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

you should try to address the substance of what I provided.

I did.  I found it lacking in substance.  An unadorned say-so doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Clearly, the Church recognizes situations in which the "biological sex at birth" does not reflect the eternal gender of an individual.

The Church allows for epistemic uncertainty in some rare cases.  But the Church also posits the ontological reality of the sexual binary.  I think that is the part you are resisting.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Well, I have laid out my reasoning, and provided citations, etc.  I accept and endorse the Church's position and teachings regarding this issue.  

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

I don't think so.  DSDs are just one set of a large variety of conditions which can manifest in the human body.  A child born without legs is not, I think, going to be legless in the eternities.  A child born deaf will not, I think, be deaf in the eternities.  And a child born with a DSD, such that his or her sex is epistemically uncertain, will not have "a biologically sexually ambiguous body" in the eternities.

Exactly.

Hey!  We agree on something!  

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And I think that if we were to look at this, the issue should be clear. We won't have biological sexual ambiguity in the eternities.  We won't have gender ambiguous states in the eternities.

I agree.  We will all have unambiguously "male" or "female" bodies in the eternities.  DSDs are a temporal condition that, like deafness or missing limbs, will not be part of the eternities.

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But both of those problems do seem to occur here in mortality - just as some children are born blind, and other children are born with other mental and physical limitations.  You seem to be suggesting that somehow biological sex is significantly different from these other conditions - that it cannot have an ambiguous presentation in the here and now.

No, I am not saying that.  

I have, in fact, repeatedly acknowledged both DSDs and Gender Dysphoria, both of which can occur in this life, but neither of which reflects a departure from the sexual binary, either in this life or the next.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See my prior post re: the coin analogy, epistemic uncertainty and ontological reality.

Do you believe there is any time that further testing (when biological sex is indeterminate at birth) will not be able to determine if the person is biologically male or female?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think the Proclamation and commentary by Church leaders tracks with the sexual binary.

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:

DSDs are not a matter of choice, nor are they manifestations of "gender dysphoria."  From the above article:

DSDs are also pretty darn rare.  From the above article:

"Intersex" is not a third sex.  The biological classification of sex is based on gamete production: Males produce small gametes (sperm), and females produce large gametes (eggs).  No third gamete type exists, reinforcing the binary nature of biological sex.

DSDs, then, are a medical condition, not an "identity."  They are developmental variations affecting sexual differentiation, but they do not constitute a separate sex outside male or female.  People with DSDs still develop from either a male or female blueprint based on their underlying genetics.

A person with a DSD is either male or female (because human biology is a sexual binary, not a "spectrum" with third, fourth, etc., additional sexes), and while DSD may cause epistemic uncertainty, it does not cause or create a "sex" apart from either male or female.  That said, epistemic uncertainty does not contravene ontological reality, since the person still belongs to one of the two sexes at a biological level.

I think this is true from both a biological/scientific, and spiritual/religious/doctrinal, perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sexual binary is the norm and our revelations (and policy) are general in nature. Decisions on intervention to address ambiguity and exceptions can be made by those with the keys to receive this level of revelation as suggested in the policy. This would be the case for infants with atypical biological sex patterns, which usually creates uncertainty as to what parents are to do about it in eh child's best interest, especially when holding deep religious beliefs about both gender, the veil and any disconnect between current circumstance and what was the case premortally and to be the case in the resurrection. So yes, in the eternal scheme of things, each of us has a certain gender (which for some may yet need to be revealed) far longer than a temporarily (if ever) ambiguous one.