Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

"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?

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

Doctors generally acknowledge the sexual binary.  Some have been caught up in sociopolitical trends that try to argue for third or more sexes, but I think these ideologically-driven errors are getting sorted out.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

Respectfully, I think it does.

If a person is born blind, they still belong to the category of "sighted organisms" because humans as a species have two eyes designed for vision.  The exception does not negate the rule.

So it is with the sexual binary.  A person with a DSD still belongs to the category of male or female based on their fundamental reproductive biology.

57 minutes ago, Analytics said:

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.

What is a "woman"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sexual binary is the norm

I think this is not quite correct.  It's not that the sexual binary is the norm (as in "something that is usual, typical, or standard"), but rather that it is a statement that only two sexes, male and female, exist.  There is no third sex.

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

and our revelations (and policy) are general in nature.

Yes, I suppose so.  But I don't think either biological reality or our revelations allow for a third sex.

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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?

I have no particular opinion about what advances we may or may not see in terms the capacity of medical testing.

Meanwhile, however, in the here and now we can definitively state that there are only two sexes, and that DSDs do not create a third one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  A person with a DSD still belongs to the category of male or female based on their fundamental reproductive biology.

 

"mostly, though not always"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

in the here and now we can definitively state that there are only two sexes, and that DSDs do not create a third one.

But that does not speak to whether mortal biological sex always matches eternal gender.  If there is any case that is indeterminate in mortality, then how can mortal biological sex be said to always match eternal  gender since eternal gender is never indeterminate?

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[Analytics]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Doctors generally acknowledge the sexual binary.  Some have been caught up in sociopolitical trends that try to argue for third or more sexes, but I think these ideologically-driven errors are getting sorted out.

The “sexual binary” is a model. Most human beings fall in that model. Some don’t. That’s biological reality.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If a person is born blind, they still belong to the category of "sighted organisms”...

I disagree. Of course it’s true that most humans are sighted, and it’s fair to say that in general humans are sighted. But being blind and being sighted are two mutually exclusive things. If an organism is blind, then it isn’t sighted. Categorizing blind organisms as sighted organisms is a denial of biological reality.

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The exception does not negate the rule.

Yes it does. If you claim “all swans are white” and I show you a black swan, that proves you are wrong--one counterexample proves the rule is not universal. If you wanted to, you could claim the black swan is really a white swan with a birth defect and thus really is a white swan, but that would be the special pleading of somebody with an ideological commitment to the dogma that “all swans are white."

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this is not quite correct.  It's not that the sexual binary is the norm (as in "something that is usual, typical, or standard"), but rather that it is a statement that only two sexes, male and female, exist.  There is no third sex.

Yes, I suppose so.  But I don't think either biological reality or our revelations allow for a third sex.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I do mean only two sexes exist in the eternal makeup of God’s children. This is not necessarily borne out in mortality when children are born with ambiguous (to us) biology – but God knows them as they were and as they will be in the resurrection. Saints may rely on revelation (theirs or the First Presidency’s) to discover what he knows or to at least decide what to do about it.

By general, I mean doctrinally, only two unambiguous sexes exist eternally, including mortality. But I could still show you pictures where you wouldn’t be able to tell with certainty whether the person's eternal characteristic is male or female. That there are two unambiguous sexes by design doesn’t deny that for some, gender identification is indeterminate. You would not be able to discern their biological reality except that it is unknown to you (does that make you woke?  ). Our Church provides handbook guidance for parents of children in this situation.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Doctors generally acknowledge the sexual binary.  Some have been caught up in sociopolitical trends that try to argue for third or more sexes, but I think these ideologically-driven errors are getting sorted out.

The “sexual binary” is a model.  Most human beings fall in that model. Some don’t. That’s biological reality.

A model is a simplified representation of a reality or circumstance, and is used to explain a complex system, such as economic models, climate models, etc.).  The sexual binary is more than a model.  It is a fundamental biological fact rooted in gamete production and reproductive roles.  Every single person, including folks with DSDs, originates from either a sperm-producing (male) or egg-producing (female) reproductive structure.

