Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you are referencing here.

There are two gametes (their "size" does not really matter), ergo two biological sexes.  There is no "third" sex.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Rather there is a broad spectrum of how "male" and "female" present in humans. Starting at the chromosomes, up through the primary sex characteristics, and beyond into the secondary sex characteristics.

[longview]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Rather there is a broad spectrum of how "male" and "female" present in humans. Starting at the chromosomes, up through the primary sex characteristics, and beyond into the secondary sex characteristics.

Obfuscation. Pure and simple. Straining at a gnat and swallowing a whole camel.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The sexual binary is basic biology.  I "love" it in the same sense as I "love" 2+2=4.  It's a basic truth and statement of reality. 

But 2 + 2 =4 is not a basic truth or statement of reality. Whether or not it’s true depends on the assumptions and definitions one attaches to the statement.

If my assumptions and definitions exist in base 3, for example, the statement is nonsense as the symbol “4” is meaningless in the context of base 3.  

Same with the sexual binary…whether it’s a basic truth or statement of reality depends on the assumptions and definitions one brings to the discussion. Current science brings definitions and assumptions about biological sex that do not allow for a neat division into two sexes only without any overlap or grey areas because biological/medical science has discovered that there are quite a few variables that contribute to biological sex and these variables sometimes contradict each other (my guess is they will even find at least a few more as time goes on).

Insisting that the conversation is not only simple(for example, the way I first learned it in elementary or middle school eons ago that biological sex means men and boys are XY and girls are XX), but is always simple is ignoring how biological sex is discussed/researched among those most knowledgeable about biology who are using the most accurate and therefore the most realistic (in a biological sense) of definitions.

Ignoring the variety of actual biology while claiming to deal with “reality” seems illogical to me.

And please don’t say the above is insisting on a third sex…that would depend on how I choose to define the variation and I don’t currently choose to create boxes based on nonexistent bright lines of demarcation.  “Indeterminate biological sex” is not a third sex.

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I plugged this into "our buddy ChatGPT"

With no well poisoning here is ChatGPT on biological sex:

Quote

How is sex defined biologically

ChatGPT said:

Biologically, sex is defined based on physical and genetic characteristics that differentiate organisms into categories—typically male and female—in most species, including humans. The primary determinants of biological sex include:

1. Chromosomal Sex:

   • Humans typically have 46 chromosomes, including two sex chromosomes.
   • Females usually have two X chromosomes (XX), while males have one X and one Y chromosome (XY).
   • Variations such as XXY, X0, or other combinations can lead to intersex conditions.

2. Gonadal Sex:

   • Refers to the type of gonads (reproductive organs) an individual has:
     • Ovaries in females, which produce eggs (ova).
     • Testes in males, which produce sperm.

3. Hormonal Sex:

   • Different levels of sex hormones influence development:
     • Estrogen and progesterone are predominant in females.
     • Testosterone is predominant in males.
   • These hormones play crucial roles in secondary sexual characteristics, such as body hair, voice pitch, and fat distribution.

4. Anatomical Sex:

   • Refers to physical differences in reproductive organs and external genitalia:
     • Females typically have structures like the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes.
     • Males typically have structures like the penis and scrotum.

5. Secondary Sexual Characteristics:

   • These emerge during puberty and include traits such as breast development, facial hair, and differences in muscle mass and fat distribution.

6. Genetic and Molecular Factors:

   • Specific genes, such as the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, play a role in sex differentiation by triggering the development of male characteristics.

Intersex and Biological Complexity

While the male/female binary is common, biology also recognizes intersex variations, where individuals may have chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, or anatomical characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. Intersex traits can occur naturally and highlight that biological sex is not strictly binary in all cases.

Summary

While biological sex is often categorized into male and female based on chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and anatomy, natural variations exist that make this categorization more complex.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

Obfuscation. Pure and simple. Straining at a gnat and swallowing a whole camel.

It's hard when your ideology runs into the real world isn't it.

[Analytics]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I plugged this into "our buddy ChatGPT":

Quote

A guy I've been debating about the sexual binary is quoting you, ChatGPT, for the proposition that the sexual binary is not "absolute," that "humans do not display an absolute binary in biological sex," and that because of complexities involved with DSDs, "many biologists and medical professionals view sex as a spectrum rather than a strict binary."  So is human sex a "binary" or a "spectrum"?