You point to some rare variations ("some don't"), but the presence of rare variations does not negate a binary classification.  There is no third sex, which I think is the only way to construe your "some don't" claim.  That is not "biological reality" at all.  DSDs do not create or introduce a third sex, and are instead developmental variations of male and female.  Your statement is akin to saying "Most people are bipedal, some are not, ergo humans cannot be classified as bipedal."  Exceptions to a category do not invalidate the category.

I think your use of "biological reality" equivocates, and is vague and misleading.  If your statement is to posit that "things in nature can vary," then every single biological classification necessarily fails and is meaningless.  The biological reality here is that no human produces anything other than sperm or eggs, that there are only these two types of gametes, and that these two are the basis of sex.  DSDs do not introduce new gametes, and therefore, do not create a new sex.

Also, your "some don't" comment dodges the issue, in that you are implying, but not defending, the existence of a third sex.  I have provided a clear definition of biological sex, you have not.  If you want to argue against the sexual binary, it is incumbent upon you to provide a coherent definition of sex that includes a third category.  I'm all ears.  There is neither any third gamete, nor any third reproductive role, and ergo no third biological function of sex.

I think it is fairly clear that your comments here are not rooted in biology, but in ideology.  I acknowledge that I am advancing both biological and ideological arguments, but my ideological arguments (re: the Proclamation) dovetail pretty much exactly with the biological ones.  You, OTOH, are mirroring ideologically motivated claims that try to redefine sex as a "spectrum" rather than a binary.  This does not work because science is descriptive, not prescriptive.  That is, science identifies what is, not what folks like yourself wish it to be. 

Again, sexual dimorphism (male and female) is an empirical fact. 

DSDs are medical conditions, and are not evidence of a "third sex."

Gender Dysphoria is an entirely different discussion, so it won't do to smuggle it into discussions about the sexual binary.

If you disagree with the above, please feel free to define a third sex and its reproductive function.  I'm all ears.  If you can’t, then sex is binary.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

If a person is born blind, they still belong to the category of "sighted organisms”...

I disagree. Of course it’s true that most humans are sighted, and it’s fair to say that in general humans are sighted. But being blind and being sighted are two mutually exclusive things.

Yes.  They are two mutually exclusive classifications.  Human beings are, by design, in the "sighted" classification.  Your reasoning would have us point to a blind person and, on that basis, say that human beings are not in that classification.  That is not correct.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The exception does not negate the rule.

Yes it does. If you claim “all swans are white” and I show you a black swan, that proves you are wrong--one counterexample proves the rule is not universal. If you wanted to, you could claim the black swan is really a white swan with a birth defect and thus really is a white swan, but that would be the special pleading of somebody with an ideological commitment to the dogma that “all swans are white."

Quite a few logical flaws here.

First, it's a defective reference to the "Black Swan" concept, which applies to universal claims but not to categorical classifications based on function.  The claim "all swans are white" is a universal descriptive statement about color that can be falsified by a single counterexample.  Sex classification, however, is based on reproductive function, not a universal trait like color.  Consequently, atypical cases (DSDs) do not disprove the male-female binary any more than an amputee disproves that humans are bipedal.

Second, sexual binary is not a universal claim of absolute sameness, but a categorical classification based on reproductive roles.  Your statement above confuses statements about essential categorical structure with universal descriptive claims.  Again, the sexual binary exists because there are only two reproductive roles—male (sperm producer) and female (egg producer).   A person with a DSD does not constitute a 'third sex," and is instead a developmental variation within one of the two categories.  So if you want to apply your "black swan" analogy, you will need to point to a third sex.  Again, I'm all ears.

Third, I think you are accusing me of "special pleading," but that fails as well.  Special pleading occurs when someone makes an exception to a rule to avoid falsification.  I have not done that.  DSDs do not create a new sex category, and are instead developmental disorders affecting sex differentiation within the sexual binary framework.  This is not special pleading because exceptions within a category do not negate the category itself (again, any more than an amputee disproves that humans are bipedal).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

In the here and now we can definitively state that there are only two sexes, and that DSDs do not create a third one.

But that does not speak to whether mortal biological sex always matches eternal gender.  

About 99.99% of the time, it does.  There are a statistically tiny percentage of cases where a person's biological sex may remain epistemically uncertain.  The Lord will sort those situations out in the end.  But this is not the case for people with Gender Dysphoria, as they are pretty much always qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from people with DSDs (I suppose a person with a DSD may also develop Gender Dysphoria, hence the caveat).  But c'mon, we all know that all this discussion about DSDs is intended to create a justification to exempt Gender Dysphoric people from the Proclamation.  

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

If there is any case that is indeterminate in mortality, then how can mortal biological sex be said to always match eternal  gender?

See my prior comments about epistemic uncertainty v. ontological reality.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

"mostly, though not always"

"though not always" = third sex?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"though not always" = third sex?

Thanks,

-Smac

To me it appears it = something other.  Something on the male to female spectrum.

[smac97]

On 2/24/2025 at 5:02 PM, Senator said:

Quote

"though not always" = third sex?

To me it appears it = something other. 

Is that a yes?

On 2/24/2025 at 5:02 PM, Senator said:

Something on the male to female spectrum.

Respectfully, I think it is hard to argue against the sexual binary.  If there is a third sex, then what is its gamete?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 28, 2025 by smac97

[longview]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Is that a yes?

Respectfully, I think it is hard to argue the sexual binary.  If there is a third sex, then what is its gamete?

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe he is thinking of the Star Trek episode on an alien planet where three are required to interact together in order to reproduce? Imagine the hoary DSDs that would multiply!

[Senator]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is that a yes?

It is what I said, something other.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I think it is hard to argue the sexual binary.  If there is a third sex, then what is its gamete?

Thanks,

-Smac

According to what you have said, sometimes it is undetermined.  Something that leans one way or the other,  which to me would involve some level of subjectivity.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Senator

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But c'mon, we all know that all this discussion about DSDs is intended to create a justification to exempt Gender Dysphoric people from the Proclamation.  

You know it is possible to want to discuss whether an argument is logically valid without attaching it to a cause in the same way one might argue over how to solve a mathematical equation that does nothing but demonstrate how math is done.

We can even argue that something is not evidence of God’s existence, for example, while still having no doubt that God does exist.

You may always have an agenda for an argument, doesn’t mean everyone else has any more of an agenda than not likely bad arguments and wanting to improve or discard them.

I don’t think we do ourselves any favors by using poorly defined or logically invalid positions to argue from.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

But c'mon, we all know that all this discussion about DSDs is intended to create a justification to exempt Gender Dysphoric people from the Proclamation.  

You know it is possible to want to discuss whether an argument is logically valid without attaching it to a cause in the same way one might argue over how to solve a mathematical equation that does nothing but demonstrate how math is done.

Sure.  But this is not that.  Nobody would give two figs about DSDs, and would not discuss them much at all, except for their rhetorical utility in obscuring biological sex and attempting to differentiate it from "gender" for purposes of pushing for societal endorsement/ratification of, and the replacement of basic biological reality with, the subjective preferences of Gender Dysphoric people (e.g., "Trans women are women"), and/or for resisting the plain meaning of the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Senator said:

It is what I said, something other.

According to what you have said, sometimes it is undetermined.  Something that leans one way or the other,  which to me would involve some level of subjectivity.

There doesn’t have to be a defined third sex when recognizing that there is overlapping of attributes and how different people look at the attributes might lead one group to say “male” and another “female” and a third “indeterminate” just as one might look at all the combinations of white and black and one group insist there is only white and black and another group sees them as three colors, white, black, and grey and another defines all of them as on a spectrum with an unknown midpoint where one always defines what is on one side as black and the other is white because people’s perceptions of shades/tints vary based on experience and biology.