There are three subscription levels for ChatGPT. Basic (free), Plus ($20 per month), and Pro ($200 per month). With the Pro version, you get access to ChatGPT 01 pro. What’s clear is that ChatGPT4o shoots from the hip, and 01 pro does deep research and thinks things out; “best at reasoning” is how it is advertised. 

Without any context or leading information, I asked 4o the exact same question you did. It thought about the question for less than half a second and told me the following, which is more or less the same answer you got.

Chat GPT 4o

Quote

Human biological sex is fundamentally binary, meaning it is based on two primary categories: male and female. This binary classification is rooted in reproductive roles—males produce small gametes (sperm), and females produce large gametes (eggs). This distinction is consistent across mammals, including humans.

However, the binary is not absolute in the sense that there are rare variations, such as differences in sex development (DSDs) (formerly called intersex conditions), which can result in atypical chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical traits. While these cases introduce complexity, they do not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of humans fall clearly into the male or female category.

The claim that "many biologists and medical professionals view sex as a spectrum" is a misrepresentation of the mainstream scientific view. While some scholars in gender studies and certain areas of biology discuss sex in spectrum-like terms, the dominant biological and medical consensus maintains that sex is a binary with exceptions, not a true spectrum where individuals are evenly distributed across a range of sexes.

In short:

• Sex is binary because it is rooted in reproductive biology.
• Sex is not absolute because rare conditions exist that blur the lines in some individuals.
• Sex is not a spectrum in the sense that gender is; rather, it is a binary with some atypical cases.

I then switched it to 01 pro mode and repeated the exercise. In 01 pro mode, it spent 1 minute and 49 seconds analyzing the question. It eventually said:

Chat GPT 01 pro

Quote

Short Answer: Biological sex in humans is predominantly bimodal (i.e., most people fall into “male” or “female” categories), but it is not a perfect, hard-and-fast binary. A minority of people are born with variations often referred to as intersex/DSDs (differences of sex development) that make simple “male” or “female” classifications inadequate. Because of these natural variations, many scientists and medical professionals say sex is best described as a spectrum (or at least “more complicated than a strict binary”).

---

Understanding the Debate

1. Typical Case: “Male” or “Female.”

   • For the vast majority of humans, biological sex aligns unambiguously with one of two categories: male or female. This is why people often speak of sex as a “binary,” because most individuals produce one of two types of gametes (sperm or eggs), and their anatomy/hormonal profiles align with these categories.

2. Variations Exist: Intersex/DSDs.

   • Intersex conditions (also known as DSDs) involve congenital variations in chromosomes, gonads, hormone levels, or genitalia that do not fit neatly into typical definitions of male or female.
   • Examples include Complete or Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), Swyer Syndrome, 5-Alpha-Reductase Deficiency, and others.
   • While intersex individuals comprise a relatively small proportion of the population, their existence demonstrates that biology does not always produce a clean M/F split.

3. Bimodal vs. Strict Binary.

   • If we look at traits such as chromosomes (XX, XY, mosaic, etc.), hormone levels, or gonadal structure across the population, we see a bimodal distribution—two peaks around what we label “male” and “female.”
   • However, a strict binary suggests there is zero overlap or gray area, which is not the case. Even for typical XX or XY individuals, hormonal ranges can show significant variation, and some genetic traits can blur boundaries.

4. Spectrum, But with Two Major Clusters.

   • Because a bimodal distribution implies two main clusters with variations between (rather than a single continuous slope), many scientists say “spectrum” is a good term if we appreciate that most people cluster near one end or the other.
   • In practical terms, the majority of humans identify (and are categorized) as male or female, but intersex/DSD variations remind us that biology can produce nuanced outcomes.

5. Why This Matters.

   • Real people with intersex traits sometimes face significant challenges (such as unnecessary surgeries in infancy or denial of appropriate gender markers on documents) when society insists on a strict binary. Recognizing these variations is not about denying that most people fall into male or female categories—it’s about making space for those who don’t.

---

Conclusion

• Is human sex a “binary” or “spectrum”?
  • It depends on the level of detail you want to capture. If you only look at basic reproductive roles (sperm vs. egg), you’ll find a strong bimodal pattern—hence, people refer to a “binary.”
  • But if you look at the full range of biological traits (chromosomes, hormones, external and internal anatomy), you see that a strict binary misses real-world complexity. This has led many in biology and medicine to speak of sex in more nuanced terms—a spectrum with two major clusters (male/female) and natural variations in between.

Put simply, human sex is mostly—but not entirely—binary. We talk about a spectrum to account for the many ways real human bodies and genetics can vary outside the typical male/female categories.

FWIW.

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With no well poisoning here is ChatGPT on biological sex:

 

I want to get in on the fun of using ChatGPT as authoritative….

Quote

You said:

Is defining biological sex as a spectrum realistic?

ChatGPT said:

Defining biological sex as a spectrum is realistic when considering the diversity of human biology. While traditionally we think of biological sex in terms of two categories—male and female—there are natural variations that don’t fit neatly into these categories. These variations can include differences in chromosomes (e.g., intersex conditions), hormonal levels, and reproductive organs.

For example, individuals with conditions like Turner syndrome (one X chromosome), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY chromosomes), or androgen insensitivity syndrome (where individuals may have XY chromosomes but develop typically female characteristics) demonstrate how biological sex can exist along a continuum rather than as fixed categories.

Recognizing biological sex as a spectrum allows for a more inclusive understanding that acknowledges the complexities of human biology. It aligns with scientific findings on genetic and hormonal diversity, though in practice, societal norms and medical classifications often still operate within a binary framework.

So, while the spectrum view may challenge traditional models, it reflects a more nuanced and scientifically accurate understanding of biological sex

 

[Analytics]

I then asked 01 pro the following:

Somebody on the internet [ @smac97 ] said the following: "Such epistemic uncertainty is mostly, though not always, "resolvable" through medical testing.  Certain rare conditions defy easy classification, such as Mosaicism/Chimerism.  But even in these rare cases, the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level."

Is that true? Does it make sense to categorize every single human being as either male or female? Is that even the right question?

It took 3 minutes and 22 seconds to think about an answer to this, and responded with this (be sure to read the “final takeaway” at the end): 

Quote

Short Answer

• Many individuals with intersex traits (or differences of sex development, DSDs) cannot simply be dropped into a tidy “fundamental male” or “fundamental female” box once you look at all relevant biological markers (genes, gonads, hormone function, potential gamete production, and so on).
• Yes, many people can be firmly categorized as either male or female by standard medical or biological measures. But for a portion of the population—though comparatively rare—that categorization can be very difficult or even impossible to pin down definitively.
• More importantly, intersex advocates often argue that forcing any and every human into “one of two categories” (for instance, on birth certificates, official IDs, or social roles) can be harmful—and may miss what’s really important about supporting someone’s health and identity.

---

1. What Does “Fundamentally Male or Female” Even Mean?

• Multiple Layers of Sex
  When people talk about being “male” or “female,” they can mean different things:

  1. Chromosomal Sex (XX, XY, mosaic, etc.)
  2. Gonadal Sex (ovaries, testes, or ovotestes)
  3. Hormonal Sex (testosterone, estrogen levels, responsiveness)
  4. Phenotypic/Anatomical Sex (external genitalia, internal reproductive structures)
  5. Gamete Production (eggs or sperm, if any)

  For most individuals, these layers align consistently: for instance, someone with XY chromosomes has testes, higher testosterone, typical “male” external genitals, and produces sperm. But for others, they do not always align.

• “Ontologically” Aligning with One Sex
  The statement “the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level” presupposes that each human being must have one “true” sex that can be definitively diagnosed if we just test enough. Intersex conditions illustrate that this is not always so clear:

  • People with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, for example, may be born with atypical genitalia and have a shift in sex characteristics during puberty.
  • Those with androgen insensitivity syndrome might have XY chromosomes, produce testosterone, but their cells are partially or completely unresponsive to it—leading to female-typical external anatomy despite an XY karyotype.
  • Mosaicism or Chimerism can result in some cells being XX and others XY, which can lead to mixed or ambiguous gonadal development.

  In such cases, the idea that there must be a single, true “male” or “female” underlying reality starts to break down.

---

2. “Epistemic Uncertainty” Versus Real Biological Complexity

• Epistemic Uncertainty
  This phrase refers to uncertainty stemming from lack of knowledge. The argument is that if we simply had enough data (e.g., genetic tests, hormone assays, internal imaging), we could categorize a person as definitively male or female.