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  But this is not that.  Nobody would give two figs about DSDs, and would not discuss them much at all, except for their rhetorical utility in obscuring biological sex and attempting to differentiate it from "gender" for purposes of pushing for societal endorsement/ratification of, and the replacement of basic biological reality with, the subjective preferences of Gender Dysphoric people (e.g., "Trans women are women"), and/or for resisting the plain meaning of the Proclamation.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you would stop projecting your motivations on others, conversations will go better, imo.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Is that a yes?

Respectfully, I think it is hard to argue the sexual binary.  If there is a third sex, then what is its gamete?

Thanks,

-Smac

What comment was made that has prompted you to keep posting about / arguing against a third sex?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A model is a simplified representation of a reality or circumstance, and is used to explain a complex system, such as economic models, climate models, etc.).  The sexual binary is more than a model.  It is a fundamental biological fact rooted in gamete production and reproductive roles.  Every single person, including folks with DSDs, originates from either a sperm-producing (male) or egg-producing (female) reproductive structure.

You point to some rare variations ("some don't"), but the presence of rare variations does not negate a binary classification.  There is no third sex, which I think is the only way to construe your "some don't" claim.  That is not "biological reality" at all.  DSDs do not create or introduce a third sex, and are instead developmental variations of male and female.  Your statement is akin to saying "Most people are bipedal, some are not, ergo humans cannot be classified as bipedal."  Exceptions to a category do not invalidate the category.

I think your use of "biological reality" equivocates, and is vague and misleading.  If your statement is to posit that "things in nature can vary," then every single biological classification necessarily fails and is meaningless.  The biological reality here is that no human produces anything other than sperm or eggs, that there are only these two types of gametes, and that these two are the basis of sex.  DSDs do not introduce new gametes, and therefore, do not create a new sex.

Also, your "some don't" comment dodges the issue, in that you are implying, but not defending, the existence of a third sex.  I have provided a clear definition of biological sex, you have not.  If you want to argue against the sexual binary, it is incumbent upon you to provide a coherent definition of sex that includes a third category.  I'm all ears.  There is neither any third gamete, nor any third reproductive role, and ergo no third biological function of sex.

I think it is fairly clear that your comments here are not rooted in biology, but in ideology.  I acknowledge that I am advancing both biological and ideological arguments, but my ideological arguments (re: the Proclamation) dovetail pretty much exactly with the biological ones.  You, OTOH, are mirroring ideologically motivated claims that try to redefine sex as a "spectrum" rather than a binary.  This does not work because science is descriptive, not prescriptive.  That is, science identifies what is, not what folks like yourself wish it to be. 

Again, sexual dimorphism (male and female) is an empirical fact. 

DSDs are medical conditions, and are not evidence of a "third sex."

Gender Dysphoria is an entirely different discussion, so it won't do to smuggle it into discussions about the sexual binary.

If you disagree with the above, please feel free to define a third sex and its reproductive function.  I'm all ears.  If you can’t, then sex is binary.

Yes.  They are two mutually exclusive classifications.  Human beings are, by design, in the "sighted" classification.  Your reasoning would have us point to a blind person and, on that basis, say that human beings are not in that classification.  That is not correct.

Quite a few logical flaws here.

First, it's a defective reference to the "Black Swan" concept, which applies to universal claims but not to categorical classifications based on function.  The claim "all swans are white" is a universal descriptive statement about color that can be falsified by a single counterexample.  Sex classification, however, is based on reproductive function, not a universal trait like color.  Consequently, atypical cases (DSDs) do not disprove the male-female binary any more than an amputee disproves that humans are bipedal.

Second, sexual binary is not a universal claim of absolute sameness, but a categorical classification based on reproductive roles.  Your statement above confuses statements about essential categorical structure with universal descriptive claims.  Again, the sexual binary exists because there are only two reproductive roles—male (sperm producer) and female (egg producer).   A person with a DSD does not constitute a 'third sex," and is instead a developmental variation within one of the two categories.  So if you want to apply your "black swan" analogy, you will need to point to a third sex.  Again, I'm all ears.