• Inherent Biological Variation
  But what if there is no single test or metric that provides a one-size-fits-all answer? When a person’s chromosomes, gonads, hormone function, and phenotypic traits do not converge on a single category, it may not be about “not having enough data.” Rather, it may be that the data itself is mixed. This is the case for many people with DSDs: even with exhaustive medical testing, the mosaic of traits can be intrinsically ambiguous.

---

3. Does It Make Sense to Categorize Everyone As Male or Female?

• Most People, Sure. Everyone, Not Necessarily.
  In a broad population sense, yes—most individuals fall under “male” or “female” categories without complication. But the attempt to retroactively fold all humans into that binary can become quite forced once you encounter people with complex DSDs.

• The Bigger Question: Why Must We Force Everyone into Two Boxes?
  From a purely practical standpoint, sex labels often matter for medical decisions, record-keeping, and social norms. However, intersex advocates and many medical professionals argue that we should focus on what is actually helpfulfor a person’s health, well-being, and self-identity rather than rigidly applying binary labels.

  • For instance, a child with ambiguous genitalia does not automatically need “corrective” surgery at birth just to fit a male/female standard.
  • Some intersex adults prefer a “male” or “female” designation; others prefer a more open designation that reflects the reality of their body and/or identity.

• Sex vs. Gender
  This conversation often blurs the lines between sex (biological) and gender (social, psychological, and cultural roles). While the majority of people align in both sex and gender as a man or a woman, intersex conditions show us that even biology has variations beyond a strict M/F binary, quite apart from any discussions around gender identity.

---

4. Is “Which Box Are You?” Even the Right Question?

• Function vs. Classification
  In everyday life, classification by sex typically serves social and cultural functions. For medicine, it may guide some diagnostic or treatment decisions. But for someone with a DSD, the more pressing questions often are:

  • “Is my body healthy, and how do I keep it healthy?”
  • “How can I live in a society that tries to squeeze me into a category that doesn’t fully match my physiology?”
  • “Which identity feels right for me, and how can I be supported in that?”

• Empathy and Practicality
  From an ethical viewpoint, insisting there must be a single “true” sex for every person can lead to invasive testing and procedures. Moreover, even if you can find a cluster of traits that seems “male” or “female,” the individual’s lived experience—both physically and psychologically—might be more nuanced than that tidy label suggests.

---

Final Takeaway

Yes, for most people, classifying them as male or female is straightforward. However, for a significant minority of intersex people, the notion of a single, unequivocal “fundamental sex” does not match medical reality.

Rather than forcing everyone into two boxes—especially when nature itself provides gray areas—many scientists, medical professionals, and intersex advocates suggest that a more nuanced approach is both more accurate and more compassionate. So the real question is less “Are you male or female?” and more “How can we respect, support, and understand the actual variations of human biology and identity?”

 

[smac97]

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Quote

Well, no.  The sexual binary is "the biology of real-world people."  DSDs are not, do not create, a third sex.

You are right in a general sense, but not in an absolute sense.

And yet you persist in not identifying or explaining this supposed third sex.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

What medical testing, specifically? 

Oi.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Let’s look at a specific example. Emily Quinn has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. It’s a genetic condition that essentially causes her body to not respond to testosterone. When she was born, the doctor looked between her legs and said, “it’s a baby girl!” She has a perfectly normal looking vagina, and other than being relatively tall and having big feet, looks like a woman. When she hit puberty, she grew breasts, and did not grow body hair.

But on the inside, she has XY chromosomes. She doesn’t have a uterus, and happens to have two testes where her ovaries would be expected to be. Her basic biological issue is that her body doesn’t respond to the testosterone her testes produce, but rather convert it to estrogen.

Where, specifically, does this individual with a vagina, high-pitched voice, breasts, and no body hair fit in the binary you insist she be shoehorned into? Is she a man with a vagina, or a woman with testes?

I'll leave the epistemic uncertainty to those with training to address it.  Meanwhile, the ontological reality is there, even if it's not, in a statistically tiny number of individual instances, discernible through current medical means.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

And most fundamentally, why is it so important to you that she be strictly classified as one or the other?

I have said nothing about Emily Quinn.

I think we should resist ideological trends which contravene both science, common sense and revealed principles.  But apart from that abstraction, and from commenting about it on this message board, this issue is not particularly "important" to me.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

From my perspective, the real lesson we learn from Emily is the consciousness-expanding fact that genetically, all people are almost identical.

And yet, the sexual binary exists.  There is no third sex.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Almost everybody already has almost all of the genes needed to be completely male or completely female, and to the extent their bodies develop as one, the other, both, or neither depends on which genes activate and which ones do not. That’s why there are simple, well understood drugs that will make people develop or not develop characteristics of one sex or the other. When you look at what’s going on at a cellular level, there are only a couple little things that trigger somebody to be male or female. That’s why some of our cousins in the animal kingdom can actually switch between being male and female.

Well, no.  Your statement here includes several substantial logical and scientific flaws.

First, while it is true that males and females share many genes involved in sexual development, sex differentiation is not just about gene activation, it is fundamentally about chromosomal differences (XX vs. XY) and the presence or absence of the SRY gene.

Second, differentiation of sex is not a spectrum of arbitrary gene activation.  Instead, differentiation a binary developmental pathway which is initiated by the presence or absence of the Y chromosome and the SRY gene.  The SRY gene on the Y chromosome initiates male development. Without it, an embryo defaults to female development.

Third, while hormone treatments can influence secondary sex characteristics such as body hair, muscle mass, fat distribution, voice pitch, etc., they cannot change a person’s chromosomal sex or reproductive function.  Virtually every cell in the human body is specifically encoded as male (Y chromosome) or female (no Y chromosome).  Similarly, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones do not turn males into females (or vice versa).  Instead, they only alter outward traits while leaving genetic and reproductive biology unchanged.  A biologically male may be able to "pass" as a woman, such as by taking estrogen.  However, by doing so he will not develop ovaries or produce eggs, and a biologically female person who takes testosterone will not produce sperm.

Fourth, your reference to "some of our cousins in the animal kingdom" does not work.  Unlike those animals, humans do not have the biological mechanisms for sequential hermaphroditism, such as is seen in some fish (clownfish) and amphibians (some frogs).  In mammals, however, sex is hardwired and cannot switch postnatally.  Once male or female development has occurred, it is irreversible at the chromosomal and gonadal levels.

You are treating sex as something that is fluid and changeable, rather than a biological function rooted in reproduction.  Sex is defined by reproductive function, not by hormones, secondary characteristics, or gene activation.  The only two reproductive roles in humans are sperm production (male) and egg production (female).  There is no third sex, and no amount of hormonal alteration, gene activation, or surgical modification can create a third reproductive role, nor can these things allow a human to truly change from one sex to another at a functional reproductive level.  All they can do is let a biological male "pass" to one extend or another as female.  He will never actually be female, though.  The "trans women are women" thing is a rank falsehood.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Here is why I have a problem with how your frame this. If we are rigorous with your logic, it goes like this:

1. Humans are sighted
2. Bob is blind
3. Therefore, Bob isn’t human

Nope.  This is a false analogy.   You are confusing categorical classification with typical function.

Sightedness is a function, not a fundamental category of human biology.  OTOH, sex is a fundamental reproductive category, not just a trait that may or may not develop properly.

A correct version of your analogy would go like this:

1. Humans are sexually dimorphic (male and female).
2. Bob has a DSD.
3. Bob is still either male or female, with an atypical presentation.

Or try this one:

1. Humans are, as a category, a two-armed species.
2. Some people are born with a developmental anomaly resulting in them having only one arm.
3. This does not mean humans have a "spectrum" of limbs, or that they are a “limb spectrum” species.  It just means that anomalies exist within the two-armed framework.

Sex is determined by reproductive function (males produce sperm, females produce eggs).  DSDs do not introduce a new "third" reproductive function, and are instead atypical variations within the male or female category.  Ipso facto, a person with a DSD does not constitute a third sex, just as a blind person does not constitute a "non-human" category.

If sex is, as you assert, not binary, then please define the third sex. What is its reproductive function? What gamete does it produce? If you can’t answer that, then sex remains binary, and your analogy is not valid.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

A woman is a female human being. Why do you ask?

Can a woman also be a biological male who "identifies" as a "female human being"?

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Let’s cut to the chase on this. Let’s be honest.

Your commitment to the sex binary isn’t scientific, it’s theological.

Let us embrace the healing power of "and."

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  The sexual binary is a statement of reality, regardless of how I feel about it in a "theological sense."  As Elder McConkie put it: "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."  Sometimes this can be obscured or difficult to sort out.  But the sexual binary is one of those plain-as-day things where "science" plainly corresponds to revealed doctrines.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

You selectively choose what science you like and what science you ignore.

Says the guy denying the sexual binary, and who thinks that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

What’s really going on here is you believe the Proclamation on the Family teaches that sex is eternal and divinely fixed. Fine. But if you’re going to argue from science, let’s apply it consistently.

We can do both, since the doctrine and the science agree.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

So tell me—what’s the biological definition of a ‘male spirit’ and a ‘female spirit’? Do spirits have sex chromosomes? Do male spirits produce spiritual sperm and female spirits produce spiritual eggs? Is there a peer-reviewed study on the gamete-producing capacity of disembodied intelligences?

See The Proclamation.  

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Or will you admit you are just using selective science to prop up a theological claim you already believe?

No.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Regarding Emily Quinn, I think she is a human being with both male and female characteristics, and that trying to say she is  one or the other is the wrong question. She is a human being with characteristics of both, and there is no reason to say she is one or the other.

Yes, there is a reason.  All humans, every single one, is either a male or female.  It's one or the other, and there is no third sex.  This is ontologically real and true, even where epistemic uncertainty exists as to a particular individual, such as Emily Quinn.

And none of this has diddly to do with people with Gender Dysphoria.  

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

In contrast, you believe it is foundationally important that she be classified as one or the other, right?

Not sure what you mean here.  

If you were insisting she were a space alien, I would disagree with that, but I wouldn't devote much time or attention to it.  Similarly, if you suggest that she is neither male nor female, that she has a "third" sex, I will respectfully disagree with that (mostly on biological grounds), but I won't spend much time/effort on that either.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

We cannot say, “she doesn’t fit into the sex dichotomy.” We must say that she either is a woman or is a man. Which she is might be indeterminate, but she is one or the other. Right? Your insistence that she is one or the other isn’t scientific. It’s theological.

It's biological.  There are only two sexes, male and female, and there is no third sex.  This is a statement of biological fact that just happens to also be stated/implied in The Proclamation.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

The reason you need to classify her as one or the other is so we can know the sex of her spirit, right?

No.  I don't know if she is a member of the Church.

I think the primary importance of resisting efforts to deny the sexual binary is because that denial takes us to strange and unhealthy and counterfactual places.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

And the reason we need to know the sex of her spirit is so we can know whether her purpose after she dies is to hold the priesthood and be a god, or bear spirit babies and be a goddess, right? Isn’t that what this is really about?

Nope.  I hadn't thought of those considerations at all.  This topic is, for me, far more pertinent to critiquing trans ideology.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

Here’s the ironic part. She absolutely, positively, cannot depend on personal revelation to determine whether or not her spirit is male or female.

Unlike 99.99% of humanity, her biological sex appears to be epistemically uncertain.  And if scientific testing cannot resolve that ambiguity, and if she were to join the Church and subscribe to its tenets, I think she could turn to personal revelation as part of the decision-making process about whether she should live as a woman or as a man.  The Church's policies allow for that:

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.

So, yeah.

On 2/25/2025 at 11:00 AM, Analytics said:

While spiritual impulses can be used to determine whether or not there were Nephites roaming Guatemala 1,000 years ago, we absolutely, positively, must not use personal revelation to determine the sex of our own spirits. Right? 

Well, not quite.

This confirms what I have been suspecting, which is that all your (and SU's, and Ben's, etc.) rhetoric is not really about people with DSDs.  Instead, you are using DSDs as a pretext to move over to talking about people with Gender Dysphoria, whom you want to argue can claim to be "a woman trapped in man's body" (or vice versa), who could in a Latter-day Saint context "use personal revelation to determine the sex of {their} own spirits," and therefore disregard The Proclamation, or something along those lines).  Yours is a theological argument masquerading as a scientific one (including feigning concern for people with DSDs).

Anyhoo, here's what I think: Folks who are beholden to trans ideology are kicking against the pricks, both as to doctrine and to basic biological reality.  Using discussions of DSDs as a pretext to make a theological argument against The Proclamation, or to advance the incongruent-with-reality notion that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, doesn't really work.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

There are three subscription levels for ChatGPT. Basic (free), Plus ($20 per month), and Pro ($200 per month). With the Pro version, you get access to ChatGPT 01 pro. What’s clear is that ChatGPT4o shoots from the hip, and 01 pro does deep research and thinks things out; “best at reasoning” is how it is advertised. 

Without any context or leading information, I asked 4o the exact same question you did. It thought about the question for less than half a second and told me the following, which is more or less the same answer you got.

Chat GPT 4o

I then switched it to 01 pro mode and repeated the exercise. In 01 pro mode, it spent 1 minute and 49 seconds analyzing the question. It eventually said:

Chat GPT 01 pro

FWIW.

 

Hmmmm….kind of like how one gets basic base-10 in elementary school, different base numeral systems in middle school and complex number systems and other more refined knowledge after that…

[Doctor Steuss]

"There are only two biological sexes."

"Well, biologically, it's more of a spectrum."

"So you're saying there are three?  Name the third."

 

I love the internet.  Lol.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This confirms what I have been suspecting, which is that all your (and SU's, and Ben's, etc.) rhetoric is not really about people with DSDs.  Instead, you are using DSDs as a pretext to move over to talking about people with Gender Dysphoria,

I think you are holding up a mirror again. You are misrepresenting the biology of sex to buttress your argument when it comes to gender. 
 

ETA: can’t speak for others, but my support for transgendered people is completely independent of the science of biological sex traits. 

Edited February 25, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's hard when your ideology runs into the real world isn't it.

Perhaps it’s a wee bit bold of me, but I take particular delight in knowing for certain that one glorious day the false ideas of the deceived woke crowd are going to unavoidably disintegrate into nothingness when they collide with the indestructible law of God. Of especial delight is the happy prospect that most of those who are currently deceived will one day have their eyes opened and gladly confess that they were wrong.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose….

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. (The Family a Proclamation to the World)

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

"There are only two biological sexes."

"Well, biologically, it's more of a spectrum."

"So you're saying there are three?  Name the third."

 

I love the internet.  Lol.

I know right!? You can’t make this stuff up. 

Edited February 25, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This confirms what I have been suspecting, which is that all your (and SU's, and Ben's, etc.) rhetoric is not really about people with DSDs.  Instead, you are using DSDs as a pretext to move over to talking about people with Gender Dysphoria, whom you want to argue can claim to be "a woman trapped in man's body" (or vice versa), who could in a Latter-day Saint context "use personal revelation to determine the sex of {their} own spirits," and therefore disregard The Proclamation, or something along those lines).  Yours is a theological argument masquerading as a scientific one (including feigning concern for people with DSDs).

This reminds me of conversations that insist Mormons are only interested in converting others and not actually being friends and using evidence for this that they invited someone to a church activity…because people would never invite friends to activities that interest them.  Would they argue that football fans would never ask a friend to go to a football game with them, they only invite someone to a game because they are interested in turning them into a football fan too?  Yet there is only one way to interpret a LDS inviting someone to a church activity in their minds.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

This confirms what I have been suspecting, which is that all your (and SU's, and Ben's, etc.) rhetoric is not really about people with DSDs.  Instead, you are using DSDs as a pretext to move over to talking about people with Gender Dysphoria,

I think you are holding up a mirror again.

I'm not playing shell games (using people with DSDs, ugh).  This is really a discussion about Gender Dysphoria.  I think we should acknowledge that.

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are misrepresenting the biology of sex to buttress your argument when it comes to gender. 

"Gender" originated as a linguistic term, which the execrable Dr. John Money appropriated as a more-or-less synonym for "sex," then later differentiated it to refer to behaviors and stereotypes, which has ended up being a pretty important part of the rhetorical framework for claims like "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman," "trans women are women," etc.

In my view, "gender" is either A) a co-equal and precise synonym for "biological sex," or B) a broad reference to a pastiche of generalizations and stereotypes about men and women.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not sure I understand your question.

First, I don't think that the Church will (or should) shift from it's binary view in the eternal sense. That is, their theological basis for the binary view isn't challenged by any of this (in my opinion). The notion of eternal partnerships between binary partners is a relatively settled theology.

What isn't so settled (despite the efforts here at pretending that it is) is the question of the extent to which that binary system is not present for everyone in mortality. The Church, for a wide range of reasons, would like to believe that it is mostly consistent. The evidence that we have would suggest that it is a little bit less consistent than that. The Church isn't evolving towards a broader viewpoint. It is currently easier for the Church to address this concern through policy (where exceptions can be made) than it is to try and formulate some sort of theological positioning. And I am not critical of that. I don't expect any clarifications in the near future from the LDS Church either (especially given the triggering nature of these discussions in the current environment).

So the issue as you see it is neither of the two that I mentioned.

It seems the Church has put forth a doctrine and policy that works regardless of the extent of variation. Parents are bound to recognize more forms and causes of variation as testing becomes routine, but the promised revelatory decision-making process is still in place. "Binary gender defined" covenants are made, kept and graced in good faith. We also have the promise that everything will be sorted out in the Millennium. Fortunately, people get used to the times they live in, and the work of the Lord rolls on through them, so given all that the Gospel and Church offer, this might not be the crisis point some may fear.

[ZealouslyStriving]

I want to thank everyone for proving as right on point Elder Bednar's warning against over-reliance on AI.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

"There are only two biological sexes."

"Well, biologically, it's more of a spectrum."

"So you're saying there are three?  Name the third."

Ah.  So there aren't any sexual categories. No "male" or "female" sex. Just a "spectrum."  Is that it?

26 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I love the internet.  Lol.

Oh, me too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

This reminds me of conversations that insist Mormons are only interested in converting others and not actually being friends and using evidence for this that they invited someone to a church activity…because people would never invite friends to activities that interest them.  Would they argue that football fans would never ask a friend to go to a football game with them, they only invite someone to a game because they are interested in turning them into a football fan too?  Yet there is only one way to interpret a LDS inviting someone to a church activity in their minds.

I am open to correction in my surmise that this conversation about DSD is really about Gender Dysphoria.  But Roger's questions about praying/revelation sure seem out of left field if that surmise is in error.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

ETA: can’t speak for others, but my support for transgendered people is completely independent of the science of biological sex traits. 

Okay.

1. What is a "woman"?

2. Can a biological male become a woman by "identifying" as one?

3. Do you agree or disagree with the statement "Trans women are women"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am open to correction in my surmise that this conversation about DSD is really about Gender Dysphoria.  But Roger's questions about praying/revelation sure seem out of left field if that surmise is in error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Have you ever considered your insistence and framing of the conversation as focused on Gender Dysphoria as what might lead to such comments rather than the reverse (they are responding to/addressing your assumptions)?

Edited February 25, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you ever considered your insistence and framing of the conversation as focused on Gender Dysphoria as what might lead to such comments rather than the reverse (they are responding to/addressing your assumptions)?

Wow, I can't 🤣

Sometimes you go a little overboard trying to sympathize with detractors.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. What is a "woman"?

This is always hilarious to me. First defining a woman based on the type of gamete she has is a nonstarter. It’s ludicrous on its face. I have never ever once in my life looked at someone and asked for a sample before attempting to assign pronouns. Rather like most ordinary humans (present lawyerly company excluded of course) I go off the gender signals that they present. 
 

Second, definitions follow and describe actual usage. They do not proscribe usage. People got along just fine before the invention of dictionaries. 
 

Third as Dan McClellan observed “Ginning up definitions of conceptual categories in order to adjudicate meaning is pretty much always a fallacious & distorting attempt to structure power. It’s almost never a way to better understand ourselves & the world around us.”  Yup. 
 

Fourth, definitions of categories based on necessary and sufficient features ALWAYS fall short. Define “life” and get back to me. Biologists don’t agree and can’t figure it out because the real actual world out there is messy and defies easy classification. 

Edited February 25, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Analytics]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet you persist in not identifying or explaining this supposed third sex.

My position has nothing to do with a “supposed third sex.” There is no reason I should “identify or explain” something that has nothing to do with my position. 

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oi.

I'll leave the epistemic uncertainty to those with training to address it.  Meanwhile, the ontological reality is there, even if it's not discernible through current medical means.

I have said nothing about Emily Quinn.

This is really interesting. It turns out you are the one who doesn’t know what a woman is! If you did, you’d be able to look at what we know about Emily Quinn and know which box she belongs in.

In practice, intersex specialists focus on managing real medical needs and supporting patient well-being, not deciding the correct underlying label. When the markers are in conflict, they don’t assume an unseen, absolute M-or-F truth; they look at how best to address the patient’s overall health, hormone balance, potential fertility issues, psychosocial support, etc. In other words, “people with the training to address it” reject your ontological framework.