Third, I think you are accusing me of "special pleading," but that fails as well.  Special pleading occurs when someone makes an exception to a rule to avoid falsification.  I have not done that.  DSDs do not create a new sex category, and are instead developmental disorders affecting sex differentiation within the sexual binary framework.  This is not special pleading because exceptions within a category do not negate the category itself (again, any more than an amputee disproves that humans are bipedal).

Thanks,

-Smac

Your argument is a mess of contradictions and special pleading. You claim sex is binary because there are only two reproductive roles—sperm producer and egg producer—but that’s just circular reasoning. You’re defining sex in a way that excludes anything that doesn’t fit your narrative, then pretending those exceptions don’t count. That’s like saying, “All swans are white, and if you find a black one, it’s just a defective white swan.” That’s exactly what you’re doing with intersex people.

Your amputee analogy is just as bad. Losing a leg doesn’t change the fundamental structure of a human body, but sex isn’t just one trait—it’s a combination of chromosomes, hormones, gonads, and secondary characteristics. If a person is born with ambiguous or mixed sex traits, they aren’t a “damaged” male or female—they are proof that sex isn’t as simple as you claim. Your own logic collapses under the weight of its own exceptions.

And let’s talk about your "third sex" demand—that’s just a weak bait-and-switch. I don’t need to prove a third sex to show that your rigid binary doesn’t hold up. The existence of natural biological variations alone is enough to prove that sex isn’t as clean-cut as you claim. That’s how falsification works: if your rule says there are only two categories, and I show you a single exception, then your rule is wrong. You don’t get to move the goalposts and pretend it doesn’t count.

The truth is, you’re not arguing science—you’re arguing ideology. You need sex to be binary, so instead of engaging with reality, you twist the definitions to protect your position. But biology doesn’t care about your labels. It doesn’t fit into neat little boxes just because it makes you more comfortable. You can call intersex traits "disorders" all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that they exist—and the fact that they exist means your so-called binary isn’t binary at all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On the one hand we have a lawyer who loves nice neat categories and black and white thinking. On the other hand we have scientists who love the exceptions and edge cases because that’s where the next General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is.  Biology and life are messy. At every level. Defying our best efforts at best classification and characterization. At every level. 

Edited February 25, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On the one hand we have a lawyer who loves nice neat categories and black and white thinking. On the other hand we have scientists who love the exceptions and edge cases because that’s where the next General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is.  Biology and life are messy. At every level. Defying our best efforts at best classification and characterization. At every level. 

And yet, the sexual binary is there, with no coherent third sex in view.

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet, the sexual binary is there, with no coherent third sex in view.

And yet, the LDS Church agrees that:

Quote

Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity ...

On some level, my concern isn't with your belief that it is a simple binary - we all already understand that this is your point of view. I am concerned with the LDS Church's position that it isn't a simple binary. You don't get to speak for the Church (as much as you seem to want to). Policy may get to have exceptions. Theology must be universal.

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, the LDS Church agrees that:

On some level, my concern isn't with your belief that it is a simple binary - we all already understand that this is your point of view. I am concerned with the LDS Church's position that it isn't a simple binary. You don't get to speak for the Church (as much as you seem to want to). Policy may get to have exceptions. Theology must be universal.

It's like you don't want to understand what @smac97 is arguing, which leads you to (purposely?) misinterpret the Church's statement.

Nothing in that statement hints at a third sex or gender fluidity, it is simply saying we should be compassionate towards those whose gender (M/F),without extensive testing, is not immediately obvious at birth.

Of course, we should be compassionate towards everybody. But we should not confuse compassion with acquiesce when it comes to perfectly normal people demanding we accept their "gender fluidity", allowing men to play against women in women's sports, and all the other things be demanded of society.

Edited February 25, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving